and in with the old...
So considering that the 'new' cabinet is made up of a group of talentless wankers, they are going to get lots and lots of things wrong. Just like the last lot. So who will be the first to go?
A friend informed me that my comment about Gordon Brown was so beautiful and romantic, I really should write sonnets. So I have had a crack at my first one. It's entitled,
The love of Polly and Gordon
Dedicated to Polly Toynbee and the new Prime Minister
The lady wept as she listened to his voice
Drone on in his monotone about 'tax and spend'
They think the country we will mend
And then they will rejoice.
Dear Gordon, how I love you so
Said Polly, who of course you know,
Is the guardian of all that's right
If you're really not very bright.
Come whisper prudence in my ear
And feel my heart start to beat fast
My love for you won't be surpassed
No matter what you hear.
Come fill me with your big hard taxes
I, like the nation, will be on my knees
But unlike them I want to please
It's not just my legs the lady waxes
Ithangyew
*comment about Gordon was 'Gordon Brown is a one-eyed gorgon who likes to rape people with his taxes. You can hear the romance dripping off every syllable
Whilst we've all been out having fun (or sleeping if you're a sick bunny like me) Tony Blair has pretended that he's stuck to his Red Lines (I initially thought he said Red Lions which would have been much more exciting) whilst giving the EU a legal personality.
We already know that the ECJ is the highest court in the land but, as DK explains rather well, this new treaty goes even further. Quelle Surprise?
Our researcher friend made it clear that, in his opinion, from a full reading of the text, that the Constitution treaty, for the first time, explicitly says that member states are subservient to the EU Institutions (which become a legal entity). In other words the EU becomes the supreme central authority, and member parliaments merely subsidiary local authorities.
Need I point out that I consider this to be an appalling—if predictable—development?
Yes, thank you to Chippy and Jan for getting me to answer some questions!
I will do so now before I go to bed with a gorgeous black man with green eyes. Well, I say man. I actually mean cat...
What were you doing ten years ago?
I was in the first year of my GCSEs...where did time go?
What were you doing one year ago?
I was moving back to England
Five snacks you enjoy.
The Boy has gotten me hooked on Pom Bears. I also like cherries (just had them for dinner, in fact), chocolate of most descriptions, bagels with marmite and bananas
Five songs to which you know all the lyrics.
I have NO idea! Possibly none. Possibly a couple by Kylie or Madonna or something incredibly cool. Yes! I know all the words to 'Vogue' including the spoken bit in the middle.
Five things you would do if you were a millionaire.
Invest it wisely so I could get richer, buy a house, buy an Aston Martin DB9 in Gunmetal, have liposuction, give lots to a cats home. (I don't think I even need to mention in that that I would buy shoes...)
Five bad habits.
smoking, tidying up my nails when I should be concentrating, tapping my fingers on any surface so they make a noise because I have long nails, pouring half drunk cups of tea out of my office window and slouching around in my jim jams
Five things you like doing.
I'm not writing that on here!
Five things you would never wear again.
If it looked that bad to start with I wouldn't have worn it.
Five favorite toys
My rabbit ginger which my dad gave me, and also Pengy the Penguin which he brought back from the Falkland Islands, Arthur the Bear which The Boy bought me and is just very cute, and two special ones which I am not mentioning on here.
So there. That okay?
Now, I'm going to get other people to do it...Dizzy is going to have to, as is The Tin Drummer, I'm going to make Belle de Jure have a go and Croydonian and Lady MacLeod. Enjoy!
Am not entirely sane of mind. The reason for this is that I am on a rather interesting cocktail of (legal) drugs for the range of symptoms I am suffering from.
They're quite exciting and they're making all kinds of pretty shapes in my vision. It really does make dull things more exciting to look at when there are pretty patterns in front of them! They've also made the headache I've had for what seems a million years go away, but I'm still finding it quite tricky to breathe. It was just as well I didn't go to Brussels really, as it's been quite a kerfuffle over there.
Got a phone call from colleague who is out there that the Belgian police, instructed by we can only guess had ordered a peaceful protest to the new EU Treaty up for discussion to be taken down.
When they asked why they were taking the peaceful protest down, which was placed on an area called 'Area of Free Expression' the officer in charge said "because I can". That's nice, isn't it! He was also asked whether or not the removal of any opposition to the new EU Treaty, which is essentially the EU Constitution but without the dreaded C-word (yes, yes it is. Everyone else in the EU is quite prepared to say so except our lying, cheating politicians who should all be hung, drawn and quartered. Even Merkel herself and the hateful Giscard D'Estaing)was politically motivated, which he refused to answer.
He threatened to arrest three MEPs there: UKIP leader Nigel Farage, the party chairman Dr John Whittaker and the London MEP Gerard Batten. When it was pointed out that they had immunity as elected representatives of some 2.6 million British people the police said they didn't care and that they would "put them in a cell for 12 hours and sort it out there."
I wonder if they would bother to tell them what they were being arrested for? For not agreeing with the Euro-Elite? For having the audacity to point out that sneaking around for months holding secret meetings with civil servants, Ministers being called in front of MPs and not answering their questions about what the Treaty is going to say and for ignoring the calls of people across the EU that they don't want any more integration is a bad thing?
They were asked on what authority they were taking the protest away from, and the answer that came was "a higher authority." That's nice. Someone just says, 'take down the perfectly peaceful opposition to what we are doing here as the TV cameras are on it and they're representing the views of rather too many people' and it is done.
I really do wonder what people think they are doing. Like my favourite journalist George Pascoe-Watson when he refuses to mention UKIP in anything, even when talking about the EU, and in the paper today has an article by William Hague who has completely sold out on the EU, talking about the damage the treaty might do. But hold on, William Hague thinks the EU is a good idea! Ah, well. Why should politicians have to stand by what they promised the electorate when there are political editors out there quite willing to ignore facts and pander to their needs to convince eurorealists that they aren't the EU loving numpties that we know they are.
But back to Brussels. Or not, in my case. On the table is, once again, the possibility that Britain give up her veto in Justice and Home Affairs. Blair has said that he won't do this, but this is a man who took us into an illegal war, told us the EU Constitution was like the Beano and thinks that this country is in a good shape, so quite frankly I'd sooner believe my dead grandma than him.
A quick summary of the main issues on this from one of my previous posts:
Transferring Justice and Home Affairs issues into the first pillar would mean that all proposals to harmonise criminal law across the EU and matters of police cooperation would:
• Be agreed on by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers
• Come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice which has until now had only a very restricted say on third pillar matters
• Gradually confer more power over criminal matters to the EU. Once the EU gains competence in a certain area the member states lose the right to propose new laws in that field of law
• Give the EU Commission the sole right to initiate legislation in these matters. By gaining a monopoly over the right to propose laws on criminal justice and police cooperation the EU Commission would enjoy greater power than it would have received from the EU Constitution under which it would have had to share the right to propose new laws.
With decisions being made by the Council of Ministers, it has already turned the British Constitution on its head, by allowing ministers - supposed 'servants' if one knows Latin these days - to dictate to Parliament. Now, even if a British minister votes against a proposal in the Council, he cannot put it out to pasture. Instead, the British Parliament would have to enact laws made by foreign ministers, unelected by the British public which were not supported by the British representative.
EGF responds to the need to rapidly conduct all the spectrum of civil security actions, either on its own or in parallel with the military intervention, by providing a multinational and effective tool.
Trixy is a bit miffed, so she's going to have a rant. Why am I so miffed? I hear you cry?
Because of this greasy, orange, contemptible canker:
who has taken it upon himself to tell our defunct outgoing Prime Minister to 'ignore popular opinion in the UK'.
Erm, what?
Tony Blair was elected by, admittedly the minority, of people in this country to represent them and their views, and therefore his job is not to push ahead with signing a Treaty which may well secure a new job for him but would hand over yet more sovereignty to Brussels but to listen to what they say.
And they are saying that they don't want this Treaty, and that they want a referendum. A referendum which we have been repeatedly promised, and yet have not had since 1975. That means people like me, and even Nigel Farage MEP, have not had a chance to inform our government what we think of the EU in a straight forward question.
Mr Barroso was talking to the European Parliament yesterday when he said:
You know about the UK, and the respect I have for your country. We have to stand up in front of our national public opinions, not give up to some of the populisms we have in our member states.
Populism: policies which appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
Why do we do people who murder their own family members in cold blood the dignity of calling them "honour killings?"
Yet again in the news we have the story of a young woman who was murdered by her father and uncle for doing nothing more than falling in love with someone. My parents haven't always liked my boyfriends (in hindsight, they were probably right but at least my taste has improved with age) but they didn't see it as their business to get involved.
Poor Banaz Mahmod, however, did not have the good fortune to be born to parents who weren't evil, nasty, bigoted arseholes. For her body was found three months after her disappearance, decomposed after she had been murdered by her own family.
There again, my parents aren't very religious, nor are they Muslim, which is the religion where most of these murderers seem to come from. And no, I'm not being an 'Islamophobe' or any other new terms given to people who speak out against things they don't like have been branded. Like Female Genital Mutilation and laws which say that rape must either be proved by the testimony of four men or by a confession from the perpetrator, they are most common in Islamic countries or groups.
Let's expand the last bit further: If a woman has unlawful sexual intercourse, she can be put to death by stoning. If she has been raped and, naturally, her testimony is not sufficient for evidence, then she can be killed by the state for being a victim.
The Hudood Ordinances are a set of laws in Pakistan intended to make the criminal justice system conform with Islamic law. These laws cover offences including Zina crimes (unlawful sexual intercourse including adultery and rape) and Qazf (wrongful accusation of Zina crimes)
According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, every two hours a woman is raped in Pakistan and every eight hours a woman is subjected to gang rape. The frequency of rape is thought to be much higher but many rapes remain unreported due to a combination of social taboos, discriminatory laws and victimization by the police. Meanwhile, Pakistani law is punishing victims of rape as though they were criminals while the perpetrators go free.
According to Ms Sood, who specialises in Asian family cases, "honour crimes of some sort" whether or not they resulted in death, were becoming more common in the UK.
"But certainly honour crimes are being perpetrated in the hundreds every year,"
Can anyone tell me what is honourable about them? Why are we calling them that when it's murder? Why are we giving these people any kind of an excuse because of their religious and cultural background? It's illegal in this country to kill people, regardless of whether or not their actions may bring 'shame' on the family, and as these people are living in this country they should abide by those laws. Fine
We're all used to the government and the EU telling us how to run our lives, and small businesses how to run their business (even though I always thought he who paid the piper called the tune, but there we go) but even jaded Trixy thought this was appalling:
The Commission for Racial Equality in Wales says it will write to Thomas Cook asking the firm to explain why staff have been asked not to speak Welsh.
Staff at the travel agents' Bangor shop in Gwynedd have been told all work conversations must be in English.
A company statement said: "Thomas Cook requests that all staff speak English when discussing work-related matters in the work place.
"This ensures clear communication at all times and is respectful to team members who do not speak other languages.
"Thomas Cook employs staff from many cultural backgrounds, therefore the company appreciates its staff may want to talk to colleagues in other languages for anything that is not business related".
Well, there's a bit of a to-do going on over at Chez Iain today!
It seems that Mr Dale has been told that the Sunday Lobby were given a story on Brown regarding terrorism but they were not allowed to tell the opposition about it to get comments.
Brown's spinners told these papers* that they would only get the story if they agreed not to carry any quotes from David Davis, Nick Clegg or any other opposition spokesman. Not only that, they weren't even allowed to tell the Tories or LibDems about the very existence of the story. Now, have a look a those links in the above para again. It's not difficult to spot that not a single one of the stories contains a quote from David Davis or Nick Clegg? Coincidence? No.
Old Trix was rather fuming the other day when she heard the comments by Cardinal Keith O'Brien that the abortion laws were responsible for the equivalent of 'two Dunblane massacres a day" and that we should all stop the "wanton killing of innocents."
I think people should stop killing innocent people but a foetus isn't an 'innocent person'. It's a foetus until it is born and the rights of the woman carrying that foetus should be paramount. It's her body, it should be her right to choose and that's that.
I read today that the new darling of the Tory Blog Boys, Nadine Dorries, thinks that abortion should be limited to 21 weeks instead of 24 which I see as a little unnecessary.
But Ann Winterton wants all women who ask for an abortion to have compulsory counselling on the grounds that women who have abortions are more likely to suffer from mental health problems.
I don't really think that's a good idea. If a woman wants counselling, then it is available, but making them have it, and then wait a week before any treatment is basically trying to make them not have an abortion. Also, surely the earlier a woman has the abortion, then the less traumatic it is for her, and the easier the operation is.
Julia Millington, political director of the Pro-Life Alliance, backed moves in the Winterton bill for counselling and a cooling off period as a means of encouraging more women to rule out an abortion.
The Abortion Act of 1967 was based on lies and more lies. It was an appallingly drafted piece of legislation which, under intense pressure from the abortion rights lobby, allowed the present day situation of abortion used as a form of contraception to occur.
It's Russian week here at Chez Trixy, and I have just seen a comment by the Russian President himself that I rather agree with:
After Britain allowed a significant number of crooks, suspicious characters and terrorists to gather on its territory, it ... endangered the life and health of Britain's own subjects, and all the blame for that rests with Britain.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, not such a darling of the West, has said that Russia cannot be held responsible for any retaliatory steps they may take in response to what they call the 'new arms race'.
The US, they say, has started this second round of brinkmanship because they want to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech republic to counter threats from 'rogue states' such as Iran and North Korea.
Last Tuesday, Russia tested an RS-24 missile that successfully struck its target 3,400 miles away.
Russia has also been criticised for selling weapons, including surface to air missiles, to Iran.
Putin says that the threat from Iran is 'non-existent' which Iran has backed up, describing the planned deployment as the "joke of the year", adding that Iranian missiles were not capable of reaching Europe.
Putin said,
We are being told the anti-missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?
Posts
All Comments
