Bob Geldof

Is a good chap who genuinely cares about poverty, in my opinion. Don't know him but that' how he comes across, and actions speak louder than words.

I am also glad that, in spite of joining policy forums for the Conservatives on policy, he is going to remain non-partisan, Why?

I saw a clip on tv about him questioning Margaret Thatcher regarding the VAT on the Bandaid single. The reason VAT can't be removed on products is because of the EU - it is currently one of the few ways the EU can collect its own revenue, until the proposed EU tax comes into play.

If Bob Geldof wants to combat poverty, he is looking in the right direction with trade. I wonder what he made of the WTO talks with Mandelson holding back progress with every minute he was there representing the French. The way to development is through trade - it increases parity. Everyone can become better off through efficiency and the sharing of knowledge. Ricado came up with this in the nineteeth century, so why so we have a common external tariff? Why are we driving ourselves into economic obscurity with this regulation, and then raising tariffs to make sure that we don't become uncompetitive in our own markets?

Our former colonies who chose to stay with the Commonwealth can decide their own trade policy, but we can't. The British, who spread trade and liberal democracy throughout the world, and who now are being tied down with some kind of 'middle class guilt' about being a global power, are being governed by people who are not accountable to anyone but themselves. You want a good example, there's a former leader of the opposition and his family doing very well for himself....

Mr Geldof - you want to help make poverty history, then help the 3rd largest trading nation in the world leave the EU.

mental bureaucrats

ARGH!

Am just listening to the fat portuguese 'president' of the Commission, and it is making me very angry.

He says that this has been a good year for European development - HELLO? Are they just completely deaf to the cries of the people who have to pay for this ridiclous circus and who rejected the Constitution? Why are they boasting about aid to developing nations when these countries used to get more aid when it wasn't centralised by the EU? Well Done Glynnis Kinnock. Why are they spouting this shit when Commissioner Mandelson, apparently speaking on behalf of 25 countries (who can he when they all have different trade needs - eh, eh?) but who looks suspiciously like he is twice sacked from the British Government and is now working for the French - will not lead by example. Why do they give aid to these countries when they don't trade with them, which is a long term solution to their poverty. Why do they continue with these fisheries deals which ransack the fishstocks of african nations and then come back and sit in the sterile environment of the council or the Parliament and talk about how well they are doing?

And most bizarre of all - why do people believe them? Why do people vote for them? Bliar yesterday completely ignored David Cameron's comment about why Ireland was receiving more per capita from the EU budget than these eastern european countries who Blair said our taxes are going to help.

And that's another thing - I thought charity started at home? I hope that the charity 'Shelter' this year doesn't have any homeless people to help because our tax money first of all went to help British people? They should be helped by our government, not ignored because people are used to the problem of poverty in the UK, and it is no longer a vote winner.

Rebate fiasco

I'm to copy a little summary from today's 'SUN' newpaper, as I'm not feeling very well (not just because I'm physaically sickened by the 'deal' Bliar decided upon today...Deal - I think steal I is more appropriate') and also because it summed up in very few words how I feel:

Saturday, December 17, 2005
A lost chance

A BILLION here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about realmoney. Last night Tony Blair caved in to the French and handed over another billion ayear to keep the shambolic EU in business.

The fiendishly complex gravy train defies rational explanation. But we know itis wasteful and corrupt.Each Pound shrinks by 20p just by passing through the bureaucratic EU wringer. Vast sums are sprayed around the world in inefficient aid.

Much of the rest sticks to grubby fingers as its passes along the line. Some actually ends up in new roads and bridges, but in the most expensive wayimaginable. Year after year, EU auditors refuse to sign off the accounts.

Tony Blair had a chance to put a bomb under this scandal last night.He could have vetoed plans to spend even more and force a shake-up of the wholeshambles. Instead, to Gordon Brown’s fury, the PM signed up to an extra £7BILLION overseven years. That’s money the Chancellor must find in higher taxes to pay for a spending splurge which is running out of steam.

Odd that the Sun still insists on supporting Labour, mind. These are the comments that UKIP have been making for ten years...

facilities

Am looking for a hotel in Edinburgh for Hogmanay. Have absolutely wanted to go for years and am very excited! May have to buy some shoes, or possibly some warm boots for the occastion.

Anyway, I digress. When I pick a hotel I want
1) a bed
2) washing facilities I don't have to share with the wierd people who make the banging noises in the middle of the night (am I jealous that isn't me...maybe)
3) that I don't go bankrupt paying for it.

What I am not particularly bothered about, yet hotels use as a means of alluring you

1) tea and coffee making facilities. eugh
2) Biscuits. Did your granny make them? No? Then I don't care!
3) Windows that open. Honestly, that was on a hotel website.

AM also looking forward whilst I am up there of seeing the Scottish Parliament. Am hoping that I can take a bit home in a kind of tax rebate way, since it was so bloody expensive. And am also hoping to hear people talking in that famous language, 'Scots'. Thought it was a dialect myself...are we going to have cockney rhyming slang translated in Westminster next?

England Expects

England Expects

Great blog, in a similar but less frivilous vein to this.

I've been wondering: If Turkey join the EU, what happens if a Turkish MEP gets speaking time during their prayers?

A little bit of humour on a cold and frosty day

ELEVATION OF SECURITY LEVELS

As many are aware, the French government recently announced it was to
raise its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The normal level is
"General Arrogance", and the only two higher levels in France are
"Surrender" and "Collaborate". The rise was precipitated by a recent
fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing
the country's military capability.

It's not only the French that are on a heightened level of alert: Italy
has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to
"Elaborate military posturing". Two more levels remain, "Ineffective
combat operations" and "Change sides".

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdain" to "Dress in
uniform and sing marching songs". They have two higher levels: "Invade a
neighbour" and "Lose".

Seeing this reaction in continental Europe the Americans have gone from
"Isolationism" to "Find another oil-rich nation for regime change".
Their remaining higher alert states are "Attack random countries
(ideally those without any credible military)" and "Beg the British for
help".

The British are also feeling the pinch in relation to recent bombings
and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved". Soon
though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even
"A Bit Cross". Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the Blitz in
1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been
re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "Bloody Nuisance". The last time the
British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the Great
Fire of 1666.

An excellent article from the Independent newspaper

Monaco's Prince Albert gets EU farm subsidy of £200,000
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
Published: 07 November 2005

Prince Albert, the billionaire ruler of Monaco, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of European farm subsidies, it was reported on the eve of a meeting on reform of EU spending.

Oxfam claims that Prince Albert, who is worth an estimated £1.35bn, received €287,000 (£194,000) in payments under the Common Agricultural Policy last year.

The subsidy was for a cereal farm of around 700 hectares. Monaco, only slightly larger than Hyde Park in London, is overwhelmingly urban and Prince Albert's farming interests are believed to be over the border in France.

The charity also said that the two biggest French recipients took €1.7m a year between them. Meanwhile, 70 per cent of small farmers received only 17 per cent of the subsidies.

"France's argument that the CAP is used primarily to support its small farmers rings hollow," said Jo Leadbeater of Oxfam. "Europe's regime of farm subsidies goes to the wealthiest landowners and destroys the livelihoods of poor farmers."

The revelations came as Britain softened its demands for cuts in European farm subsidies. The Government relaunches talks today on EU finance and the future of the UK's budget rebate from Brussels.

EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels to discuss a paper circulated by the UK, which holds the presidency of the EU and which describes the need to modernise the budget as a "long-term aspiration".

But many EU states see the UK rebate as the main stumbling block to a deal, and several ambassadors criticised the British position paper last week. One diplomat said that the document had been "destroyed" in discussions.

Britain helped block a deal in June on the EU's budget for 2007-13, saying that it would only compromise over the UK's annual €4-5bn rebate if there were agreement on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

The rebate was negotiated by former prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984 to compensate Britain for receiving relatively little from the CAP, which still accounts for around 40 per cent of EU spending.

The description of budget reform as a "long-term aspiration" comes in a three-page letter designed to restart discussions on a budget for the 25-nation bloc. The aim is to get a deal in December at a two-day summit of heads of government in Brussels.

Speaking to the European Parliament in June, Tony Blair said: "We cannot agree a new financial perspective that does not at least set out a process that leads to a more rational budget." But the language from the Government has been less precise since then, and the new document from the British presidency strikes a measured tone ahead of talks due to take place among foreign ministers today.

It says that, before putting forward detailed plans on how to solve the budget impasse, the British want broad agreement on plans outlined by the European Commission to "help the EU adjust more rapidly to the challenges of globalisation".

The measures include earmarking specific funds for research and development and creating a fund to deal with the impact of job losses.

It also highlights the need for a review clause under which member states would agree to re-examine all EU spending, including farm subsidies, during the period 2007-13.

And, in an oblique reference to the UK rebate, it says that it wants to "make proposals in line with the generally shared principle of fair treatment" as "part of an overall package covering the revenue and expenditure sides".

If Britain gets enough backing for its approach, it is expected to put forward ideas for the first two headings this month, but probably leave proposals on the most thorny issues - including the rebate - until December.

The Oxfam revelations will increase pressure for reform of the CAP, though Britain's critics point out that the country opposes measures intended to put a ceiling on payments to individual farmers.

Britain is one of relatively few countries to make payments made under the CAP public.

Prince Albert, the billionaire ruler of Monaco, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of European farm subsidies, it was reported on the eve of a meeting on reform of EU spending.

Oxfam claims that Prince Albert, who is worth an estimated £1.35bn, received €287,000 (£194,000) in payments under the Common Agricultural Policy last year.

The subsidy was for a cereal farm of around 700 hectares. Monaco, only slightly larger than Hyde Park in London, is overwhelmingly urban and Prince Albert's farming interests are believed to be over the border in France.

The charity also said that the two biggest French recipients took €1.7m a year between them. Meanwhile, 70 per cent of small farmers received only 17 per cent of the subsidies.

"France's argument that the CAP is used primarily to support its small farmers rings hollow," said Jo Leadbeater of Oxfam. "Europe's regime of farm subsidies goes to the wealthiest landowners and destroys the livelihoods of poor farmers."

The revelations came as Britain softened its demands for cuts in European farm subsidies. The Government relaunches talks today on EU finance and the future of the UK's budget rebate from Brussels.

EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels to discuss a paper circulated by the UK, which holds the presidency of the EU and which describes the need to modernise the budget as a "long-term aspiration".

But many EU states see the UK rebate as the main stumbling block to a deal, and several ambassadors criticised the British position paper last week. One diplomat said that the document had been "destroyed" in discussions.

Britain helped block a deal in June on the EU's budget for 2007-13, saying that it would only compromise over the UK's annual €4-5bn rebate if there were agreement on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

The rebate was negotiated by former prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984 to compensate Britain for receiving relatively little from the CAP, which still accounts for around 40 per cent of EU spending.
The description of budget reform as a "long-term aspiration" comes in a three-page letter designed to restart discussions on a budget for the 25-nation bloc. The aim is to get a deal in December at a two-day summit of heads of government in Brussels.

Speaking to the European Parliament in June, Tony Blair said: "We cannot agree a new financial perspective that does not at least set out a process that leads to a more rational budget." But the language from the Government has been less precise since then, and the new document from the British presidency strikes a measured tone ahead of talks due to take place among foreign ministers today.

It says that, before putting forward detailed plans on how to solve the budget impasse, the British want broad agreement on plans outlined by the European Commission to "help the EU adjust more rapidly to the challenges of globalisation".

The measures include earmarking specific funds for research and development and creating a fund to deal with the impact of job losses.

It also highlights the need for a review clause under which member states would agree to re-examine all EU spending, including farm subsidies, during the period 2007-13.

And, in an oblique reference to the UK rebate, it says that it wants to "make proposals in line with the generally shared principle of fair treatment" as "part of an overall package covering the revenue and expenditure sides".

If Britain gets enough backing for its approach, it is expected to put forward ideas for the first two headings this month, but probably leave proposals on the most thorny issues - including the rebate - until December.

The Oxfam revelations will increase pressure for reform of the CAP, though Britain's critics point out that the country opposes measures intended to put a ceiling on payments to individual farmers.

Britain is one of relatively few countries to make payments made under the CAP public.

------

This is one of my main gripes about the EU. On one hand, I have a report here which is talking about tackling poverty in developing countries, which are primarily primary product producers, and in rural areas of the EU. On the other hand, we have a report from Oxfam which once again states that the main beneficiaries of the CAP aren't small farmers. The Duke of Devonshire was in a report last year when it was stated that the rich in the UK are being subsidised by the CAP.

Please don't think I am anti-farmer. I think we have so much to owe to the industry, especially since they keep the countryside looking beautiful. Give me farms over housing estates anyday. However, we shouldn't be having protectionism on such levels. It doesn't benefit the farming industry in the UK, judging from letters we have received here in the Parliament. Telling people how much they can and cannot grow without reference to break even points and economic efficiency? The propaganda ministry in the EU love to promote how great the EU is for development, but how can it be with such a policy?

Tony Blair, do not weaken your resolve.

David Cameron getting his knickers in a twist

Over the Tories pulling out of the EPP. I grant you, it would be a step in the right direction but will it really make any difference? If they leave, they move away from being run by a centerist (they may be right wing in Euroland, but they're certainly not compared to the UK) federalist pro constitution, pro euro German who thinks that the Commission are the new religion, but they are still a massivly split party.

Say what you will about the Lib Dems (and isn't their plenty to say) at least they are honest about their view towards the EU. They might not publicise it that loudly for fear of losing most of their voters, but they don't say the complete opposite. Labour confuse me on this issue. Their old Labour supporters hate the EU on the grounds that it wastes money and takes power away from the nation (yet they like trade unions...hmmm...) but President Blair can't give away enough of our right to govern ourselves!

The Tories, though. 1999 was a bad year for them as they had to come up with a policy on Europe. 2004 was less of a bother since they ran with a line which translated: 'we're shit, but not as shit as they are.' Now they are trying to hide the fact that most of their MEPs have gone native and are loving the cushy number over there. They keep bleeting on about trying to return power from Brussels, in Europe but not run by Europe and then they vote for regulation after regulation which gives MORE power to them! It irritates me beyond belief.

And on irritating subjects: that bitch who wants to ban fun. The Health Secretary banning smoking anywhere that dares to allow people to breath fire and brimstone whilst enjoying a pint. I have much to say on that matter, but first I'm going to have a quick ciggie...

Off with their heads!

Have cleverly thought up a title which encompasses both subjects I wish to get off my chest.

1) People who don't use the stairs. I will explain. I work on the 11th floor of the parliament, and I have to use lifts generally to get to and from the doors / restaurants / hemicycle to my office. This I can cope with, because I have a beautiful view from this floor.

However, what does irritate (and confuse me) is the 'logic' which makes someone stand around and wait for a tediously slow lift when they are only travelling a few floors. There are plenty of staircases one can use and not wait for, so why, WHY take the lift down one floor and slow everyone else who has to use the lift up?

2) Informal summit at Hampton Court: (you see, you see?)

There they all are, traitors to the UK standing in such a beautiful royal palace, owned of course by the first English (before the union, don't forget) eurosceptic. How Blair can let them in there, how Blair can be in there when they wish to rub out our history and culture, and make us ashamed of our past is astounding. They want a political union where great and mighty England would be a couple of regions in the United States of Europe.

What is there to discuss, I ask? They mustn't talk about the budget. The rebate, therefore, cannot be sorted out. The Constitution is legally dead - even though they try to implement it through the back door.

What they could discuss is the frightful state of the European Economies: EU25 unemployment is at 8.7%. The predicted growth rates for 2006 have been cut again, from an already pitiful 1.6% to a teeny weeny 1.3%. I can run faster than that. In my heels. Combine that growth rate with inflation of 2.6% and you have a dire situation of stagflation, where growth is going backwards and prices that are rising. But what are they going to do about it? Cut back regulation? Let countries have their own currencies which can float on the global markets? Have countries control their own interest rates? Stop restricting small businesses and allow people to work what they want to work?

No. We will have to stick to a socialist model of high tax and regulation, a 35-hour working week and endless bureaucracy and regulation which stifle development and innovation. Europe isn't working. We know you want a political union, but at any price?

3)ukipwatch. Nuff said.

When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

You may remember a few months back that Farage instigated a Motion of Censure on 'President' Barrosso, to try make him answer a few simple questions. Well, he did come to the Parliament as enough signatures were collected, but the story which emerged from it was regarding Roger Helmer and the direction of the Tories in the EP.

Let's not forget that in the UK, Conservatives get votes from the Eurosceptic population: people who say they believe in what parties such as the UKIP stand for, but who still think the only way out of the EU is through the Tories. Can this truly be the case when they are members of the federalist EPP, who vote for the Consitution and the EMU (I will note here that the Conservatives did vote no to the Constitution although they funded the YES campaign through their secretarial allowances) and their leader, Timothy Kirkhope, removes the whip from MEPs who stand up for transparency and accountability?

Below is a link to the website of the esteemed Roger Helmer - the Tory who, despite being bullied to remove his name from the motion of censure, held strong.

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/reviewmeeting.asp

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/tjkletter.asp

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/tjkreply.asp

Happy reading, and well done Roger!

Look what Godfrey found behind his fridge!

UKIP MEP, Godfrey Bloom. You may remember him as the chap who made headlines last year, for saying - on joining the EU's Equal Opportunities Committee - that modern women "don't clean behind the fridge enough". Yesterday, he brandished a copy of Busty Beauties at a meeting of the same committee. He'd earlier purchased it from the parliament's own newsagent. "I don't think I've sat through an equal opportunities meeting, ever, without them spending an hour talking about the exploitation of women," Bloom tells me. "They drone on and on about it, and sneer because I'm a man. And then their own shop is selling this ... It's the hypocrisy I can't stand. This is another example of the double standards that pervade at the EU."
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article319512.ece

And he's right. This place talks so much shite, and then does exactly the opposite. Like Brüner, the guy in charge of the anti-fraud office on the EU who has in 5 years, never investigated and charged a single EU official for fraud. Even the Eurostat case - the EU equivalent of the great train robbery - was brushed under the carpet. The EU is in charge of a budget of €90 bn, and huge amounts of this budget go missing each year. This is an institution where the accounts have not been signed off for 10 years, and if an auditor does his job properly, and whistle-blows on cases of fraud and embezzelment, he is sacked.

This is a place where our ears are bent until they bleed about helping out LDCs - and yet it is a customs union which refuses to trade and help these countries, and instead gives them aid. Anyone who remembers or has studied the 'lost decade of development' in Latin America particularly will be able to recall that this was brought about through a complete disincentive effect due to such 'aid'. Their hurry to help these people is, unfortunately, not matched by their desperate aim to show people that the EU is a good idea: that becoming a 'United States of Europe' (and that's what the plan is, chaps, and it's a case of in or out) is the only way for the new world order of equality ensured by regulation.

Count me out. I'd rather live in a world where the truth is prevelent, and where arse-licking, banal and deliberately misleading press releases don't get published. A place where propaganda is something children learn about when they study dictatorial regimes such as Communist Russia, Nazi Germany and the European Union, rather than an every day situation where we are told what to think, in order to keep the dream of the super state alive. And I'd certainly not live in a world where people look like Liz Lyn or RIchard Corbett, and where Peter Mandelson is i charge of anything other than keeping shoe-boxes in a neat line.

So much to say

So little time to say it. Or write it.

Haven't been posting for a while for a few reasons

1) Have a job. Not a new phenomenon for me, but recently there has been lots and lots of lovely things to do and see. Like committees, for example, where I sit there, probably more qualified to make decisions than those who can and do, and listen to MEPs talking flannel. The most common thing I hear is 'may I congratulate the previous speaker, with whom I agree with. I don't want to repeat what they have said, or speak for a long time, but...' which is followed by 10 minutes of useless drivel where they then repeat exactly what the person before has said.

Why? It was a pile of shit the first time round: please, please don't make me listen to it again! Maybe they think the more they say it, the more credible it will sound. Possibly, outside of the European Parliament, but since what they frequently talk about is trying to make the EU more competitive by following the 'Lisbon Strategy' - a strategy which, as far as I can tell, is about strangling people with red tape and them fining them for being unemployed - we can safely assume that it will only be credible inside a meeting of 'Old Labour recovering LSD users'.

2) I went away for conference, which was rather exciting. Only one heckler, though. Our glorious leader made a very good speech, which included a quick summary of why voting Tory will never lead to Britain coming out of the EU - in short, that they are spineless and a divided party.

However, Shipley MP Philip Davies has come out and said that the UK must withdraw from the EU. So he agrees with me, then, and UKIP that 'in Europe and not run by Europe' is about as likely to happen as Kilroy leaving home without his bottle of San Tropez tanning lotion. How can you be in a customs union which wants to become a federalist superstate, and not relinquish power to their pretendy government? You think they will really let one country get away with not following their damaging rules and pointless pieces of legisation but still be in their club? DOn't be stupid. They want to absorb your country, and they are doing so more and more each day either through their institutional mechanisms, or through the back door. Brussels has published over 2000 pieces of legislation since the summer, and they aren't going to stop because some divided quasi-eurosceptic party over the water can't make its mind up.

What annoyed me the most was the banal statement of Denis MacShane, saying that withdrawing from the EU would be disastrous for Britain. WHy? because we would only have the Labour government to blame for the low growth, increasing unemployment and falling standards? You're right it will affect our balance of payments. We can start trading freely with the rest of the world instead of being bound by this antiquated customs union. Our average weekly shopping bill on food alone will drop by £20 per week and we will be helping those in Less Developed Countries, instead of patronising them with aid packages which only help their military dictators. YOu're right it will affect the economy - maybe we will be able to move away from this economic downturn, with growth for the Q4 projected at 1.5%. That's practivally backwards. We used to have a thriving economy, but now we are tied to the Brussels Titanic, the only way is down.

I suppose there will be some unemployment if we leave the EU. 84 MEPs each costing the tax payer about £1m a year will have to find somethjing productive to do with their time, as will their assistants. Peter Mandelson will have to be found another job in Government - fourth time lucky? The same, of course will have to happen for Denis MacShane - although I am sure that's not a reason for his statement on why withdrawal is a bad thing...

Bad shoe day

I was in London yesterday, and visited my shoe Mecca at Gina. There I was, all geared up to try on and buy beautiful shoes when they told me that not only did they not have them in my size, but they never have had them.

I was so sad I almost cried.

Are traffic wardens that bad?

I have always stood by the statement that if I were ever to succumb to having children (which I won't, but it's more interesting if I say it is a possibility) then I would rather they be a porn star than a traffic warden. Being a porn star is using ones initiatives and strengths, compared to making people pay for visiting their friends who live in London, or for popping into Gina for a quick peruse. But even more than that, I have discovered
I would rather they be a porn star (including the ol' chocolate starfish) than a European Commissioner.

Ladies and Gentlemen, and Richard Corbett, may I present Margot Wallstrom.

http://weblog.jrc.cec.eu.int/page/wallstrom

Can you imagine the horror of producing something that not only seeks to eek out every last penny from a sinking european ship by promoting the hopelessly ineffective European Super State, but one that also makes banal comments such as 'yes, I do know how to milk a cow'. Please. Who doesn't. Certainly most of the onanists in this place do, it being somewhat similar....

And I even chose to ignore the comments she made about the current US administration being racsit because black people suffered in New Orleans. Forgive me, but when I studied music, we learnt that New Orleans had a high percentage of black people living there, due to the effects of slavery. When slavery was finally abolished they then settled there and that's why New Orleans is famous for the jazz clubs etc. Can I combine my music and my mathmatics and say that maybe it is not racist that black people suffered, but more to do with statistics and demographics, Ms Wallstrom?

Let the people decide

Go on, click on it! There's pictures of women being gagged on there!

Although they are possibly not exactly the same images which came to mind when you first read that. It's a link to the webpage for the online petition for a referendum of the EU. We haven't had one for 45 years, and back then, those who voted yes did so in the belief that they were voting for a free trade bloc, not the political union they have ended up with.

Anyone who wants our country to be run from Westminster should sign up, as even today, more and more power is slipping away to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. The Constitution, which was rejected by two of the founding countries . France and the Netherlands, is being implemented through the back door. Immigration policy, case law of the ECJ taking precedence over the UK Constitution (yes, we do have one), tax policy, propaganda campaigns funded by you to persuade you that these tango men out here should be controlling your lives.

Even if you like the EU - which, by the way, means you are in favour of third world povery, inefficiency and political correctness taking precédence over common sense, surely you can't object to people being given the choice? Isn't that what democracy is all about?

Is chocolate the answer for both?

It's been a long day, but at least I get a laugh as the time draws nearer to the cocktail hour.

I am reading a report which calls on the Commission not only to look into why women are oveweight (I thought the basics of that was generally understood, but clearly I am wrong) but that further communications from the Commission should take into account the problems of PMT.

Is this what our money is being spent on? Sadly, yes....

Pass me my smelling salts

For I just agreed with something someone from the EU has written.

Four EU ministers have said that outdated protectionist methods of international trade will harm EU businesses, and so the EU must ease curbs on Chinese clothing imports or risk job loses. Personally, I don't see why the EU should have anything to do with it, surely it's up to individual countries to decide what passes over their borders, but if they insist on giving away their sovereignty then they must understand that they can no longer make decisions based on the best interests of their country.

It's interesting to note which countries these ministers come from: Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Notably not countries which spend each night frantically beating over the idea of a European Social model, in which their socialist ideals of inefficiency, no innovation, high rates of taxation and powerful unions reign supreme, and whose ears are deaf to the sounds of belly-laughs from countries who can understand that their politics will make the european union ship sink.

Even Sweden - a country where they tax fun have better ideas than only allowing people to work a maximum of 35 hours a week, for example. How can anyone start up a business when they are only allowed to work 4.8% of the week.

Each time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea

Thank-you, Mr Churchill. I think I'll conventional ignore your views on women and their role in society for a short period so I can focus on your quiet excellent comment. Unfortunately at the moment, we have puerile, ignorant people running our country, and the Labour government aren't much cop, so Britain is still choosing the holiday landmass as political Mecca. Mind you, there are some people here who chose Mecca as, well, Mecca and I think I prefer people allowing crazy laws to happen, rather than liberal-lefties allowing people inciting racial hatred to stay in the country and paying them, indeed.

I digress. We were talking about Churchill, and his comment that Britain is an Island, not part of the mainland, and we shouldn't forget that. Now we even have a Frenchman saying that. Maurice Druon has said that Britain's aversion to full integration means it should not be a full member of the EU, and let others get on with it. I like his sentiments. It's true - Britain does not want to hand over power of its economy to another supranational organisation (and quite why anyone would baffles me. Perhaps I should ask the Italians?), doesn't like fraud, has a former empire to trade with, and relations with America, rather than preferring to trade in a bloc and kill people in LDCs with subsidies, and is not as keen as other European countries on draconian laws and regulations set out to shoot SMEs in the head and make sure that we can never compete on the world stage without market interference. I say Britain doesn't like that. Clearly, our tin pot government does....

However, I have another point to say to M Druon. Yes, if you look at the recent YouGov poll, 62% of people asked wanted a referendum and 50% of those wanted to replace the EU nonsense with a free trade agreement, with 17% not sure so in Britain you can say we are taking a realistic attitude to the political union. However, M Druon, there was an important referendum in your back yard not so long ago, where, if I recall correctly, the majority of people in France made it perfectly clear that they did not like the way the EU was going by rejecting the European Constitution. The Constitution makes the EU responsible not just for 70% of domestic legislation anymore, but about 90% and is the furthest integration in Europe ever suggested. But the French and the Dutch say 'no'...Maybe they want to chose the open sea every now and again?

Summer's here again!

And I'm making the most of it. In fact, i am writing this post with aa lolly in one hand - strawberry, yummy.

I think one of the best things about summer, apart from ice creams and not having to wear boring boots to work all the time is that politicians go on holiday and stop fucking things up. There have been a distinct lack of stupid, damaging things done and said whilst both parliaments have been in recess which leads me to wonder, if the presence of MPs is directly related to bad things not happening, maybe they should be there as little as possible.

Politics isn't exactly hip and happening with young, or indeed, most people at the moment. Derek from Big Brother was in a recent poll about who should be the next tory leader. The reason they included him, I suspect, was that they needed to be sure of at least one name that those questioned would have heard of.

Cricket - isn't it lovely. But why do they stop for tea, and if they do stop, do they actually have tea? Earl Grey and cucumber sandwiches with the crusts cut off, followed by home made scones, clotted cream and jam?

a true shoe-a-holic

Back in the black wedges today.

I popped into London Tayne to do a little bit of this and that today: you know, trying to sort my life out. Anyway, I was just off to St James's Park to eat my lunch when I thought 'you know, Trixy, your phone has been awfully quiet'. Yes, dear friends, the little Samsung was not in my bag. Panic not, though, for I found it.

I left it in a shoe shop.....

50% want EU to be a trade zone only

Which is all very well and nice, but after my visit to the doctors surgery across the road, I couldn't give two stuffs.

Oooh, I'm in one of those moods. But seriously, where do they grow medical receptionists from? This 'lady' told me that because I came from abroad (I live across the road, literally, from the surgery) that I needed to pay £40 to see the doctor. Since when did Green Street become some dividing waterway, separating one side of lower sunbury from the other? I tried to explain that I worked in Brussels, but was on the electoral register for the house across the road, which is where I officially live, and so was not so much of a foreigner, as just slightly higher paid. I think we made it there eventually, although I noticed that when she gave me a form to fill in, she didn't give me her nice pen to use, but some crusty old biro....

So back to politics. (must we?) According to this poll by Yougov, 62% of people think we need a referendum on our continued membership of the EU, and 50% think it should become what we were told it was going to be. Namely, a trading bloc rather than a country. I hope that the government listen, and that we do get a referendum. It baffles me how for so long we have not had a say on the single most important thing affecting our country - the institution which makes 70% of our laws, and is trying to make more by implementing the constitution even though it hasn't been ratified.

I'm still not entirely convinced by free trade blocs, though. Maybe it's the development economist with me, but why stop at your neighbours and let the poor people in LDCs starve? There's a whole world out there to trade with. Think about it. Initially we get cheaper goods, they get to benefit from our technology and then their economy starts to expand. Economies expanding need legitimate, democractic governments and ways of collecting taxation, as well as a fair legal system so things develop a little more. And this is the best bit: when the world is trading, and not letting it's poor relations starve, we don't have any more concerts given by Bob Geldof, and 'celebrities' who have no fucking clue what they are talking about will stick to making shit music, instead of shit political messages.

Some irony for a rainy Wednesday

The little pink shoes were a little damp this morning, but surprisingly easy to drive in.

I was down my local hostelry Monday night, having a chat about how utterly pointless and stupid the EU was, and we got to talking about some of the laws which are never going to work, and which are so harmful to businesses, you start to wonder what the point of the EU is.

Firstly, the Working Time Directive. Now, I don't know where these bureaucrats get off telling people how long they can work for, but they do. Personally, I believe such retarded, union-led laws lead to unproductive, inefficient companies and in particular damage SMEs which are the backbone of the economy. Stop these companies from running properly and you are well on your way to fucking up an economy. But the small point of humour in this monstrosity of a document was the number of working hours it took to write and study. We voted on it, of course, in Strasbourg. But before that it went through various committees. My colleague who worked on the document spent many early mornings and late evenings trying to get amendments and voting lists done, many more hours than the maximum of 35 stipulated in the document.

And Strasbourg! My goodness, when I think of the late nights and early mornings there, because some desperate wannabe has stayed up all night submitting split votes and separate votes to gauge the general opinion of the parliament over the most suitable punctuation mark to use in an article, and they only want us to work how many hours? Thirty-five a week maximum? But I had to work 12 hours a day in strasbourg just to get the work done, and there are 4 days. 3*12 is 36, for fucks sake! This means that according to its own laws, the parliament has to shut down and members of staff can't prepare the voting lists for thursday. Actually, I'm all for that. Less crap being passed will be better for everyone.

Especially financial services. I was sent an article yesterday outlining a new form of crackpottery whereby to combat terrorist financing, financial institutions have to have and keep a record of the names of everyone who transfers money from one account to another. Have fun watching your banking costs rise, and your interest on savings fall, whilst terrorists simply find another way of transfering money.

Are you trying to make the countries of Europe the laughing stock of the world? Well, are you? Because you're going the right way about it, I can tell you.

Bring on the 7th!

I finished reading Harry Potter and the half-blood prince yesterday. What a book! The trouble with Harry Potter is, though, that we wait 2 years for a new book and then finish it in 2 days. I'm waiting for the next one with baited breath and how long until it is published? So in the mean time, I have decided to combine Harry Potter characters with some of the colourful characters in the European Union. I'm not saying they are identical comparisons as we all know, just because someone is pro a political union breaking down thousands of years of culture in Europe, it doesn't mean they are murderers. Where am I going with this, I hear you ask? Not sure, but it has to be better than the Harry Potter porn flicks my darling moist friend and I were coming up with last night. Harry Potter and the enormous orgasm may not be that much of a seller, even if it does involve a threesome between Ron, Hermione and Harry and (GBF’s choice) a Slytherin sandwich....

Obviously, the character of Harry Potter has to be taken by Nigel Farage: fighting evil (the EU) no matter what personal risks he puts himself in the way of. He's also very nifty on a broomstick, I hear. Wise Dumbledore will have to be Roger Knapman. Quiet, calm and full of good ideas, with the ability to mobilise the troops when required. Roger Helmer is going to take the role of Cornelius Fudge who means well, but gets things wrong quite often (like being a Tory and joining the EPP, thinking Eurosceptics will have some say...dur). Hagrid is going to be played by our dear farmer and animal lover, Neil Parish..lovely country bumpkin and not the sharpest ear of corn in the field? Hermione has to be played by the wonderful and clever Theresa Villiers. She's a sharp cookie, and just because she isn't an all-out rebel, doesn't mean she's not fighting for the cause.

In the red corner we have Neil Kinnock as Lord Voldemort. I'm thinking African fisheries policies, trade deals where LDCs suffer immensely at the hands of those determined to make the EU a political union, and stuff who gets in the way, and a Commission which had to resign over fraud. Admittedly, Neil Kinnock doesn't go round the houses of those with different political opinions to himself and blow them up, but in my fluffy comparison of pro and anti EU, he's a bad egg.

Professor Snape can be played perfectly by Robert Kilroy-Silk. He says he's on your side, but looking at his past behaviour and allegiances, can you trust him? Then, he goes all out and reveals his true colours, and you realise your fears weren't misguided.

Dolores Umbridge will be played by Sarah Ludford. Blind to the real world and determined that her way is the only way, despite evidence to the contrary.

Please add your comments about other characters, in particular I need Draco and Ron. Names and reasons on the back of a postcard, please, and ten points goes to the best ones.

Cocaine found in the European Parliament

Traces of cocaine, indicating usage, have been found in 41 of 46 lavatories tested in the European Parliament. I'm not surprised, for two reasons.

1) This place is jaw-achingly dull. If you've ever been to a committee, you'll understand.

2) It certainly explains much of the 'legislation' coming out of this place, and the conduct of committees and plenary sessions. Let me explain....

From the national drugs website:

Delivering a quick and euphoric high, a blast of top quality coke can make you feel like you've just scored the winning goal in a FA Cup Final. Confidence soars through the roof, the heart thumps out a drum'n'bass crescendo, while you feel like you're on top of the world. Such is the strength of the drug, even the Grimthorpe Working Men's Club feels like a great place to be after a hefty noseful.

Side effects: You may well feel like a million dollars on coke, but to those around you, you may well appear as an arrogant, loud arsehole with your incessant gibbering and insincere waffling...

Do you see where I am going with this? I've always wondered why people like to talk so much in the Parliament and why they feel so confident making the decisions they do, particularly when they are not equipt with, say, the knowledge or expertise most of these decisions require. I am certainly not implying that everyone in the Parliament is snorting a quick line of Charlie before they hop, skip and jump into their 2 minute speech on the quality of beetroot cubes in the EU, or before they undertake a massive voting list on something they probably know little about, but it certainly makes one wonder...

My graduation...

Was yesterday. Won't go on about it too much, but just to say that it was a lovely day with lots of lovely canapes and champagne and I feel very proud of myself. Particularly since I did so little work. But there we go.

It was also the first official outing of my shoes, pictured above. If anyone is looking to buy me a small token gift, anything similar would be greatly appreciated. particularly these ones....




My mum managed to find her way to the bar rather too frequently for anyone's liking and ended up sitting by the corner of a wigwam, bottle clasped firmly in her hand and talking to students like she was one of them. Bless. The funniest bit was, however, when my father came to collect her and she informed him that for their next holiday she wanted to go backpacking.....

It's been a while, have you missed me?

The shoes I am wearing today are something else. Beautiful baby pink pointy-toe sling backs with not so much a kitten heel as a cat heel. The Ginas are with me, waiting to be taken home and worn to the graduation tomorrow!

But enough of my classy footwear. I have finally found the time, and the inclination to write my last entry in the room 101 section.

I was going through my book shelf the other day and I stumbled upon two old favourites which I haven't read for a while. The First was Captain Corelli's mandolin and the second was Charlotte Grey. Everything about these books was fantastic - the characters were so beautifully described and real, they could have been people you knew. The stories were gripping and unpredictable. Indeed with both, there was the bitter-sweet yet strangely satisfying ending which allowed you to believe that it could have been a true story, because they don't end with big loves and butterflies and whatever else people in love have. The language used, particularly in Mandolin is so rich and detailed, Delia Smith could use it in the Summer Collection.

Another thing these two books have in common is that films were made from them. Or maybe, bits of them. That is what I wanted to put into Room 101.

HOLLYWOOD ENDINGS! ARGH!

How can it be that after all that happened on the Island of Kefalonia, they would end happily ever after? Why does it have to end happily ever after - these people met during war time and the ending illustrates how people can get things wrong through assumptions and appearances, rather than trying to find out the truth. Charlotte Grey went to France to find her boyfriend, she didn't just fancy a jolly to the war torn area and whilst she was there pick up some french cheese and some lovely fruit covered tarts. And she certainly didn't risk everything for love to run off with some communist! Why do Hollywood film producers think that everything has to end happily ever after? Surely it's more satisfying to know that Charlotte went back to her boyfriend whom she risked so much for, and settle for a quiet life in Britain than some stupid affaire which you just know was going to end with some slutty blonde and a haystack.

Hollywood, these books are best sellers for a reason. If you tell us that the films are adaptations of the books, then don't give us a sugar-coated 'we wish this had happened' version. Life isn't like the movies, but sometimes it is like the books.

Thursday's child....

Is Junker! In he goes! wee, plop.

The PM of Luxembourg is going to hold a referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution despite it being dead as a dodo. Or, indeed, a doo-doo.

I heard yesterday that all 55 MPs in Luxembourg voted to establish the Treaty, with 5 not taking part in the vote. Maybe they found something more worthwhile to do with their time than vote on something which is notgoing to be taking place. How much money are they planning to waste on asking the people of Luxembourg, a country with a population of 400,000 (less than Croydon, but far nicer, I should imagine) whether they want the European Union to become even further integrated and federal, when those in France and Holland - i.e millions of people - have said that it's not going to happen.

Apparently, Junker will resign if he loses the referendum. The 'no' vote currently stands at 45% but it rising, so there's a good chance for him he won't have to fire himself. But still, Junker, I think you're missing the point....

Two today, since I was so busy yesterday

Tuesday:

Today, I am putting the Economic and Monetary Committee of the European Parliament into room 101, excluding Dr Whittaker, Lars Wohlin and Peter Skinner, and the secretariat, who are fabulous.

Why? Because I'm not entirely sure they aren't a sabotage camp set up by multi-nationals to squeeze out small businesses, and make our entire world sponsered by McDonalds and Glade plug ins.

The other day, I was taking notes on a report and a member started talking about economies of scale. "great", said she, the Economics graduate. "Let's see what they think about this." Well, nothing. They had clearly just opened a GCSE economics text book, picked a phrase out of it to make it seem as though they use something about economics, and then failed to continue this line of thought. Why did they fail to follow it? I think it maybe because they don't actually know what economies of scale are. I firnly believe that these kind of policies should be left to experts and the governments of nation states, who can be held directly accountable.

I'm sure they mean well, I'm sure they are trying their best.

Wednesday:

Superglue. Have just stuck my fingers together.

It's monday, I can't cope...

...with talking about anything which is going to use more than 5 brain cells. I was going to talk about Tony Blair and his new job being the President of the EU (I bet that caused some frantic panting on his behalf - fantasy or what?!?) but I´m bored of it already. So, this week I am going to do a special feature on things I would put into Room 101. Five items, so one each day of the week.

Monday is:

Geraniums.









They are the scum underclass of flowers. Always to be found in the biology department, half dead on the windowsill, or in window boxes of hotels of the kind where the cleanliness of bedlinen is not to be taken for granted. The colours are hidous: both on their own and together. Salmon pink is bad enough, but with RED? I ask you. Mother nature is clearly not a gay man.

One thing I won't be putting into Room 101, though, is my new Gina shoes. They are the highlight of my year.

I'd keep it strapped to your body in future, Miss...

I'm back. And it was more complicated than I had originally planned, because I had my wallet and passport removed from my possession whilst I was in France. How nice of these people, on seeing that my bag was a little too heavy, to make it lighter for me...

I managed to get back to the UK fairly easily, which was greatly appreciated as I didn't want to live in an empty office for a couple of weeks, living off the dust mites hibernating in the upholstry. Getting back to Brussels, however, was a different story.

I think it's fair to say that customer service is not a required skill at the UKPA in London. Having been slumped in a wheelchair at a casualty desk in Belgium with a receptionist who was 'too busy' to see me, I thought I had seen it all. But the sheer bloody-mindedness of the fuckers at Victoria left me speechless. FOUR VISITS it took me to get a passport, with problems ranging from them not being convinced I had an appointment, even though I had a booking reference, to my friend not being able to fit his double-barrelled name on my passport photo all on one line, as he did on the passport form. "You should have friends with shorter names", I was helpfully told by one jumped up little jobsworth called Mr Stick-it-up-your-arse Paperpusher who refused to sign my form.

I have two degrees and an IQ of 148. I should be able to manage to fill in a form, but these days you need a degree in fuckwittage specialising in anally retentive behaviour to get anything out of this government. I swear, I'm not letting this new passport out of my sight: I can't go through that again....

What part of 'no' don't you understand??!

Fantastic black wedge sandals from LK Bennet - How come no one told me there was a duty free shop in Terminal 1?

It's been a while since I've updated my blog, because I've been a busy little bee. Last week I flew off to Paris to hear the results of the French referendum on the EU Constitution in the place where it was all happening! Unfortunately, I decided to finish off my bottle of wine in the restaurant first and so was in a taxi practising my French (you know the kind - ou est la plume de ma tante) when the results happened. Am I sad and disappointed? No! Because 1) The French told ol' sproutland exactly which orifice to stick their 'tidying up exercise' into and 2) There was much champagne to be drunk.

Then, of course, there was the result of the Dutch referendum, which was no less delightful but did involve less drinking. We were in Brussels for that, gate crashed the socialist press conference (and thank goodness for them that we did - someone needed to turn up!) and then toddled along to the Commission to hear what the big knobs had to say about another country saying 'NO!'.

Well, what did they have to say. Things that made me want to shake them, if I'm honest. Apparently, the Dutch only voted no because they were unhappy with domestic issues and the French voted no because they weren't aware of the facts. This is despite all citizens receiving a copy of the document. Maybe, just maybe, they were upset because despite a hugely unfair campaign, with the 'yes - hand your country to unelected bureaucrats' getting 85% of press coverage and gazillions more spondolies to spend, sanity prevailed.

So, Mr Kinnock (yes, I heard you on the BBC the next morning...for God's sake man, you lost an election to John Major how much lower can you sink?), Mr Barroso and Mr Junker. We don't need educating. We don't need our tax money to be spent on propaganda, we don't need to be patronised into being told how to think. We want you to listen to us and understand that no means NO. We don't want a constitution for Europe, we want individual sovereign states who govern their own country. Stop strangling us with regulation, stop taking our money, stop punishing the third world with your agricultural and trade policies and let us run our own country!

Jokers

What a joke…

So the European Parliament is a check on the executive, is it? Well, correct me if I'm wrong but I can't see how the Commission and the group leaders in the EP, excluding IND/DEM can possibly believe in democracy if they think that MEPs have no right to question the guardians of the Treaties on their actions.

I'm sure you are all aware of the story now, but just in case…

Way back at the beginning of February Nigel Farage wrote to all the Commissioners requesting information about gifts and hospitality they had received since being in office. Well, perfectly acceptable question which would be answered in any proper democratic parliament throughout the world. But the European Union isn't democratic and so they decided to simply ignore the question for a month, and then a few weeks ago sent a letter saying that it wasn't anyone's business. Well excuse me for my impertinence, but I think it is!

So all channels trying to get answers from the Commission were ignored, and the only channel left to get Barrosso to explain himself was by a motion of censure. It's important to remember that the motion wasn't accusing anyone of wrongdoing: the purpose of it was to use what little power the Parliament has to hold the Commission to account. That is their role - the EP can't propose legislation, has a tricky time stopping any legislation which the Commission want passed but it can instruct that representatives of the European Union are honest and transparent in their dealings.

That is why this whole thing frustrates me so much. They had a genuine opportunity to try and make this place more open and transparent - which of course they all say they want to do - and all the group leaders could do was threaten MEPs with action if they signed the motion, fiddle speaking time so only the group leaders got to speak, and then spend half an hour slagging off the one man who is doing what he was elected to do. Their reason? They are afraid of anyone criticising their beloved fantasy with cruel accusations that the European Union is corrupt, undemocratic and is not the answer to all the questions. Anyone with the slightest criticism is jeered and booed from MEPs sitting at their desks in the hemicycle, delusions of grandeur clouding their judgement of the real world. And so close to the French referendum, which is looking increasingly like a NON - well it must be a mean piece of electioneering by monsieur Farage in his relentless campaign to burst the bubble of the EU wet dream.

One man who needs to be mentioned is Roger Helmer. A Tory MEP who is incredibly popular among party members and who has now been thrown out of the pro-EU EPP for doing what he was elected to do. By signing the motion requesting more transparency and he wasn't jumping sides to UKIP, he was making it clear that he wanted this institution to be more accountable and to try to winkle out the inbred corruption. His speech in the plenary session made it clear that he didn't want to be told how to represent his constituency members by someone from Germany who has different political views to him. I thought the Conservatives were elected on a eurosceptic manifesto, but forgive me if that was just a way of getting more votes….

Well Done Roger, and well done the others who disobeyed the whip and voted with their conscience.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/26/wtory26.xml

The greatness of Katy

The greatness of Katy (who incidentally wears size 10 shoes)

I'm not sure how many of you are aware of Katy Davies, but if you are not, then you should be. She is a lady of great wonder and beauty, with breasts so big they could solve the problem of the hole in the ozone layer.

Her professional attitude is one to marvel at: I have never known anyone play solitaire and minesweeper with such a degree of skill and talent as she (except maybe myself…). I gaze in wonder at her ability to master the most complex conversations on web messenger, and her telephone manner is a delight to listen to: like angels singing sweet music in ones ear.

In short, she is the bench mark towards which all women should aim.

Hmmmm...

Black boots today - am in casual mode.

Now, I'm not sure how up to date you guys are with the press, but you may have heard about Mandy and his boss Barroso and their luxury holidays. Well, a motion was put forward at the opening of the most recent plenary session in strasbourg to put this debate on the agenda. The result, for a debate discussing transparency and openness in an organisation controlling the lives and money of millions? Only 28 people voted in favour, including only two Tories: Heaton-Harris and Helmer. I'm almost willing to forgive CHH for purchasing his ties at Tescos....

Nevertheless, they had a chance to prove if they were prepared to stand up and act accord to how they were elected when a motion of censure was established for MEPs to sign. To their credit, despite being threatened by their German president of the dripping-wet European Peoples Party, 6 Tories signed the motion requesting that the President of the Commission be required to acknowledge details of gifts and huge lumps of tax payers cash going to his buddies. But what happened to the rest of them? There are more than 6 Tory MEPs in this concrete dump, surely they could represent their electorate and vote for finding out what is happening to their money? Or maybe they'd just rather keep quiet and make sure they get a nice position high on the list for next time round. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that after Barroso and his family went on a EUR20,000 cruise their hosts received a regional grant from the EU for EUR 10.3m...

As for the rest of the Tories, they really are euroseptic rather than eurosceptic. The more I see of their behaviour in the Parliament, the more glad I am I left that backward organisation which only appears to be a home for spineless middle-managers and thick tubby blondes.

Not that I favour the sandal-wearing brigade or the champagne socialists any more than I do the Tories. It's just that at least they have the guts to stand up and say that they want to sell our country down the river.

ooh, I feel much better now I have that off my chest. I may even get on with something productive, like drinking a beer in the sunshine with my Swedish colleagues.

Back to the drawing board?

Election over, time to think?

After all that work, my party of choice managed to get no seats in the Westminster Parliament. There was a big increase in the number of votes achieved, but nothing compared to the huge success we had last year during the European Elections.

Am I despondant? Not really. Satisfied that my opinions of the general public are correct and also even more certain that universal sufferage is a bad idea, but there is simply too much to be getting on with.

The three old parties were very successful in keeping the big question of Europe away from the headlines (ironic, really) but in a few weeks time Tony Blair is going to have a wet dream when he becomes President of Europe. Sadly for him it's only for six months, but that's long enough for the twat-extraordinaire to make enough stupid mistakes (Prescott as Deputy Prime Minister, anyone? You know he's made many...) for questions to be asked about where the EU is going. Admittedly these questions have been asked and answered honestly in most other EU countries, but the British population will insist on keeping their heads in the sand.

So good luck France in your fight against the EU man-eating octopus (a title of a porn film, shurely?) and good luck you genuine eurosceptics in making Tony squirm and shit his pants.

Tell me on a sunday

todays shoes: pretty flip flops I thought I had left at the bastard ex's house

No bank holiday for me, am off to Kent again tomorrow for more fun canvassing. Yet was also out on a sunday in my local area where yet again I discovered how 'on side' people are about the European Question. Will they vote according to their beliefs, though?

If you frequently rely on the media for your news you would be forgiven for thinking that there were only three parties running in this election, possibly four if you are silly enough to watch the BBC (I'm thinking Green Party here). Today's subject for why people are so bored with the election is why the media are choosing to bore people even further with their coverage of the election.

2. Do News International get a big cheque from Tony?

All they seem to do is bicker and fight - but why when they are so similar. Because they are so similar, is my conclusion. Mike says Tony is a liar over the war. Okay, Tony might be but little me managed to come to that conclusion over the war without being involved in MI5 and reading the transcripts from the Security Council. Charlie looks even more like an alcoholic /AIDS victim and has the mistaken view that his party is voted for by sensible, informed people rather than liberal sandal-wearing lefties who haven't quite gotten to grips with economic policy and is slagging the other two off for, well, anything. Tony is slagging Mike off for wanting to make public services more efficient without understanding that this can mean that spending goes down without services slipping. (Can they get much worse - that's for another day).

Minor issues when 70% of our laws come from Brussels, though, chaps.

Yet the party with the most interesting and different policies is getting completely ignored. In this bogus election the one party offering for Britain to be run from Westminster without giving billions of pounds to inefficient and corrupt Brussels, far reaching economic policies (drawn up by some economists!) and realistic ways to improve public services and stop the 'free ride' Britain has become, came behind the SNP when it came to the launch of their manifesto. Whether it's the newspapers, the tv or the radio it's the 'big three' getting coverage and the parties with something new and different to say getting nothing but frustrated. It's a shame, because people out there want to know if something different is being proposed and want to know the truth. evens on turnout this year being lower than last year!

Are the media scared that people will actually realise the truth about Europe after they've been lied to for so many years? Even the other day the Sun was telling people not to vote Lib Dem because they want the EU Constitution. Hello editor! Labour is leading that campaign!

Things would be a lot different if I were in charge, that's for certain. More shoe sales, for one.

When will it be over?

Anyone who is an avid follower of my blog (Emma) will know that I have been strangely absent recently. My reason? The General Election.

Now, I am all for democracy: People should use the opportunity they have to decide how their country is run, but I have noticed in this election how monumentally bored people have become in it.

We've been doing very well down in the constituency I am working in, trying to get our candidate elected but so often when I call on someone, they just don't want to know. So from now untilI run out of things to write about I shall focus on why people are less and less interested in voting. Today, we have:

The three main parties are all the same

What's so different about the Lib-Lab-Con? Nothing, really. When 70% of our laws come from Brussels and they decide so many issues, such as immigration and the price of food products what's the difference between voting for any of them? Yes, the Tories may say they are anti-EU but then why are some of their MEPs using their secretarial allowance money to finance the pro-Constitution propaganda? Labour have gone along way from their withdrawalist manifesto of 1983 and the Lib Dems are not of this earth, wanting further integration. I therefore conclude that it's a three horse race between the 'want ins', the 'want outs' and the 'I don't want to knows'.

I hope the 'want outs' win but I think the 'I don't want to knows' may do so...

Something to make you giggle

shoes: black pointed kitten heels with an irritating squeak in the heel

http://stablesound.co.uk/mp3/camillaqueen.mp3

Any sense in Strasbourg?

todays shoes: brown furry boots

Yesterday I went into town with Mr B, since we were getting cabin fever. Not surprising in this place, where you can arrive at 8am and not leave for 12 hours, by which time it is dark and all one wishes to do is consume vast G&Ts. Yesterday, however, I realised what a beautiful city Strasbourg was: the atmosphere, architecture, restaurants and bars. It really is infinitely superior to Brussels which is drab at best and has a quirky nickname for the dog shit which smothers the pavements.

Last session MEPs voted on whether we should be in Strasbourg at all or stay in the centre of bureaucracy the whole time. Only 15 MEPs disagreed with this suggestion and considering my comments above you may wonder why. Let me tell you. The travelling circus use the Strasbourg Parliament for four days per month - which works out to forty days per year after holidays. On top of the expense of heating, maintainence, lighting, guarding, cleaning and staffing a massive unnecessary building there is an additional cost of £100m just to cart equipment and bits of paper to and from Brussels. Then, of course, you have to pay for the MEPs and their staff to get there, and to stay in hotels. And who pays for this? The good old tax payer, of course.

As generous as I am with my credit card when it comes to lovely little boutiques, I am severely against this huge waste of money which could be spend in Member States doing something useful - maybe some research into currently incurable diseases? I'm even more against it when the overwhelming decision taken by MEPs (a surprise in itself that they did anything sensible, when you see some of them) was vetoed by the French. Why? Je ne sais pas. Puisqu'ils sont français?

Just call me Imelda

Todays shoes: Pea green heeled ballet style

Right. I'm sitting here in my office in Strasbourg now work is over wondering why I have started this blog. I think mainly it's going to be a good way for me to work off my frustrations about the European Union, whilst being informative at the same time.

Why shoes? Because I love them. In a world full of pain and misery they make me happy.