eurealist.co.uk

non partisan comment on the European Union and Westminster politics

 

Asylum

The British government say we will not remove anyone who we believe is at risk on their return. However, in order to maintain the integrity of our asylum system and prevent unfounded applications it is important that we are able to enforce returns of those who do not need protection.”

I think that most of us would agree with that, but just absolutely typical, they pick on someone who has a clear need for our protection, someone who is not even an illegal immigrant and someone who was honestly is in fear of his life when he applied for asylum.

My first link

Full story in the Independent

Filed under : Legal Matters
By Ken
On April 12, 2008
At 2:13 pm
Comments : 0
 
 

Reading the Blogs

There has been a lot of angst in the press about the refusal of the government to allow retired Ghurkhas the right to live in this country if they retired before 1997.

EU Referendum is compelled once again to point out the lack of understanding exhibited by the British media and even the leader of the LibDems Nick Clegg and one of the main movers in the Ghurkhas campaign was himself a former commission official and MEP.

The rules preventing the pre 1997 Ghurkhas from settling in Britain are not made by the British government but by the EU.

Update post

Daily Referendum

Post about cigarettes displays and the consultation process offered by the Westminster government,

This governments’ consultations are just a smokescreen to push through any policy they like, they don’t give a monkey’s what we think.

Man in a Shed

Is complaining about the failure of the New Labour integrated transport policy

and the dishonesty of New Labour he say this country desperately needs a new government. But fails to note that transport policy is an EU competence and that a new British government will not be able to address the problems, which is another sort of dishonesty.

Strange Stuff

Fisks the Tories Tony Makara post on Conservativehome Britain imports too much

Wow, the Stupid Party appear to be trying to live up to its name. When the very first paragraph setting up the argument is a fallacy then you know that the argument is going to go seriously wrong.

Nation of Shopkeepers

Is having a go at the defence sectary trying to gag coroners from telling the truth so as to deflect any criticism of the MoD and its incompetent ministers.

This obviously plays well with conservatives wanting to find a big stick with which to beat the government, but if you want a different fuller perceptive try here

Neil Herron

Has picked up on the Adrian Butler story in the Sunday Mirror

Traffic spies watching CCTV screens will dish out parking tickets from next week - without drivers knowing.

Minister Rosie Winterton is so far off the pace. Giving tickets to people two weeks AFTER an alleged contravention is not fairer Mrs. Winterton, it’s outrageous. As for saying that it will improve safety … for who? Those sitting watching CCTV harvesting cash and sticking the stamps on the parking fine envelopes?

The Daily Pundit

Posts information about Charles Clarke`s list of the 24 most threatened Labour seats.

Which reminds me I was going to write a post about how this sort of thing must tend to undermine our democracy, if the parties are only concerned about what will gain them kudos in a few seats across the country, but I don’t need to now!

Tommy English

Is posting about ex serviceman Craig Briggs who has been barred from joining the police — because he’s got an the word ENGLAND tattooed on his arm.

Tommy asks- How come the UK government didn’t seem to mind when Craig was representing his country in Iraq?

Almost - Richard Corbett MEP (With Comments)

Not Richard Corbett is ruminating about the job of President of the European Council.

The Thunder Dragon

Suggests there is media war going on between the Catholic and Anglican churches as to which can get the most column inches.


Filed under : The Great British Media
By Ken
On March 24, 2008
At 3:55 pm
Comments : 0
 
 

Conservatives Plans at odds with EU ideals

John Redwood

has a post ridiculing a glossy brochure sent to him and doubtless many others, by Margaret Hodge, entitled “Creating prosperity in every region: England’s Regional development” Agencies”.

“She tells us the RDAs help to bring prosperity to all parts of England. Nowhere does she point out that the reigonal disparities have grown substantially during Labour’s period in office, with the regions that have least government interference growing much more rapidly than the ones with most. Her brochure lists a series of small initiatives which entail the RDA getting hold of some public money which some other branch of government could have spent, influencing conduct on the ground a little with the money, and then spending more of our money endlessly claiming credit for spending some of our money!”

Reiterating Conservative plans to abolish both the Regional Assemblies and the Regional Development Agencies, if elected, Redwood says:

“Margaret Hodge’s brochure did one good thing. It reminded me how important it is to abolish these insignificant bodies. The money spent on their administrative and PR budgets should be returned to taxpayers, whilst any sensible expenditure on development or education should be sent with all the other monies to HE or local Council’s development departments.”

Although I would agree with the plans to abolish both the Regional assemblies and the RDA`s, I wonder what if any thought has been given to the opposition to these plans which must be expected from both the Regional actors and the EU. It is obvious that the Conservative stance on abolishing the regional level of governance is at odds with the EU based aims of increasing regional power and EU integration, as can be seen from the recent Committee of the Regions “Declaration for Europe”

Eupolitix

“We are convinced that devolution and multi-level governance are among the best routes towards European integration,” the Rome declaration states.

“We are determined to support the heads of state and government in bringing the constitutional process and the necessary reform…to a rapid conclusion, without losing the ground gained by and for local and regional authorities.”

And it is not just the representatives from the regional government who think the way ahead is through more regional power and more EU influence at the regional level.

Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European parliament, told CoR members in Rome that the committee would “play an increasing role in the Europe of tomorrow”.

The new Europe we are building is one where regional and local authorities will matter more, not less, in years to come. The bodies you represent will be extremely important in delivering Europe on the ground.”

European commission president José Manuel Barroso echoed Pöttering’s thoughts, saying that local and regional authorities “continued to provide the basis of the bond of trust between the EU and its citizens”.

I have become so used to our politicians saying one thing on the EU and then when in power doing something else that I want to read the small print before I accept that they actually mean what they say. David Cameron has already a record of promising action on the EU to keep the EUsceptics in his party on board and then weaselling out when it comes to the crunch, that I have my doubts that they would if elected really go against the wishes of the EU leaders and the strong federalist objective of the Union and really abolish the vehicle of EU influence in this country. If he did, then of course as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly and the London Assembly have already grown beyond the initial regional assemblies, there would need to be some other questions asked as to their positions, if the British government does abolish all Assemblies and all RDA`s it would be reasonable to assume that would include those organisations as well as those in the rest of England.


Technorati Tags:, , , , devolution-for-england,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Filed under : Political Humbug
By Ken
On March 27, 2007
At 11:21 am
Comments : 0
 
 

House of Lords Reform

I am going to post my thoughts on Jonathan Freedland article in the Guardian about the reforom of the House of Lords, but first this e-mail from Anne Palmer

A thought provoking article on the proposed Lords reform by Jonathan Freedland and his desire for an all elected second chamber. I doubt very much that there will ever be an all elected second chamber because the House of Commons itself will prevent it for it fears for its own superiority and primacy. The Commons will even retain the Parliaments Acts to ensure its cries that “we are the elected Chamber” which would of course have no meaning if the “Lords” were an all elected house. The fact that they may get some legislation WRONG does not even enter their heads. Without the steadying presence of the Law Lords once they are installed in a new “Supreme Court” (which of course will never actually be ’supreme’), will be sorely missed also in the House of Lords.

The Rt Hon Jack Straw suggests ‘how a Hybred House MIGHT work’, so even now this Government does not have a clue, it only MIGHT work. Not once in the Government’s White Paper on the matter does it mention the Treaty and Act of Union 1707 which of course in article XXII requires 16 Peers to sit in the House of Lords, a most important Article to the Scots at that time, and of course, there were only Hereditary Peers then. I am aware of the outcome of Lord Grey’s case on that matter but one cannot get beyond the fact that it was a Treaty that had been observed for hundreds of years until 1997. To remove all the Hereditary Peers may also be seen as discrimination against one particular group of people.

 

Some people in Scotland wish for complete independence, but the greater danger at this moment in time is not just from the people of Scotland, but the people of England, for they are wanting their own Parliament too for they most certainly do NOT want EU Regions. To damage the Treaty of Union may be just the opportunity the separatists are waiting for. The Act of Union between England and Scotland was a Treaty and a Treaty that was ratified. Article 11 of the Treaty of Union 1707 embodies the substance of the Act of Settlement of 1701. If the Union is destroyed it affects all the Members of the Commonwealth. There would also be no British Government because there would be no United Kingdom of Great Britain left. All this put in jeopardy because a Government is afraid of a challenge?

Mentioned also is the reduction in numbers in the House of Lords from 732 (including Bishops) to 540. Why then have 35 new Members been set on since January last year? Mention of compensation (redundancy) for those that “choose” to stand down rather looks as if they are expecting the tax-payer to foot the Bill. Well I respectfully suggest that any Member of the House of Lords that are made Redundant by this Government’s constant “modernisation” of that once highly respected part of our constitutional arrangements, that any proposed redundancy pay should come out of Labour Party Funds. Anne Palmer

Filed under : The British Constitution
By Ken
On February 28, 2007
At 3:32 pm
Comments : 0
 
 

New Police Power Undermines Human Rights

Well it’s taken a couple of years but finally the British government have had to cave into the EU Commissions demand that the British people must be subjected to Random Breath Tests.

Even though giving our police this power undermines one of our basic rights; that strange concept of the Presumption of innocence.

Back in 2004 when the EU Commision first announced its intention to force the British government to implement this proposal, The Home Office expressed opposition to the introduction of random breath tests for drivers, arguing that such measures are “inefficient” in catching drink driving offenders.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The police are already quite adept at targeting drink drive suspects and the government would like forces to continue to use intelligence-based methods to catch offenders.”

Neither did the police feel they needed this power 24 may 2004

The Police Federation of England and Wales has warned against the introduction of random breath testing, arguing that officers already have sufficient powers to tackle drink driving.

Rod Dalley, vice chairman said: “We already have sufficient powers to request breath tests. The ability to carry out random breath tests would remove the need for police to justify their actions and may serve to further alienate the public. The answer lies in ensuring there are sufficient numbers of officers deployed to roads policing duties to enforce the legislation.”

An article by James Kirkhup in the Scotsman said;

THE government is facing a bureaucratic struggle to fight off a European Union proposal for British police to adopt Continental-style random breathalyzer tests of motorists to cut down on drink-driving.

The Home Office yesterday rejected as “inefficient” the introduction of random stop-and-search style policing, which is being recommended by the European Commission. Britain, Ireland and Denmark are the only EU countries where random checks are not legal.

Ad Hellemons, president of the European Traffic Police Network, warned that if the UK does not voluntarily follow the recommendation, the Commission will attempt to make the random-testing plan into a directive, giving it legal force over member states.

“We are aware that the UK is not happy about this, but at the end of the day we are talking about making our roads safer,”

And also suggested a reason for the Stirling defence of the British freedom to make its own laws.

With European Parliament elections and final negotiations for the EU constitution due next month, the government is keen to avoid the impression that Brussels is infringing on everyday British life, for fear of handing political ammunition to eurosceptic parties like the Conservatives and the UK Independence Party.

“We don’t need to be told by Brussels that we need to have random breath-testing,” said Michael Howard, the Conservative leader. “This is the sort of thing we will be fighting at next month’s elections.”

Labour also is wary of further antagonising motorists already angry at rising fuel prices and the widespread use of speed cameras.

But now with Tony Blair in his thankfully last days in power and almost certain to sign up to the new EU document to introduce the EU Constitution by the back door next month, such thoughts can be safely confined to the dustbin.

Now they have changes their tune as the Times story announcing the discussion paper says;

Ministers believe that giving the police the power to stop any driver, regardless of how they are driving, would be a powerful deterrent.

Research has shown that many drivers exceed the alcohol limit because they believe that they can still drive safely and they know that there is little chance of being caught. At present, the police can stop only those drivers who have committed a moving traffic offence or those who they suspect have exceeded the limit.

Not even a hint that the government have been forced into this climb down by the EU Commissions demands.

So the government did not want it- the police don’t need it- it undermines a basic human right- the presumption of innocence- but because the EU Commission demands it we are going to get it, so much for our democratic choice at an election.

When we can not longer elect those who make our laws and even those we do elect are forced into something against their will, we are living in an autocratic tyrannical oppressive state.

Further reading and background


Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Filed under : Legal Matters
By Ken
On February 27, 2007
At 10:42 am
Comments :1
 
 

Scottish Referendum Question

Is the SNP offering something to Scottish electors that is not within the powers of the Scottish parliament.

Rodney Brazier Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Manchester in the Times

Sir, How could the SNP, if it had power in the Scottish Parliament, legally hold a referendum on independence? Under the Scotland Act “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” remains a matter over which the Westminster Parliament retains complete control. New legislation at Westminster would be needed to permit any such referendum. Is the SNP assuming that the Government would initiate such legislation?

RODNEY BRAZIER
Professor of Constitutional
Law, University of Manchester


Professor Brazier highlights one of the major problems with our politicians, they ignore reality when making their claims for our vote. In this case the SNP are promising something which is simply not within their remit to deliver, because in order to call a referendum they would require primary legislation in the Westminster Parliament.

As Professor Brazier has stated elsewhere “there is no formal, legal mechanism in the United Kingdom constitution which prescribes how changes may be made to the constitution.” “Ministers have the final say about whether there will be a referendum: the Government decides purely at its own discretion whether a poll should take place.” It goes without saying that British ministers are very unlikely to agree to a referendum that would put them or their party at a disadvantage.

All the SNP can legally and honestly offer the Scottish voters is if they win the election to the Scottish Parliament they will then ask the British government to arrange to pass legislation through the Westminster parliament for consent to call a referendum.

If as expected Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister he will know for certain that such a move by the Scottish Parliament would put him in a very difficult position, as he is elected to a Scottish constituency he would have no mandate in the British parliament should Scotland leave the Union. Even the negotiations leading up to independence would be problematic, because in effect he would negotiating himself and all other Scottish MPs out of a job and destroying any chance that Labour could ever rule Britian again.



Technorati Tags: , , ,

Filed under : The British Constitution
By Ken
On January 16, 2007
At 9:24 am
Comments : 2
 
 

Pie in the Sky

Reported on Sky News The Tories have launched a fresh attack on Government red tape, claiming Labour has introduced a regulation an hour, a target a day and a tax rise a month.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne unveiled the figures, which showed there had been more than 30,000 new regulations, 3,000 targets and more than 100 tax rises since Labour came to power.

So what will the David Cameron’s Tories do about this, they have already said they will not lower taxes and as most of the regulations are implementing EU directives, will they remove them thus breaking the EU agreements if so they had better start telling us what they would do to raise the money to pay the fines the ECJ will place on the British government. Or perhaps they would prefer to join the Better of out Campaign, more than likely this is just another half thought out attack on the Labour government which sounds good until you get to the bottom line and then you find the Conservative administration would find its hand tied by the EU in the same way that a Labour administration has.



Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Filed under : Legal Matters
By Ken
On December 27, 2006
At 11:02 am
Comments : 0
 
 

Soon only panty liners will have wings !!

In march An Englishman’s Castle noted that only one in Four new recruits to the Parachute Regiment are being trained to jump because of a shortage of planes. Today Documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph reveal that no new recruits or even serving members of the Parachute Regiment or airborne forces will be trained in military parachuting from next year until 2011. The cost-cutting programme is being launched after defence chiefs warned that spiralling costs of complex equipment and the demands of military operations would create a financial “black hole” in the MoD of £868 million by the end of the next year.

Eureferendum has been saying for ages that something like this would happen because we are spending so much money on the big stuff we do not have enough left to finance the army for relatively low level operations. If I understand it correctly the big expensive complex equipment is not really going to be much use except in pitched battle situations even if it eventually works, and when it does become operational it will only be of use in operations with other EU states because the computer systems will not be able to talk to USA Forces.

The Telegraph says that Ian Andrews, the 2nd permanent undersecretary of state proposes measures including a “moratorium on recruitment” of civilian manpower and that all “existing contracts for agency or casual staff be terminated”.

Instead of flying to meetings around the world, senior officers should “encourage staff to consider video conferencing, e-mail or the telephone”.

Perhaps Tony and his clique could take the same advice and remain on British soil, at least then they might begin to appreciate that they were elected by the British people to run the British government. But then unlike the Paras and the SAS pigs might fly.

Filed under : Would we not be Better off Out
By Ken
On December 17, 2006
At 3:07 am
Comments : 0
 
 

So Who Runs BritainIII

ECJ rules that UK can’t tax dividends on foreign subsidiaries of British firms – will cost Treasury up to £9billion

The European Court of Justice yesterday ruled that the British Government will have to pay back up to £9 billion to companies with subsidiaries in other EU states whose dividends were taxed under advanced corporation tax (ACT) rules, which were repealed under Gordon Brown. British American Tobacco originally launched the case, but several other multinational companies are now involved.

Filed under : Taxing Matters
By Ken
On December 13, 2006
At 1:28 pm
Comments : 2
 
 

So who runs Britain II

Last week the Chancellor announced in his Pre-Budget Report that the Government would not repay tax “incorrectly” levied from more than six years ago.

Unfortunately this is a direct challenge to an earlier ruling by the ECJ, which laid down that such repayments should stretch back to 1973. The same court has made judgments in the past which have forced the Treasury to change tax law and to return tax paid by British businesses. This is not a academic debate that has nothing to do with us, if Gordon Brown is forced to return to big international companies the tax levied legally by the British government on their operations, then we have to pick up the shortfall, and this means either our taxes go up or our services are put under financial pressure.

Neither are we talking about piddling amounts; this coming week for instance the ECJ is likely to rule on a case which could cost us all several billion pounds.


Under British tax laws dividends paid between UK companies within the same group escape tax. However, if a dividend is paid by a company based outside the UK to a British firm in the same group, tax must be paid. A group of companies are challenging the British government’s right to levy these taxes under EU law, and if as expected they are successful the verdict would force the Government to pay back at least £6.7bn in tax plus interest to the companies. The Chancellor’s decision to limit the time they could claim these repayment to six years, would then be challenged, as the ECJ has already said in previous cases that their ruling can be back dated to when we joined the European project there seems very little chance that we could avoid the payments.

I know the political elite would like us all to stop talking and thinking about the affects the EU is having on our government’s powers, but it seems a bit inane of them to actually ignore it themselves. When Brown made his announcement lat week he must have known that it contravened the ECJ ruling, so what is his bottom line -is he prepared to challenge the ECJ supremacy in this matter - if he is not then his will be faced with making a humiliating climb down, I don’t suppose he will be making an announcement to that effect though.



Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Filed under : Legal Matters
By Ken
On December 10, 2006
At 11:05 am
Comments :1
 
 

EU Immigration Good For Britain?

In the main on this blog I have steered clear of immigration subjects, it is far too easy to be branded xenophobic or racist in order to undermine the real message.

However now I do so with the intention of pointing out the duplicity of the British governments handling of the issue of economic immigration from Eastern EU members and to question why a government elected by the British people with a duty to stand up for Britain would renege on the commitment.

Foolishly I believed the government spin that fundamentally immigration was a net benefit to the Nation state of Britain, but am now inclined to accept that the beneficial affects depends on the scale of immigration. “Labour immigration can be good as long as it doesn’t dramatically undercut the position of the workers in relation to their employers”

I have not tried to argue against the quality or the motivation of the immigrants, by first hand experience, government and media reports, I understand the people coming here are coming to work, and by the vast majority have no intention of sponging off the nation state, they are intelligent hard working people who have seen and seized an opportunity offered to improve their lot in life, and who could blame them. Of course ther will always be a few bad apples


The Figures

Originally the British government forecast an expected 5,000 to 13,000 people would take the opportunity to work in Britian, when those figures were challenged, the government its supporters and EU apparatchiks accused the challengers of scaremongering with undertones of Xenophobia and racism.


But now government figures that show 427,095 people have registered under the governments Worker Registration Scheme (WRS).

That figure alone is alarming because it shows a compleate failure of the governments initial forecasting methods, so much so that it would appear to have been an exercise in propaganda if not a direct falsehood.

The government is now making the claim that this error was due to the fact that only Ireland, Sweden and Britian opened their doors to the new EU members, obviously the other nation sates preferring to protect their work force and their economy from the benefits of immigration?.

Although it was well known by all at the time which nation state would and which would not open their doors fully. http://www.ukimmigration.com/news/uk14.htm


But even now the government is hiding the real figure of immigrant workers because the WRS does not include self-employed workers of whom there is an estimated 100,000 possibly many more Further the WRS scheme only shows those people who have gone to the bother and expense of joining the WRS scheme, neither do the figures include dependents and non-workers or the number of workers ‘posted’ by foreign companies. Also people who have been in the UK for more than a year are no longer required to register in the WRS.


There is also other evidence to indicate that the WRS scheme figures do not show anything like the true picture; The chair of the Commons Home Affairs select Committee John Denham has suggested that The number of people at the local level is often estimated at between two or three times the number the Government thinks are on the Worker Registration Scheme.”


Research conducted for Defra and the Home Office in 2004 showed that labour providers are supplying over 100,000 Accession State workers a year to agriculture and food processing. But in the first year of the WRS only 29,970 workers registered to work in agriculture and 11,385 in food processing, suggesting nearly 60,000 workers (or 60% within this industry)are “missing”.


International Passenger Survey show that since EU enlargement over 4.5 million citizens from the accession countries have visited the UK. In the equivalent period of time going back to January 2002 there were 1.4 million visitors to the UK from the accession countries, that is and increase of 3.1 million visitors.


The argument for immigration

The claims for the benefit of immigration generally: it has a tendency to press prices down, improve international competitively, clear bottle-necks, improve profitability and attract foreign investments. We currently lack professional plumbers, painters and other assorted professional workers. By importing these types of workers from the Baltic States, we clear crucial bottlenecks for our building sector, cooling the housing market and building more than what otherwise would have been possible. A larger population will require more services and businesses will be sprouting up to accommodate the new arrivals, this would create even more jobs.

The government claims that this immigration has benefited the country to the tune of 2.5 Billion. Of course there is also the added benefit of the education and skills introduced by the immigrants.

The arguments against

I would suggest that this immigration is perhaps not as beneficial as normal immigration, where people move into the country with the intention of making a new life for themselves.

In the first place we need to consider the vast scale of this particular immigration, which I belive is the largest round of immigration we have ever witnessed. It has already become obvious that the benefits of immigration are very much reliant on the scale

“David Frost, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said that the recent rise in unemployment to a six-year high was flashing a warning signal about the impact of migration of the indigenous workforce. “We have seen unemployment rise in the UK and clearly we don’t want to be in a position where we are seeing migrant labour coming in and getting the jobs and supporting the great number of local people have not got jobs,”

Dr John Philpott Chief Economist CIPD said “With demand for labour improving, the continuing rise in unemployment is now clearly driven by strong growth in labour supply as more immigrants enter the jobs market and the government gets better at getting the economically inactive jobless to look for work. This is helping to keep the lid on pay rises overall, with pay pressure dropping markedly in the public sector.”

Government figures show the number of people in employment increased by 42,000 over the three months to March 2006 and is up 240,000 over the year. The number of people in employment has increased but the employment rate has fallen. The claimant count, which is the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance benefits, rose to 957,000 in July 2006.

The number of people out of work and claiming benefits in the UK increased for a sixth month in a row in July, the longest stretch of rises for 13 years.

Richard Layard of the LSE, who helped to design Labour’s welfare to work programme, said in a letter to the Financial Times: “There is a huge amount of evidence that any increase in the number of unskilled workers lowers unskilled wages and increases the unskilled unemployment rate.

John Denham, a former minister, says that the new arrivals have halved wages for builders in his Southampton constituency.

However the government claims that this immigration has benefited the country to the tune of 2.5 Billion, but in order to arrive at that figure they have not included any of the cost involved more propaganda perhaps ?

There is another aspect of this immigration which raises questions: what we have is a very large pool of mainly young economic workers, who are coming here for a short time and want to earn as much money as possible, but they also want to save as much as possible in order to improve their prospects back home.

Their intention is not to settle in this country but to return home with their earnings, I would suggest in that instance there will not be an increase in business activity to accommodate the new workers, in fact there could well be a decrease in business especially the smaller ones, because those local workers who are displaced or who have faced increased costs but cannot offset those with higher wages, will be spending less as more of their money goes to meet their costs of living increased taxation etc.

Figures announced yesterday indicate that the rising levels of missed mortgage payments is evidence that many families’ finances have become extremely tight, so tight in most cases that banks refuse to fulfil payment orders. Personal bankruptcies have also soared, Official statistics, which record mortgage arrears of six months or more, also show that more and more homeowners are getting into trouble. More than 35,320 mortgages were in arrears in June this year, the highest since 2001, the Council for Mortgage Lenders said. Repossessions have risen to 8,140 in the past six months, their highest since 2001.

Tax is taking a higher percentage of average incomes, mainly because tax thresholds have fallen behind pay. Gas and electricity bills and transport costs, items that are important to most families’ budgets, have all risen strongly. Many families’ fuel bills are up nearly 30 per cent in a year. Costs of food, housing, fuel and light, taken together, are up 6.2 per cent in the year to August. Average inflation, as measured by the all-items retail prices index, rose to 3.4 per cent in August, the highest since the beginning of last year.

I am not blaming all this on the polish plumber, but the arguments that importing a cheap work force would push down wages and make Great Britian PLC more competitive on the world stage, even if it were true would have the affect of placing a greater burden on the British work force. An increase in the nation states GDP in not the same as an increase in GDP per capita.

Basically to improve EU employment prospects the British worker is being asked to take a cut in wage increase his productivity and accept an increase in costs; to in short to accept a lower standard of living worse working conditions, longer working hours, and a longer working life with retirement age being increased. In Britain, the unskilled are four times as likely to be unemployed as the skilled, and non-whites twice as likely as whites. It is they who will suffer from an influx of unskilled immigrants.

This picture is perhaps far to one sided and simplistic, certainly it is for those who are backing more immigration to this country, but they only want to look at one side, I am offering the other.

I am suggesting that the British government by claiming this recent immigration from the Eastern EU is a net benefit to the nation, has arrived at that conclusion by ignoring all of the negative aspects. I am also suggesting that even if this immigration is a benefit to the nation state, it is not a benefit to the workers who are seeing their wages cut at the same time their costs rising.


That we lack professional plumbers etc. Is testament to the fact that these professions are undervalued by the British education system, which seems to require every one to be an IT specialist, and scorns the value of the worker; until that is their drains become blocked, then they scream about the shortage of plumbers, and now want to import some, whilst the British IT educated workers stand idle. Short term it might be beneficial to import these workers, but we should address our own education system to correct the skill gap and value our own workers.


Housing; The point has been made that one of the benefits of immigration is to help clear bottle necks in house building, but the flip side of that argument is that the immigrants themselves will require extra housing. So the question is do we actually need more housing or are the immigrants creating the demand for extra housing.

Welfare benefits: In 2004 the then Home Secretary David Blunkett promised that: “we will
require accession nationals to be able to support themselves. If they are unable to do so, they will lose any right of residence and will have to return to their own country… If people want to come and work in
Britain openly and legally, that is right. If they want to come and claim our benefits, that is wrong.”

In reality the WRS has failed to restrict access to benefits for migrant workers. There have now been 42,057 successful benefit claims by workers from the accession states. It is important to stress that these are only the claims made by those individuals who are on the WRS, and does not cover those who are not on it or no longer on it.


The bottom line is that just possibly this immigration has been a net benefit to Britian, although some of the government claims made on the numbers and the benefits are based on such a one sided optimistic view which does not recognise any of the impediments it could better be described as propaganda than real information.

Yet we consistently read arguments for the benefits of this immigration, but the arguments seems to stop at the borders of the EU, my point is if it is good for the nation state within the EU to have open immigration and a mobile work force why are those benefits not enhanced by the EU itself adopting the same open border policy, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, if it is not then why is it so good for goose, that question still remains to be answered.

A further point would be that out of the original 15 EU member Nation states only three have opted for this open door policy, the other obviously cannot see the benefits, either that or the benefits are an illusion.

But if it is the case that this immigration is a net benefit to the country it is not a benefit to the work force, then why would the British government wish to create such an illusion, what does it have to gain by lying to us? Perhaps the real answer has already been supplied:

“One solution is to create international labour unions or at least an international labour movement, able to stand toe to toe with the strength of the fluid capital. Encouraging labour movement between European countries is a way to encourage such a formation. It will also increase the European integration, something that would be crucial if a European labour movement would be possible”

It would also increase European (EU) integration: so it might seem that first we create a problem by allowing open access to our jobs market, we then offer a solution, which by the by happens to increase EU integration.

The problem with that is the countries which are strongest proponents for integration do not seem to want to play ball, preferring instead to protect their national work force and their national economy. Perhaps the answer to that is that France and Germany only want to do what is good for France and Germany. If that is the case then I must ask the question again; what is the benefit to Britian and the British worker of being a member of a club which will have the affect of lowering their standard of living, does not do any of the things it was supposed to do and is so expensive.

We were told that membership of the Common Market’ would facilitate trade; but if we look at the balance of trade figures for the countries of the European Union we see that Britain has an accumulated trade deficit with the EU of £285 billion up to 2004, whereas we have a trade surplus of almost £29.5 billion with non EU countries. EU membership has certainly not increased our profitable trade with EU countries.

The EU is a customs union not a free trade area. As a customs union it tends towards protectionism. Membership of the EU has therefore distorted Britain’s trade patterns adversely, preventing us buying more beneficially on the world market.

The total combined direct and indirect cost to Britain of belonging to the EU by 2007 will be £52.4 billion per annum, or close to £100,000 per minute. And this figure will go on rising.

How many policeman` doctors’ nurses’ hospitals schools` could we get for that money Technorati




Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Filed under : A solution in search of a problem
By Ken
On September 13, 2006
At 9:57 am
Comments : 0
 
 

Immigration Lies

The statistics, published by the British Government on Tuesday (22 August), reveal that 447,000 workers from the eight eastern countries that joined the EU just over two years ago have applied to work in Britain – of these 427,095 have been approved.

As the biggest of the new member states, Poland also has the largest numbers of workers in Britain with well over half coming - 264,560 - from the country. The next in number are Lithuanians and Slovakians.

All well and good and it has been shown by the government that this influx of EU Nationals has been a net benefit to GB PLC.

Although figures reported in the press also this week have shown that these new immigrants are able to claim child benefit and other benefits for their children and families back home.

The other point is that this very large addition to the work force has had the effect of forcing labour cost down, which might well be good for Britian but cannot be good news for the resident work force.

I am tempted to wonder if this has been factored into the equation.

However the point of this post is that the figures are so very much higher than originally predicted by the UK labour government which prior to the May 2004 enlargement suggested that between 5,000 and 13,000 would apply to work in the UK. Those news papers which were suggesting higher figures were pilloried for scaremongering by the government, yet the real figure is even higher than those papers were suggesting.

According to Euobserver “The government has defended the original estimates by saying that they were based on the assumption that many more of the original 15 member states would also keep their markets open to workers from the east.”

But if I remember correctly it had already been made clear by the other members that they would be placing a moratorium on workers form the East, I belive Germany Austria and France have just extended this for a few more years, and will now allow not workers in until 2011. Only Britian Ireland and Sweden fully opened their doors and fully implemented the treaty agreements.

If the figures had been marginally higher or even twice as high than government estimates, they could be forgiven for a miscalculation, but thirty two times higher is some mistake, and just indicates that when it comes to the EU our government is quite prepared to lie to the British people.

We are now hearing a great deal about the next EU enlargement; Bulgaria and Romania are set to join either next January, or at the latest the following January. Both the Conservatives and the Government are suggesting that this time they will put some restrictions on workers from these new members.

But again we are being lied to by the politicians, who should know full well that that once Bulgaria and Romania join their citizens will have every right to come to this country and as David Rennie point outs

Whitehall officials say stoutly that they have the power to impose limits on Romanian and Bulgarian “access to the UK labour market”. But what does that actually mean? It basically means the Government could create some new offences, specially to cover Romanians and Bulgarians: working without a work permit, or employing someone from those two nations without a permit.

Given that we cannot close our borders, and average household incomes in Romania and Bulgaria are a tenth of those in Britain, it is not hard to guess one major outcome of creating such new offences: thousands will come anyway, but this time as criminals.

As a convinced free-marketeer, I must admit to moral qualms about welcoming people to live in my country, then turning them into criminals, just because they want to work for a living.

But if moral arguments do not work, try self-interest. Expanding Britain’s black economy is not a good idea. It would be bad for the health of society. It would reduce tax revenues, and hurt British workers, too. As long as east Europeans are working legally, their broad pay and conditions can only fall so far.

Once people are on the black, employers can treat them as near-slaves, putting far more pressure on legal workers. ”

Filed under : The New Privileged Class
By Ken
On August 23, 2006
At 9:52 am
Comments :Comments Off
 
 

EU Maritime Policy

Why did the British need the EU Constitution to explain where the Falkland Islands stood as regards THEIR overseas territories. Did ‘todays’ people not understand why we went to war, or so many of our young people lost their lives in so doing?

Perhaps this re-inforces my reasoning re the EU’s Green Consultation Paper COM (2006) 275 7.6.2006 “Towards a\ future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European Vision for the Oceans and Seas”. I hope many people respond to this Green Paper this may be the nearest thing they get to a referendum. If we do not win this argument with the British Government or the EU, the eU will control all our seas and oceans and everything in those waters, from every grip of sand at the bottom of the ocean to everything that travels on the surface, not just temporary, but forever.

From Anne Palmer

Consultation paper

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy_en.html

Press Release
Response to Argentinian Outrage
3 May 2005

http://www.falklands.gov.fk/media/response-3-may-2005.htm

A senior British MEP has written to the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), Javier Solana, after Argentina’s protest at the inclusion of the Falkland Islands as a “British Antarctic Territory” in the draft EU Constitution.

Mr Edward McMillan-Scott MEP (Yorks, Cons), Vice-President of the European Parliament and a former adviser to the Falkland Islands Government, said: “Argentina is a bit slow on the uptake as the EU governments agreed this Treaty on 18 June last year. Normally Argentina makes difficulties over the Falkland Islands when the government is in trouble at home. The fact is that Argentina did not exist at the time that Britain discovered and held the Falkland Islands.”

Mr McMillan-Scott goes on to point out that the EU’s commitment to democracy worldwide “should embrace the rights of the Falkland Islanders to decide their own form of government. Whenever this has been tested, the Islanders have been unequivocally in favour of remaining British”.

Falklands Councillor Norma Edwards said that the Falkland Islands Government Legislative Council has discussed the protests and it “refutes absolutely what Argentina is saying.” She said: “…we are clear on where we stand and the British Government is clear on our status and I’m sure that the British Government will reply to this in that vein.”

A spokesperson for the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FOC) said: “The EU Constitution confirms the present position with regards to the status of the Overseas Territories.”

*******************************************************************************************

This is taken from the EU’s Green paper. (My highlights) Brussels 7.6.200. COM (2006) 275 final Volume II - ANNEX “Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas”.

5.4. Taking Account of Geographical Realities (Page 44)

A European maritime policy needs a general framework, as set out in this document,

but its implementation will need to take account of the realities of Europe’s

geographical situation. For example, EU Member States’ overseas territories give a

worldwide dimension to European Maritime Policy. European Neighbourhood

Policy comprises a regular dialogue with partner countries, including maritime

issues.

The ecological characteristics of Europe’s coastal waters and the structure and

intensity of the maritime activities which take place on them vary widely between the

Baltic, the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the North Sea, and the Black Sea. The

latter will become an EU coastal water with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria.

The Baltic is shallow, with a narrow connection to the Atlantic, and minimal tides.

The Mediterranean is much deeper, but also has minimal exchange with the Atlantic.

The waters of the Black Sea, which are deep, are, however, largely devoid of the

oxygen needed for a vibrant ecosystem. The North Sea and the Atlantic seaboard

have strong currents and high tidal variation.

 


 

Technorati Tags: EU Maritime Policy, eu’s-policies, uk-government, Falkland Islands

Filed under : Would we not be Better off Out
By Ken
On July 17, 2006
At 9:33 am
Comments :Comments Off
 
 

Nothing More Than Hot Air?

There are two MSM articles that coincide with two separate themes this blog has referred to recently,

The first was in yesterdays Telegraph “There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter”

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth’s recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn’t seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as “if”, “might”, “could”, “probably”, “perhaps”, “expected”, “projected” or “modelled” - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

The article concludes with a call for the British Government to urgently recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

This as I mentioned is the very horse that David Cameron is so keen to mount that he is making it central a Conservative policy to lead a new green revolution.

The other article is For goodness’ sake don’t mention Europe: it doesn’t fit our new image

Rees-Mogg point out the obvious but usually ignored fact of British politics, that a great deal of our national policies have an EU related connection. Writing of David Cameron’s speech in Manchester: “He did not refer at all to Europe in his leader’s speech in Manchester on Saturday. This omission, however, made his speech sound strangely lopsided, since most of his main themes had a European aspect that he did not mention. Identity cards arise from European policies, as does the regionalisation to which he is so strongly opposed, while the environment is largely a European competence. Even if he did not wish to discuss the European integration, he should have recognised the European limitations on British policymaking. More than half of all our legislation now comes from Europe. Parliament is the rubber stamp for Brussels.

Yesterday Oliver Letwin further stirred these troubled waters. On the BBC Sunday AM programme, Andrew Marr asked him why there had been no reference to Europe in the leader’s speech. Mr Letwin replied that the speech had concentrated on “mainline issues”, clearly implying that Europe is not one. If Europe is not a mainline issue, what is?

No doubt the real motive for avoiding discussion of all European policy is that Europe does not fit the desired image of Mr Cameron’s party. Euroscepticism could be as embarrassing as a striped polyester bow-tie at a Notting Hill party. To some people, the mention of Europe sounds obsessive or old-fashioned. But Conservative Party policy, while it needs a favourable image, cannot merely be a fashion statement. Europe matters because in wide areas Brussels makes the laws for Britain. Mr Cameron understands that perfectly well. Any policy without a European element is only half a policy, if that.

Unless Cameron addresses the EU aspect, and explains exactly how he will deliver policies that run counter to EU aspirations, the policies he is touting amount to nothing more than hot air, and in the context of global warming, the last thing the new green Conservative leader should be doing is adding to the problem. .


Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Filed under : Environ-mental
By Ken
On April 10, 2006
At 10:25 am
Comments : 0
 
 

Independence in Higher Education and Research

 Quite often we are offered academic reports and studies from diverse academic organisations, which carry with them the assurance that these are nothing more than impartial academic discourse.

This must be the case because they were prepared and presented by independent academics, whos only thoughts are to report honestly and fairly on their particular subject. Of course because these are no more than truly independent academics, they have no particular political view point and they only offer an honest non-partisan assessment of the case in question. This inevitable makes it difficult to question the findings of these “independent” reports, what gives these reports power is their academic origin,thus implying or openly stating independence and objectivity.

Yet the EU spends millions each and every year on educational and research projects in the UK, these funds are distributed to organisations within the academic education establishment on the condition that they must deal with the issue of European integration”. Further research funding comes from our own government.

If for instance we take the UCL which includes The Constitution Unit run by Robert Hazell.

The Constitution Unit claims on its web page that it is the UK’s foremost independent research body on constitutional change. The Constitution Unit specialises in constitutional reform and comparative constitutional studies. It is independent and non-partisan, and the centre of a wide network of national and international experts.

The UCL web site states that; The Constitution unit has had a major influence on the Governments constitutional reform programme, publishing a series of major reports and briefings on devolution in Scotland and Wales, regional government in England, parliamentary reform, reform of the House of Lords, incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of information, referendums and electoral reform. The unit is a major resource for government and for a wide range of other interests. It will continue to act as a source of independent and expert information and advice.

The UCL website claims it has a growing influence on policy making at local, national and international levels, through diverse bodies such as the Constitution Unit, the Centre for Transport Studies, the School of Public Policy, the Centre for South East European Studies, the Environmental Change Research Centre and the International Centre for Health & Society.

Looking at the funding however gives a slightly different slant on the independence picture, we find that apart form general funding from HEFCE to the tune of £10251000 in 2004 and £10686000 in 2005. The UCL also received research grants from the British government totalling £1385000, and another £281000 from the EU in the same two year period.

Future plans for UCL Funding
from 2005 to 2008, UCl have sought funding for research of £210k from the ESRC, UK government and devolved governments. The ESRC Research Resources Board has offered £105k and the Scottish Executive £30k. The UK government (DCA, Scotland Office and Wales Office) are still considering whether to offer the remaining £75k.

It is not for me to question the independence of the academics, but when so much of