The Conservative party are echoing the views of many when they say they want to work to create a different direction for the EU. They say they would like an EU of Nation States, an EU that respects the existing national boundaries and has fewer areas of competence, and an EU that actually adds value, by doing what the states have asked of it better, rather than just claiming it does.

It should however be noted that this has been the professed goal for a very long time, I believe Mr Heath also professed the desire to be in the Project so as best to affect its direction. We have been blessed with being at the top table, at the heart of Europe, on the train, on the bus and making sure that we are not left behind, in order to protect our national interests, ever since Britain first joined.

Yet if we stand back and actually look at the EU of today we will see an entirely different, more encompassing and much more integrated union, than the Common Market we joined in 1971.
(more…)

On my desk I have a letter form my own MP who tells me the Conservative party believes that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who first elected them. In the modern world, where people want power and control over their lives to deny them a referendum is a denial of democracy. In our Parliamentary democracy it is right that Parliament decides on how we are governed on issues such as heath care, education and policing.
He also tells me that the Conservatives hopes on the Referendum treaty are placed on the House of Lords rejecting it and that the LibDems will be pivotal, well they have certainly been that, by playing about Nick Clegg has ensured that the Treaty will pass unhindered through both houses.
Ignoring for the moment the point that my MP feels our Parliament should only decide on how we are governed on issues such as heath care, education and policing. Now the pressure is back on the Conservatives to explain exactly what they mean by not allowing the situation with regard to the Lisbon Treaty to stand.

In the mean time it is apparent that they are worrying about MPs loosing their jobs and are concerned by Nick Cleggs proposals to cut the number of MPs to 500.

Time to cut the House of Commons to 500?

Do readers of Centre Right think we need as many as 650 MPs? Is the quality of legislation made better by such a large number of lawmakers? In the United States they seem to get by just fine with just 435 members in the House of Representatives. Could fewer MPs offer a better deal to the voters and enable MPs to be paid at a level that is likely to see less difficulties with expenses? Should MPs sitting for Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland automatically become devolved lawmakers, thereby cutting the number of politicians the public are expected to pay for?

If we do go down such a route one thing seems especially important to me. Equality of voters. Each seat should have a set level - e.g. 85,000 voters. No ifs, no buts. The variance of electorate s around the country is unacceptable and distorts election outcomes. It also results in an unfair democratic deficit for voters in more heavily populated constituencies. I would be really interested to know what Centre Right readers think.

I would contend that this is an unimportant side issue, it matters little how many MPs there are when they have outsourced most of their work load. When they have accepted the principal that EU law is superior to British law and that our Parliament can be bound by the European Court of Justice.
So never mind cutting the wastrels down to 500 how about 100, why do we need such a big expensive local administration when it is no longer the government of this country and no longer oversees or controls the executive any other organisation that no longer did the job it was paid to do would be closed down, I do not see any reason why Members of the Westminster parliament should be treated any differently than any other organisation which has had its day and no longer serves its purpose.

Technorati Tags:
Conservatives, Parliament, EU law is superior to British law, European Court of Justice
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

And in 1973, the UK joined the European Economic Community

This week Gordon Brown launched a nation wide public debate on the British Constitution.

I say launched perhaps I should say re-launched because he was referring to the Governance of Briton a green paper published in July last year.

Having read the paper I feel there are some interesting proposals, many of them though affect the interaction between the various institutions of the state, and will not directly affect us. I am not however particularly enthused by the prospect of a short term government messing about with the basic constitution of this country when it comes to the interaction between the people and the state. For one very good reason; if they overturn the present constitutional documents which they would have to do in order to create a new bill of rights, and a new constitution in their image. Then who is to gainsay any further government from doing exactly the same.

That is not to say the British constitution has shown itself robust enough to resist recent incursions of our basic rights, but these have been made by ignoring the documents that form the basis for our constitution. What Brown is about is to complete the transformation of the constitution by overturning those constitutional documents that we do have and replacing them a new bill of rights and responsibilities! A bill of rights moreover that cannot have the power of the original documents that have been endowed with 300 years of history.

The Green Paper introduces the major influence on our constitution and then ignores its affects on our constitution all in one sentence: And in 1973, the UK joined the European Economic Community (now the European Union) and became a part of a multinational political structure. What is the point for instance of the Green Paper proposing to give parliament a say in international treaties excluding EU treaties, when Brown has just signed a treaty passing much of the power to negotiate international treaties to the EU, where the decisions will be made not in our parliament but in the Council of the EU.

I have previously maintained that the whole idea behind New Labour`s sudden interest in Britishness is the result of the regionalisation project. They can see that instead of damping down the flames of separation, by allowing for the creation of separate parliaments in Scotland and Wales they have in fact fanned the flames by creating a regional base in which the separatists flame can be fanned and amplified, this is especially the case in Scotland.

But I have begun to think that there could as well be a different explanation, one that although recognising the problems of regionalism is also making a clear statement to the Federalists in the EU and to the separatists in Scotland and Wales, that the nation state of Britain is the true repository of popular sovereignty. Thus signalling that the battle for supremacy between the different parties in the EU system of government is far from over, and at the same time firing a shot over the bows of the the separatists.

Notwithstanding Browns call to the flag is totally unacceptable because the green paper proposes the nations and regions of Britain, the nations obviously meaning Scotland and Wales and the Regions a divided England. Brown accepts that this is an unbalanced settlement yet has no other proposals. The call to Britishness also flies in the face of the anti nation state mentality of the EU that we have been subjected to for the past several years. What was it Margot Wallstrom said; that we are risking a return to the Holocaust by clinging to “nationalistic pride”.

From the EU federalist perspective one of the major problems they face is the popular legitimacy of the whole organisation. Whilst the people’s sovereignty remains firmly attached to our nation states, the long term prospect for the EU to gain legitimacy from popular sovereignty is severely curtailed, because the only legitimacy the EU can claim is that given it by the states, and as happened in the USA the EU states will continue to claim their mandate from the people as an overriding factor in constitutional law debates. So no matter what the EU through the ECJ might claim, at the end of the day the states are in charge.

It is this fear coupled with the failure of the EU economic prospects over the past thirty years that is the driving force behind the federalists desperate attempt to preserve the central power of the EU in a battle for the eventual survival of a federalist Europe The point not to be missed here is the political elite do not want any old EU they are determined to create a federalist supra government, roundly based on the federal USA. To this end they will use any weapon to hand. But for the project to really succeed they must reduce the power of the nation state to resist integration.

As sates presently have a veto over treaty change it has become increasing difficult to get further intergrationalist measures through the system with different states claiming opt-outs and opt-ins on a variety of areas. Previously the political elites have been prepared to wait until the right time or people to arise before making a further forward push, but the obvious lack of success on the economic front and the falling regard for the EU is creating an impetus for the elites to keep the whole show on the road. They must push forward to further integration as soon as possible otherwise they fear the whole project will fall down around them.

In the past the ECJ has used the preliminary reference procedure combined with the prerogative to interpret provisions of the treaties against the sovereignty of the members states. In that the ECJ has interpreted the treaties in a way never intended by the leaders of the member states and never agreed in the treaties, thus extending the constitutional power of the EU.

(The ECJ characterises the preliminary reference procedure as based on cooperation between national courts and the ECJ. However, it is the ECJ that controls this cooperation and sets its terms. In its ‘dialogue’ with national courts, it has the upper hand and has succeeded in co-opting national courts into an EU judicial system.)

1964 the ECJ declared the supremacy of European law over national law.

In 1970 the ECJ declared the supremacy of European law over national constitutions.

The working time directive etc.

The ECJ is now playing a pivotal role in harmonising tax law in the EU, using EC Treaty principles of non-discrimination. In fact the ECJ has had a profound effect in shaping supranational governance of the EU above and beyond that which has been agreed by our elected leaders.

In an attempt to prevent further unwarranted erosions of member states sovereignty by the ECJ the member states deliberately designed the pillar system (Maastricht) so as to insulate the state sovereignty from the incursions already made by the ECJ.

In restricting the jurisdiction of the ECJ over the second and third pillar policy areas the states ensured that legal acts bind states and did not create rights for individuals.

One of the recognised characteristic differences between a confederation and a government is precisely the ability to extend the authority of the Union directly to the citizens.

Thus the federalists had to remove the block of the pillar system for the process of integration along federal lines to continue. The states attempt to preserve state sovereignty from interference by the ECJ, immediately came under sustained attack and did not last long in the hothouse of EU federalisation. The federalist waited less than 10 years before moving to abolish the pillar structure set up at Maastricht, this they achieved in the EU Constitution.

Although the federalist claim the ECJ was still controlled by articles III-376 and III-377 in the Constitution, a glance at those articles will confirm that they relate to common foreign and security policy, and common security and defence policy.

The idea that the ECJ should not have jurisdiction directly over the citizens is completely negated by the introduction of the EU Charta of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution, thus opening up the whole area of citizens basic human rights to EU control with the ECJ as final arbiter, and massively increasing the power of one of the major contributors to integration.

With the Constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty it is clear that the federalists are winning the struggle over the supremacy of European Treaties and legislation and their ability to create judiciable rights for individuals against member states. Which means our personal sovereignty is being continually curtailed, because the federalists are concerned with one thing and that is to preserve the Federalist path of The Union.

As they do not have a popular mandate and cannot claim realistically to have shown the EU is a real benefit to us, the only vehicle they can use is that of further integration.

The Monnet or Community Method approach to EU integration entails a fundamental trade-off between integration and democracy. The logic of the approach is such that any time a choice between integration and democracy has to be made, the decision is, and must be, always in favour of integration.

The attempt to openly institutionalize popular sovereignty at a federal level was made with the Constitution, which was introduced by the convention method, a supposedly open forum where the future of the Union could be decided and then where forced put to the people, across the EU. It was thought that they could create a rolling set of referenda by making it completely unthinkable for any state to vote against. But as the referendum process failed to produce the required results the federalists have reverted to the classic Monnet style of integration, decisions made behind closed doors the treaties ratified by parliaments with no consideration given to the wishes of the peoples.

There is no chance that they will now allow state based referenda, that way has been shown to hold the potential of blocking the federalists advances, but conversely the idea of an EU wide referendum is gaining some ground and not a little backing from the centre; more of this later.

But the logic is evident in the case of the classic Community Method. the Commission’s monopoly of legislative and policy initiative, actually represents a flagrant violation of both the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the very idea of parliamentary democracy and a clear indication of the tendency to sacrifice democracy on the altar of integration.

What the federalists want and are working towards so desperately is for popular sovereignty to be expressed at the federal level at the expense of the nation state. Then it will become possible to use that expressed popular sovereignty to further enhance the central power of the EU, that is the eventual goal of the federalist’s ideal. And as happened in the USA the introduction of a directly elected president and the changes in property law leading to universal suffrage, led in turn to the federal claim that the popular sovereignty resided in the federal government and not the states government, the expansion of this claim led to the principle that the states did not have the authority to override federal law.

The EU claims to be democratic, “Claims” it shouts it from the rooftops, it even has the temerity to send observers to other nation states to oversee their elections and then produces reports on the observer’s findings. But the EU claim to democracy does not rest in its own system of government, which is anything but democratic. Instead it rests entirely on the basic principals that no state my join unless it is firstly democratic.

The fact that once a state joins its popular democracy is denuded of any real meaning is a clear indication that the EU in reality is not the least bit concerned with democracy, only as a tool to enhance its own authority.

The EU is interested in power for the central federal government, but to gain that power to enhance that power and to give a reason for that power, it must show that either it is an acceptable force for good or that popular sovereignty resides in its intuitions rather than the states institutions.

As an aid to this goal the EU has invented for itself a sort of simulated, imitation democracy. It has set up a mechanism whereby if over a million of us from several member states get together we can approach the EU and ask it to perform some task or other. This we did with the wasteful monthly trip to Strasburg that its parliament undertakes; the basic contempt for democracy can be seen in the results of that petition.

The EU has also created an active political role by commissioning and publishing public opinion polls, the task of public representation which formerly has belonged primarily to state based political parties, is now increasingly mediated through polls from an external agency. It is these polls that allow EU spokesmen and women to claim that their citizens want or expect the EU to act in a certain way. The constant polling is then used both to settle in the minds of the people the idea that the EU is our legitimate government and to further the claim of popular sovereignty for the federal government. There is a serious debate to be had about the relevant relationships between democracy, polling and public opinion and the EU interference in the normal democratic process.

The EU has invented for itself something called “participatory democracy” which is nothing more than a fancy name for a controlled group debating society. And of course the EU is a great supporter of NGOs these pressure groups that try to influence government policy must think all their Christmases have come at once, because not only do they get the ear of the EU policy makers they are also paid for the privilege.

The concept of an EU wide referendum also sits well within this main aim of the federalists, because it does in fact institutionalise popular sovereignty within the EU system, whilst at the same time denying the individual state the opportunity to block.

These are just some of the methods the are being used to enhance the concept that the EU has democratic legitimacy, when in fact it has none whatever. If things go to plan the Lisbon Treaty will have been ratified with the only people who have had a real voice in the proceedings being the Irish.

So after thirty odd years of betraying the nation state and condoning the ridiculing of our nationality, our government in the shape of New Labour suddenly comes up with a strengthening of the concept of British nationality, in fact to be fair the same applies to the Conservative party they too are banging on about Britain and the British constitution.

To be totally honest I smell a very large rat, without any doubt the EU is on track towards a federal state system with a strong centrally controlled government, and has no interest in preserving the present member states borders. But is actively pursuing a course of action designed to undermine the nation state. Within that context either the British nation state political village is beginning the fight back, or they are making a big noise about the British constitution so that it can be changed without too many hysterics to bring it into line with the rest of the EU to enable further integration, after so many devious political years in which the political parties have connived in the disruption of the nation state I am finding it very difficult to take these protestations of Britisness at face value.

The one ray of hope is that both Labour and Conservatives are taking an EU retrograde step, by trying to combat the regionalisation process, both of the parties has promised to get rid of the regional assemblies, on the other hand both are going to keep the regional development boards in some form or other. Labour has demonstrated its intention to keep the regions and enhance their powers, the Conservatories have yet to put bones on their proposals.

References: EUI Working paper RSCAS 2008/2

Altiero Spinelli and the Idea of the US Constitution as a model for Europe:

The Promise and Pitfalls of an Analogy.

Technorati Tags:
Governance of Briton, constitution, Britishness, nationalistic pride, EU federalists
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

The leader of the Conservative Party proudly announced that he has a simply ambition for this country. It’s at the heart of what I believe, and what I believe our country needs.

Oh goody he is going to repeal the 1972 act of admission to the EU begin the rebuilding process of our nation state. He intends to return the power to run this country to our government the power to hold our government to account to our parliment and the power to elect our own government to the people of this country. Now that is a simple plan that should be at the heart of anyone standing for election as leader of a nation state.

Perhaps not the same one that Cameron has though.

Today I want to talk to you about a simple ambition that I have for our country. It’s at the heart of what I believe, and what I believe our country needs. My ambition is to make Britain more family-friendly.

I am sure that Sir Robert Atkins would agree with Mr Cameron family-friendly is the way to go.

Technorati Tags:
family-friendly, David Cameron, Conservtives, simple ambition,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

The EU fisheries commissioner Joe Borg says that the EU fisheries policies that encourage the throwing away of thousands of tonnes of dead fish are “morally wrong” and must be reformed.

According to the United Nations Worldwide, 8 per cent of the catch is discarded, but in some waters around Scotland and Ireland it reaches almost 90 per cent. Up to 880,000 tonnes of fish are thrown back, dead, into the North sea annually.

A recent study found the Dutch beam trawler fleet discarded almost half its catch. This cost it €160m ($210.1m, £108m) annually in future revenues, 70 per cent of the value of its annual landing.

I suppose one shouldn’t carp we have after all only been screaming about this stupidity for so many years that even the Conservative party managed to produce a report on better fishing practices of course Mr Cammaron has dropped the idea and consigned the report to the dustbin along with many other conservative policies. But now when the EU fisheries policy has brought the industry to its knees and practically destroyed stocks of some fish the commissioner finally is thinking about doing something. But he is expecting a tough fight when he presents his plans which seems to include reducing the fishing fleet.

I do not know if this actually makes sense, many fish are thrown back because they would take the boat over its limit, I will wait to see what Eureferendum has to say after all Dr North does know of what he writes.

Full story FT

On his blog John Redwood wrote that the Conservatives failed yesterday in the House of Commons to get a commitment to a referendum on part of the Constitution, if they decide to smuggle some of it in by the back door. Mr Redwood says it is typical of this government’s approach. It is also typical of the Conservative approach to miss the fact that they are already smuggling parts of the constitution in through the back door.

However he correctly says “most people in the UK strongly oppose a federal EU state. We are fed up with the continual power grab by Brussels, and the dissimulation by this government as they give more and more power away.”

But then in a veiled criticism of UKIP says “Some now think the only answer is to declare unilateral withdrawal from the EU” Mr Redwood argues that there are “two big problems with this approach”

“The first is there are no MPs elected to vote for this in the present Parliament, and no-one thinks there will be any elected on such a ticket for a fringe party after the next election either.”

“Secondly, we would need a series of agreements with the EU and other European countries which would need to be negotiated when changing the relationship. For example, we need agreement for landing rights at continental airports, train route agreements through the Tunnel, general trading agreements, environmental agreements over cross border pollution, agreements over the use of the North Sea and Channel.”

“The issue therefore is a simple one. If you like me belong to the Eurosceptic majority that wants a different relationship with the neighbours, is it best to negotiate without unilateral withdrawal, or try to negotiate after you have pulled out?

It seems obvious that you should negotiate. The best approach is for the UK government to seek to negotiate a relationship we can be happy with, and then put that to the UK people in a referendum. The fact that the result of the negotiation will be put to the people would give the continental negotiators an incentive to give us a better deal, for otherwise the UK will reject it.”

The first point he makes is rather like saying we do not want to breath because no party is offering us air and begs the question; if returning power to our government it is so important to Conservatives why on earth is it not their policy, the question the Conservative party needs to address is if it is not their policy as “most people in the UK strongly oppose a federal EU state” then why is it not their policy. The question we as voters need to consider is if the Conservative party will not offer sensible grown up policies on the EU then why should we bother to vote for them.

On the second point I think Mr Redwood is attempting to put the horse before the cart, first we should hold a referendum on staying in or leaving the EU. In this the Conservative party could and should lead the way in selling an alternative to EU membership for this country, then our government would negotiate the various agreements with the EU.

The important point is returning power and accountability to our lawmakers not on agreeing with several different international agreements our sovereign government would have the power to make for the benefit of the people of this country. The reasons for leaving the EU should not be conflated with landing rights at continental airports.

Mr Redwood then returns to the main theme of his post which boils down to an appeal for EUsceptics to back the Conservative parties approach to the EU.

“In the last three General Elections Eurosceptics have split their votes, giving the federalists an even bigger majority. It is ridiculous that a country which opposes the Euro, common borders, a common foreign and security policy and the constitution by big margins should be represented by a Lab Lib majority who want all these things.”

I am not persuaded by the argument that to vote for a party which stands on the platform of leaving the EU is splitting the EUsceptic vote, the Conservatives do not offer us that option, for as long as we remain a member, our own parliament in Westminster is a charade, and it really does not matter which particular British political party has to follow the socialist EU line.

What we can however glean from Mr Redwoods post is the Conservatives parliamentary party’s slow realisation that they just might need the EUsceptic vote their leader has so far distained. But I am afraid they will have to do a great deal better before they are ready to lead this country out of the EU madness which they took us into in the first place.

It will take only 15 seconds: long enough for Britain to hand over another £6,000 to the EU. What are you waiting for?

Daniel Hannan begs in the Telegraph; he is of course writing about the BBC Christmas Repeal Which law should be tossed into the dustbin of British history?

Hannan says we should blowtorch all of the six finalists the Dangerous Dogs Act, the Hunting Act, the Human Rights Act, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, the Act of Settlement and the European Communities Act.

But theses six should be a mere apéritif. What about the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act, which spawned that slavering manticore, the Health and Safety Executive? Or the 1972 Local Government Act, which destroyed our traditional counties? How about the 1989 Football Supporters Act, the 1997 Firearms Act, the 2000 Financial Services Act, the 2006 Identity Cards Act?

Hannan would like to raze them all; to hack away the brushwood and prune the undergrowth, leaving the glassy-smooth lawn of the limited state.

But we have to start somewhere. Before baling out the tub, let us at least turn off the tap. And that means voting for the 1972 European Communities Act:

For that Act is not like any other piece of legislation. It does not simply lay down what we can and can’t do. Rather, it creates a new legal order, that of European law, and gives it primacy over our own statutes. To put it another way, it creates a mechanism whereby EU laws are automatically given force in the United Kingdom, with or without an implementing decision by Parliament.

In 1972, few of us understood this. If we did, we tended to assume that the supremacy of European law would be confined to cross-border issues, such as trade, competition and pollution. We didn’t imagine for a moment that Brussels would one day become the main source of legislation in this country, decreeing what hours we work, what taxes we pay, what we plant in the ground and fish from the sea, who settles on our territory, what we buy and sell, and in what units.

The tendrils of Euro-legislation curl into even the tiniest crevices, regulating matters that you’d have thought couldn’t possibly have an international dimension. The ban on mineral supplements and herbal remedies? Brussels. Car seats for 12-year-olds? Brussels. The rigmarole you have to go through to open a bank account these days? Brussels.

In fact, the EU is responsible for 80 per cent of the legislation in the member states. (We owe this awesome statistic to the German government; our own refuses to name the figure.) Which raises the question: why bother voting? What is the point of placing your cross next to the name of this or that candidate when four out of every five laws adopted in Britain are proposed, not just by people that you didn’t vote for, but by EU officials whom nobody voted for?

The countryside alliance are urging their supporters to use this opportunity to make known to the government yet again, their dislike of the disaster the Hunting Act has become, but I would beg them to consider that first and foremost they are British voters. The huntsmen and women have mounted an outstanding defence of their sport and have already made a nonsense of hunting act and have already a promise from the Conservative party to repel the act. Just as the countryside alliance brought together different countryside concerns under the one banner, now we all now need to make it clear to the political and media elite that we all want our power to elect and dismiss our own law makers returned to us the people. The countryside alliance slogan is “love the countryside” how about just this once “love the country” and do something to return the power to our own elected politicians.

So please put aside all of your own special interests and please vote to “Turn of the Tap” then we can begin to reverse the disaster our membership of the EU has wrought in this once great country.

Vote Here

Always assuming “Conservatism” is not a contradiction in terms!

Many people have been saying for over three years now that the conservative party needs to address its image in the liberal left main stream media. The party needs to get through to the public what being conservative means, it needs to create a tranche of conservatives policies and get out into the country and sell both them and conservative ideals to the voters, to do so it must be prepared to challenge the cosy left wing assumptions that are so prevalent in today’s media, it must be prepared to challenge the distortions of the Labour spin machine, that the media are only to happy to sponsor.

Well it seems that the message has finaly got though, at last the conservatives are doing something about their media image. Unfortunately instead of doing something about getting the conservative message across and challenging the media bias, David Cameron and his merry band of public school boys have decided the way ahead is to change the conservative party so that it fully embraces the cosy liberal left view of the world, in his own words; if there are members of the conservative party who do not like the direction he is perusing “tough”. The first thing I though when I read his comment was that Cameron will be pushing hard for public finance for political parties, because thus speak a man who obviously does not need the support of conservatives and is prepared to ditch conservatives on the alter of media acceptance.

The media has far given Cameron and easy ride, it is bestowing on him the crown which once adorned the brow of Tony Blair, until that is he stepped away from soft liberal left adgenda.

Just how much of an easy ride can be evidenced today in of all places the Torygraph, which contains an article by Melissa Kite on a special focus group for The Sunday Telegraph run by “the renowned American pollster” Frank Luntz. On the first anniversary of Cameron’s election as Conservative leader, Luntz has assembled a group of 17 floating voters to take the temperature of Project Cameron. The article turns out to be a puff for Cameron and his only policy to date of eradicating conservative theory from the conservative party. One or two conservatives within the group are not happy and want to replace Cameron but we already know the leaderships views on that “Tough” but labour LibDem supporters are warming to the new party.

Nazanine, 31, a television journalist who voted Lib Dem in 2005, says: “He’s providing the first credible opposition to Labour in years.”

Jane Broadfoot, 46, a public service worker who voted Lib Dem at the last election, said: “He’s very eloquent. I’m warming to him. He’s reduced the capital C in Conservatism to a small c.”

Alistair Smyth, 27, a researcher who voted Lib Dem last time, says: “He’s the first Tory leader in my life that hasn’t made me furious.”

Sharon Raymond, 35, a dental nurse who voted Labour, says: “He’s fresh. He’s a fresh face. I’m tired of Tony Blair now. Change it.”

However Colin is not convinced: “Fresh face or not, I would like to know what he actually stands for.” Good point Colin.

So it would seem that the Labour and LibDem`s support Cameron, Melissa Kite did not bother to point out the obvious problem that he is the leader of the Conservative party.

Not only has the Telegraph given the Cameron project of destroying the Conservative party thumbs up it has on the same day censored an alternative conservative view

From Eureferendum we learn that the Booker column in the Sunday Telegraph has this week been censored, Booker was told by the Sunday Telegraph that part of his column, an item attacking David Cameron was to be dropped.

But Richard North feels and I fully agree “the MSM has it own agenda” not one that is shared with the blogosphere.

So to put some balance into the media Cameron love in, below with thanks to Eureferendum is the part of the Booker column the telegraph chose to censor.

As David Cameron ends his first year as leader of the Opposition, there are clear signs that the greatest gamble in modern British politics has not come off. The little group of ex-public schoolboys who last year hi-jacked the Conservative Party have seemed to gamble on just one strategy. List everything the Party used to stand for – low taxes, the family, rolling back the power of the state, encouraging business, upholding our defences, curbing criminals, common sense – then go for the opposite.

The essence of the gamble has been the belief that, in wooing the support of Lib Dems, would-be greenies, Guardian readers and the supposed “soft centre”, they could take their supposed “core” supporters for granted. But as support for Cameron falters, all the evidence seems to suggest that those wished-for new recruits to his “Not The Conservative Party” are not forthcoming, while the Party’s former natural supporters are left baffled, dismayed and increasingly angry.

All this was neatly symbolised by the recent photo-opportunities staged by the three men now competing for the role of Britain’s prime minister. Mr Blair and Mr Brown, aware that defence and national security (not long ago rating 34 percent on a Mori poll) still rank very much higher as voter priorities than “environmental” issues (only 8 percent), flew out to the Iraq and Afghan battle-zones to pose in front of the largest guns they could find. Mr Cameron, at the same time, flew out to the Sudan, in Lord Ashcroft’s CO2 emitting private jet, to be pictured cuddling a little refugee child. It was the “Men from Mars” against “the Boy from Venus”. “Darfur Dave” did not come well out of the contrast.

The tragedy is that, confronted by the most corrupt, hypocritical, inefficient, illiberal, discredited government in history, what millions of voters are looking for is an alternative which might put an end to the sleazy, self-regarding sham of the Blair era by displaying some “masculine” firmness: in cutting back on the bloated public sector and the out-of-control bureaucracy which is destroying our health service, education and police; which might encourage enterprise; which might restore democracy to local government; bring back some balance into our public finances; sort out the shambles into which our Armed Forces are sliding; uphold Britain’s national interest, as we suffocate under the malfunctioning system of government represented by the European Union.

In other words, what much of the country is crying out for is a party which represents precisely those values which Mr Cameron’s Not-The-Conservative Party seems so hellbent on abandoning. As for what he stands for instead, almost the only clear message Darfur Dave seems to have put over to the voters is his sentimental “save the planet” greenery, on which his dotty little gimmicks and practical ignorance have simply made him a laughing stock.

What many voters sadly begin to conclude is that Dave and his cronies seem so hopelessly ill-equipped to take on the serious business of government that, if we have to choose between one gang of PR merchants and another, better stick with the devil we know. Hence the evidence of the latest polls appearing to show that the gamble has failed. Ever larger become the number of would-be Conservatives sorely tempted to join that 40 percent who already feel so alienated from politics that they just stay sullenly at home. But the Guardian readers are scarcely flocking to replace them. So where does all this leave our country?

An excellent article by Jeff Randle in the Telegraph on the cost of doing business in the EU.

I love some of the thoughts:

“For the sad souls who cling to the fast-disappearing hope of that headline ever becoming true, it has been another miserable week. Facts are stripping away the Eurofanatics’ clothing.

Very soon they will stand covered by nothing more than the jock strap of their own perverse desire to further erode British sovereignty.”

“We are self-asphyxiating with red tape, produced by useless European Commissioners – the likes of Neil Kinnock – who, if not luxuriating in Brussels, would be unemployable.”

“So when David Cameron next says the Conservative Party must start talking about the things that voters care about, instead of “banging on about Europe”, he would do well to understand that, while he and his metropolitan clique are showboating on climate change, British jobs are being choked to death by toxic emissions from Brussels.”

Anatole Kaletsky says the Dave’s not the Tory party “The Conservative Party has not just moved to the left, abandoning Margaret Thatcher and leapfrogging Tony Blair and Gordon Brown on to what David Cameron described as the liberal, progressive mainstream of British politics. No, the Cameron project appears to be far more audacious. He is trying to turn the “new Tories” into an unashamedly statist, high-tax, anti-enterprise party, with ideals that owe less to Blair or Brown than to Nye Bevan and Michael Foot.

The Tory policy has always veered toward less interfering small government, hence it has argued that government would need to spend less. If we take Dave at his word and why should we not then as Anatole Kaletsky says we should start to ask “When are you going to announce the details of the enormous tax increases you are so clearly itching to impose?”

So we now have three political parties proposing to take more of our money to spend for us on what they decide, what a choice come the next election.

Given that the same three parties also consider Britain’s place is in the shush don’t want to talk about it. socialist EU. We are going to find our options at the election booth are somewhat limited.

Well I for one now know who to vote for, even if they do not stand a chance of being elected, at least this party is prepared to talk about the EU, in fact many would have us think that is all they do talk about.

But it is no longer possible for the United Kingdom Independence Party UKIP to be so dismised because not only are the prepared to offer a way forward for this country which does not include becoming a sub state in the United State of Europe they are also offering radical new thinking on tax.

A flat tax system for Britain

• Make all taxpayers better off (mostly by £1,100 per year) and take a

further 4.5 million lower paid out of income tax altogether

- by raising the tax-free personal allowance to £9,000

- and merging existing income tax bands and employee’s National

Insurance contributions into a single flat income tax at a rate of 33%.

• Reduce the rate for capital gains tax to 33% and scrap inheritance

tax altogether.

• Finance the revenue shortfall by halting the growth in government

spending.

Now I do not even begin to understand the British Tax regime, I only know I always end up paying more than I think I should and a lot more that I want to, considering an increasing amount of the money goes in supporting an anti-democratic super socialist government in Brussels, who decide to spend a great deal on either supporting French farmers, Terrorist states and EU propaganda.

But I can recommend a blog which has looked at the UKIP proposals The Devils Kitchen

So there we have it there is a political party that is prepared to think outside of the EU box.

Technorati Tags: UK Government, The EU, Tax. Flat Tax, UKIP, Tory Party,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

An absolutely fantastic speech by Christopher Booker to the Bruges Group fringe meeting, at the Tory Party Conference, Bournemouth.

You can read the full speech on Eureferendum

For my money Booker should be on the main central stage in Bournemouth, the “Not the Conservative Party” really needs to hear this time and time again, until they realise that they are part of the problem and can not offer a solution, or any thing approaching a solution until they are prepared to talk about the most important aspect of British politics today.

The EU stupid!

Don’t talk about EU Dave and his school chums do not seem even capable of understanding the one main policy area where they have a stated interest the environment.

The Campaign for an English Parliament has just issued a full report on the devolution process, going by the title of

DEVOLUTION FOR ENGLAND

A CRITIQUE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY POLICY

‘ENGLISH VOTES ON ENGLISH MATTERS’

The report details the devolution progress to date and explores some of the problems that have been created by the New Labour devolution process.

The report argues that The Government’s devolution programme had two fundamental guiding principles:

distribution of governmental power from the centre to constituent parts.

distribution on the basis of nationhood.

Importantly it says that England was completely left out of the devolution programme.

Which is perhaps not entirely surprising considering, according to Jim Naughtie who informs us time and again in his book The Rivals, Gordon Brown was the engine behind the whole devolution campaign. „It‟s Gordon‟s passion,‟ Naughtie quotes Tony Blair as saying in 1997. „So we‟re doing it”

Instead Scotland now enjoys the best of both worlds.

It remains firmly in the Union with its status and power within it enhanced, and with increased subsidies from the English taxpayer, yet it is independent of the rest of the Union and its government in areas of really major governance.

We are not talking about minor matters. Scotland now has full self-government in the most major areas of public policy:

education, health, local government, social work, housing,

training, agriculture, fisheries and forestry, sport and the arts,

economic development including the administration of

European Structural Funds, tourism, many aspects of transport,

the legal system and law and order, most civil and criminal

law, prisons and the fire services, and various lesser matters.

It is not just an astonishing degree of independence within a Union which is denied to its other constituent nations; it is also one in which one of those other nations, namely England,

subsidises most generously.

Of the £45.3 billion spent in Scotland in 2003-4 only £34 billion was recovered in taxation.

The £11.3 billion difference, which works out at £2200 per head of population in Scotland, was paid by the UK Parliament.

If tax revenue from North Sea oil is excluded, namely £4.3 billion, there still would have been a £7 billion gap, which equates to a £281 surcharge on every English taxpayer.

One has to hand it to Brown and co. They have pulled of the biggest and brightest coup in the Union’s 300 year history.

Not only is there the gross political and constitutional injustice of the English Question

and the West Lothian Question,

There are also the financial aspects.

As we have seen, Scotland does not pay its way. Only by reason of the immensity of the grant being paid by the Exchequer out of its UK revenue to the Scottish Parliament can it afford to provide

the educational, health and social benefits it now enjoys which are not being made available in England.

There are free eye tests for all regardless of age, free personal

and social care for the elderly, highly specialist cancer

treatments available across the whole of Scotland, free bus

travel throughout Scotland and free central heating installation

for pensioners, and free prescriptions for 19-25 year olds.

Scottish university students do not pay either tuition fees or

top-up fees which in England can be as much as £3000 a year.

They don‟t pay them even if they are at an English university.

No EU students (except the English, Welsh and Northern Irish)

pay them either. English students at Scottish universities

however must pay £3600 yearly in tuition fees for four-year

degrees while Scottish (and EU) students pay nothing in

advance and just £2000 after graduation. In addition there is

the -now notorious- Barnett Formula, brought in in 1978 to

check the rise of Scottish nationalism and the SNP

(interestingly the same argument used with UK MPs to sell the

devolution legislation of 1998). By reason of that Formula

alone, each Scottish person is in receipt of at least £1300 more

per head expenditure than English people (Public Expenditure

Statistical Analyses 2005). The Formula‟s advantages over

England enjoyed by Scotland are of course enjoyed by Wales

and Northern Ireland as well in varying ways, although

Scotland‟s devolution setlement outdoes both.

The Report then explains “The West Lothian Question” and “The English Question”

And “THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY POLICY” (EVoEM)

Before a critique of the policy “DEFECTS OF THE POLICY”

“EVoVM has two practical difficulties. The first is deciding which MPs will be entitled to vote on which bills.” The second practical difficulty is deciding which constituents will be affected by any particular bill.”

CEP argue that EVoEM will not adequately address either the West Lothian Question or the English Question but will in fact bring UK government into a state of confusion and ridicule and possible chaos. Neither can EVoEM ever be an adequate forum for the people of England or an effective champion of their concerns. Or give England its own representation within the European Union.

Instead of a way of holding the union together EVoEM contains the seeds of the break-up of the Union. It will introduce into the House of Commons an essentially divisive, indeed destructive, element which does not exist at present.

The Union Parliament is the Union Parliament. EVoEM would turn it into something else: a part time Union Parliament and a part time English Parliament,and will not provide England with its own Executive.

Hat tip to Tommy English for the link to this essay

…Our next general election should be about much more than schools and hospitals. Britain’s sovereignty is at stake. And although the Government wants to pull the wool over our eyes, we need an elevated debate on Europe…

Brian Durrant - Other articles
Mon 17 Jul, 2006

Imagine the next general election is held in 2009. David Cameron’s Conservative party beats Labour by two million votes, and gains enough seats to form a majority government.

But Gordon Brown refuses to go.

“I really believe that the electorate did not reject the Government,” he says. “Unfortunately the electorate did not realise what the General Election was about. Indeed, the voters have requested more Labour policies – not less. The rejection of Labour’s programme was a mistake, which will have to be corrected.”

Impossible to believe? It has happened in Zimbabwe, Haiti, Uzbekistan and Belarus. Thirteen months ago, it happened on our doorstep.

In May 2005, the French and Dutch electorates rejected the EU Constitution put forward by Brussels in two separate referendums. Yet a fortnight after the “non”
and “nej” verdicts, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister, Jean- Claude Juncker, said at a press conference:

“I really believe the French and Dutch did not vote no to the Constitutional Treaty. Unfortunately the electorate did not realise that the Constitutional Treaty was specifically aimed at meeting their concerns and that’s why we need to have a period of explanation for explaining this to citizens”.

Eight months on, Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the EU Constitution, showed his contempt for the democratic process. In a lecture at the London School of Economics on 28 February 2006, he said: “The rejection of the Constitution was a mistake which will have to be corrected. The Constitution will have to be given a second chance…If the Irish and Danes can vote yes in the end, so the French can do too. It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.”

If you thought that was bad, three months later, the former French President told the Financial Times: “It was not France that said no. It was 55% of the French people.”

This madness has afflicted the political classes in the other main nations of the EU, too. Italian Foreign Minister Giuliano Amato told Agence Europe that “[the no votes were] a request for more Europe not less”. In May this year the new German Chancellor, Angela Merkel,said: “The negative results of the referendums in France and the Netherlands were a setback, but this has no bearing whatever on whether or not we need a constitution. I say yes, we need the Constitutional Treaty.”

So there you have it – the contempt with which top European politicians view the popular will. They have responded to the free referenda’s result with wilful self-delusion, and they certainly won’t take “no” for an answer. Hopes that the French and Dutch verdicts would trigger reform of the EU have been dashed.

Indeed, the main topic of conversation in EU circles today is how – not whether – to bring back the Constitution. Over the last 13 months, the supporters of an “ever closer union” have chosen to interpret the “no”
verdicts as a protest against economic liberalism, opposition to further enlargement of the EU, and a des