Communism good, Fascism bad?

According to the EU, anyway.

Once again the people of Austria have spoken and the big winners this time were the far right parties. Trixy remembers back in 1999 the outrage at the legislative elections in the media over people using their democratic vote to elect a party who were anti immigration and anti EU. This, of course, resulted in sanctions from the EU who only like left wing extremists:

In 2000, Haider's Freedom Party and the People's Party joined to form a coalition government. This caused widespread outrage both in Austria and the rest of Europe. The heads of government of the other fourteen EU members decided to cease cooperation with the Austrian government, as it was felt in many countries that the cordon sanitaire against coalitions with parties considered as right-wing extremists, which had mostly held in Western Europe since 1945, had been breached. For several months, other national leaders refused to shake hands and socialize with members of the Schüssel government.

In February 2000 the European Parliament debated the Council Presidency objections to Haider:

Portuguese Minister for European Affairs, Francisco SEIXAS DA COSTA, began the debate for the Council by setting out the position of the other 14 member states towards the possibility of the Freedom Party joining the Austrian government. No bilateral links would be promoted or accepted between the 14 and Austria, he said, if the Freedom Party entered the government and Austrian ambassadors would only be received at a technical level.. The inclusion of the Freedom Party in a government in Vienna, he said, would mean a failure to respect the common values of the EU. He believed that the comments of the party's leader Jörg HAIDER on issues such as the Nazis and immigrants were clearly contrary to these essential values. Answering the charge that this represented interference in Austria's internal affairs and the free choice of its voters Mr Da Costa stated that the great majority of Austrians were opposed to the Freedom Party and that fundamental human rights were no longer simply part of the internal affairs of member states. The EU was not just an economic entity but had underlying principles of democracy. The choice of a government including the Freedom Party could not be without consequences, he concluded.

In the debate by MEPs, UKIP's Jeffrey Titford spoke up to say that whilst he did not agree with some of the views held by the Freedom Party it was not the role of the EU to interfere with the internal elections of democratic states. "What would happen, I ask, if the first few MPs that UKIP had went into a coalition with a Conservative government? Would you want to impose sanctions then?" To which, British Lab MEPs shouted out 'yes'...

Sanctions were removed when the coalition removed their opposition to the European Union. The anti-immigration stuff was allowed, it was their objection to the hideous monstrosity which is the EU that they had a problem with.

60% of people in Austria voted for parties which don't agree with the Lisbon Treaty, but it's fairly pointless since the country has already ratified it. Of course, if the people of Ireland vote NO again (and doesn't that just really make you want to go and shake europhiles until they show signs of actually grasping democracy: they can only accept democratic votes if it produces and answer they're in favour of. But if the people speak up and say 'NO' to an aspect of their sick, twisted, dangerously socialist minds they are in uproar and start blaming the 'ignorance of the voter' and 'the lies of the opposition'.

And why should the people of Ireland vote again? If the result had been yes there would not have been one fucking Commissioner admitting to the lies, damned lies and abuse of the tax payer through propaganda which achieved the result, and calling for a second vote.

Because that's the problem with the EU which people simply aren't getting to grips with. And they really should be. Straight bananas and ladder legislation are just symptoms of the sickening disease which is European Federalism. Like Ebola it eats away at the host until all that is left is a lifeless body, killed by a million directives.

Austrian people must learn to understand that whilst they might not like mass immigration into their country, might want back power handed over by their puppet leaders to the EU, they simply aren't allowed it. Just as Ireland will be told that they are not allowed to vote against the Lisbon Treaty and the people of the UK will be forbidden from having any referendum (let's not forget the intergovernmental meetings with some of our EU relatives to ensure we were not given the chance to vote NO).

Of course, Communism is alive and well in the EU and that is allowed. There's the leader of the German Communists in that group, along with the Sinn Fein MEPs. Oh yes, Communism which murdered millions over decades is permitted, because it's close to the socialist ideal held by the EU. But it's brother, fascism, just as equally as hateful, is not allowed. Nazis, of course, who are national socialists.

I hate both sides; I think they are authoritarian fuckbangers who are determined to ruin the lives of everyday people to feather their own nest. I consider them to be dangerous, hypocritical nutjobs who should be kept well away from positions of authority. But what I can't understand is why one side is allowed and why one side isn't. Is it because the right is the eurosceptic side? But then some of the best speeches in favour of Ireland voting NO were made by Mary-Lou McDonald. Whatever, the view of the EU is that they must be stopped because they want states to be states and not federalist whereas Communists are keen for us all to be merged together?

At the same time, I think that people should be allowed to vote for who they want to and I don't see how it is the job of EU Commissioners who, let alone be elected, aren't known by the majority of 'citizens' of the EU whom they govern, to comment upon and take action against.

What I do know is that sometimes people vote for these extremist parties because they feel that the 'moderates' i.e the political establishment who don't care about much but rather like the status quo, aren't paying them any attention. It's a shock value, a message to the people they used to vote for that they feel they are being ignored, that the issues they are concerned about are not being address. And what better two than the EU and immigration in any of the wealthy EU nation states?

But, you know what? I'm happy for the EU to impose sanctions again, to ignore the democratic decisions of the people who pay their wages, to bulldoze through democracy. Because short term they might feel that they are winning, but in the long run it will bring about their downfall much quicker than if they behaved like normal, rational people.

I am adamant that until the EU has fallen, we cannot live in a libertarian society where free speech, democracy and equality are pillars which no-one would dare threaten.

*how long do we give it before the EU-loving left are jumping up and down saying I'm in favour of fascism....oh, not long, given their record and love of inaccurate reporting.

Bruges Group - where were the other two?

Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer were supposed to be sharing a platform with UKIP leader Nigel Farage and the Telegraph's Simon Heffer at the Bruges Group debate 'Will a Conservative Government deliver on Europe?'

However, due to 'heavy pressure' explained Barry Legg, the two Tory MEPs were not in a position to attend. As Trixy hears it, both MEPs, who sit with the non attached in the European Parliament because they did not tow the line of the Europhile group they sit with, received letters from CCHQ telling them they were not allowed to share a platform with Nigel Farage MEP. Ever.

Readers may be aware of the Sun lunchtime event, Fixing Broken Britain where Tory Shadow Minister Michael Gove MP shared a platform with Cherie Blair in Manchester. And in Birmingham, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne is sharing a platform with Hazel Blears and Charlie the Safety Elephant. That is allowed, of course, because they're all happy clappy social democrats together. (My uncle tells me that Gove has promised a retrospective referendum if they get into power - I pointed out that this may have been a porkie given that Cameron has ruled it out)

Which may go some way towards answering the question that SuperDizzy TM has:

Why is it that I have an MEP yet there is no conference to tell me what the party has been doing in the EU? As my representative on matters which impact my life I have to sod off to various fringe events to hope against hope that one will give an indication of what is coming down the line.

Would it not make more sense to have an extra day at the beginning added to conference that is dedicated to the European Party representative rather than the National one? After all, things the MEPs do tomorrow are things that MPs will have to deal with in the EU the next week (shortened time lines is artistic license).

So let's start having a day of conference that is dedicated to the MEPs and an update of what they are doing. After all, in some cases, they actually exercise more power than the Prime Minister.

Because CCHQ and Tory MEPs in particular including, I think, the MEP Dizzy tells me came up with the idea, have no desire to let you know exactly what they vote on and actually how in favour of the EU they are. It would rather burst their eurosceptic bubble if people knew that Tory MEPs sit on committees and draft legislation wafting over power to the EU which they then tell tabloid paper journalists is 'appalling' 'disgraceful' and the such.

The fact is, that the Tory Party take delight in gang banging the EU social model along with all the other Pro EU parties in this country and MEPs who wish to speak up for what they believe in are forbidden from doing so by the party heirarchy who are terrified of either another split or voters actually finding out how deceitful they are.

The former top Tory MEP has, by the way, been 'cleared' by the European Parliament for breaking the rules.. Oh yes, there's no doubt he broke them according to the twat who likes to close down blogs Harald Romer. But presumably because he's an important MEP who chairs a parliament committee, he's allowed to. According to the delightfully dishy Bruno Waterfield

A letter has been sent from Harald Rømer, the powerful euro-fonctionnaire who runs the Parliament's administration, to the former Conservative leader here in Brussels. In it, Mr Rømer apologises to Mr Chichester (er, wasn't he the one who had broken the rules?) for "the delay in bringing this matter to a positive conclusion".

"I can inform you that I have come to the conclusion that although your contract with that company constituted a potential case of conflict of interest, you have had no personal financial benefit from that contract, and that no conflict of interest has ever materialised," writes Mr Rømer (my emphasis).

"It is clear that all the allowances received have indeed been used to pay the salaries and fees of your employees and related overhead expenses."

"In view of the above, I am content that there was no personal gain arising out of a conflict of interest in breach of the relevant rules and that the use of the money received from your parliamentary assistance allowance has been fully justified by the extensive documentation that you have presented." (my emphasis).

Or is it that the European Parliament just like to keep all MEPs happy and tell them all that nothing is going to happen to them?
I say that because Giles Chichester has been cleared by the same people who also cleared Tom Wise MEP of any 'wrong doing' and who has since been arrested, following OLAF's decision to report him to the relevant UK authorities for the same reasons he was invetsigated by the European Parliament.

Given that Giles Chichester, Den Dover and John Purvis> all broke the rules and for much larger sums of money than Tom Fool, are they too to be investigated by OLAF? When it comes to fraud I care not for parties, I just want fairness and justice.

Come on, hands up. Who found my blog from the search 'shoes gags and there[sic(k)] uses?

And why is that possible? I don't gag people with shoes!

Is it better or worse than the person who was looking for 'shoes better than sex' and why? Are they after confirmation that they aren't the only one who thinks so?

Blogs: we're not clear yet

Thursday in Brussels (the roof still hasn't been built again in Strasbourg but I understand they'll go back and waste some more money in October again) the two reports concerning the media were voted on by MEPs.

One was very dull the other one has been written about a few times and concerned a former hack trying to stop anonymous bloggers.

The bastion of EU reporting, EU Observer, reports:

MEPs kill EU 'blogger registry' that never was
LEIGH PHILLIPS

Calls for Europe to initiate a process clarifying the legal status of bloggers - a discourse many across Europe had erroneously believed was in fact EU legislation that would have seen a European 'registry of bloggers' - died on the floor of the European Parliament on Thursday (25 September).

I think with that opening para we pretty much know where our scribe stands on this situation. As I said before, many was the occasion I read own initiative reports in committees, only to find that the European Commission then released legislation on it. It's not difficult to work out why these pieces of legislation are written: if they're not legislative at the time, the next time you see a similar report it's going to be. It also didn't 'die on the floor' if we look at Amendment 5 which was passed by 307 votes to 262 it quite clearly states in point 25 that:

25. Encourages an open discussion on all issues relating to the status of weblogs;

That isn't 'killing anything' that's encouraging a debate on blogs which will no doubt see MEPs like Mz Mikko saying that we need registration of blogs because too many of us are quite happy to say that we think the EU is a monstrous waste of money, an affront to democracy and that MEPs and Commissioners generally speaking don't know their arse from their elbow and under no circumstances should be allowed a say on legislation.

MEPs passed a resolution with 307 votes to 262 calling on the European Commission and member states to safeguard pluralism amongst newspapers, television programmes, radio and on the internet in an era of ever-concentrating media ownership.

That sounds like they want a nice, open and free media! Which we know isn't true given that what they object to is people like Murdoch owning lots of papers and thinking the EU is a disaster. After all, if they believed in freedom of speech why would they tell a reporter not to send his film of an interview with UKIP leader Nigel Farage anywhere because dissent was not to be reported, why are one side allowed to protest, and to be filmed doing so but eurosceptic and eurorealists aren't and tell people that 'politics is not allowed in the European Parliament'? (Vote on the European Constitution Mark 1 in 2005).

The resolution also called for "an open discussion on all issues relating to the status of weblogs" - much softer language regarding blogs than had earlier appeared in the report on which the resolution was based.

Refer to point above: giving statist politicians the chance to regulate something which in a majority doesn't like or agree with them is not a good thing, whether it's softened down or not. Because what they haven't done is categorically state that they will leave blogs the fuck alone.

Estonian centre-left MEP Marianne Mikko - the report's author - had wanted to call for full clarification of the legal status of webblog authors, disclosure of bloggers' interests and the voluntary labelling of blogs, all of which had been supported by MEPs across the political spectrum at the committee level.

Were I to be cynical, I would suggest that former journalist Marianne Mikko wanted to strangle blogs because they were taking some power away from the MSM, are more equipt to report events quickly and back up their stories with facts and examples which some journalists don't feel obliged to do.

MEPs had been worried that the legal situation of bloggers regarding source protection is unclear, as was where liability should be assigned in the event of lawsuits. The Euro-deputies had thus recommended that blogs and their authors be taken out of this legal limbo.

I would argue that the Commission document on this subject is much more telling for the reason they wanted 'something to be done':

A recent internal European Commission report, leaked three weeks ago, found that the EU was losing the battle for hearts and minds online. "Blog activity remains overwhelmingly negative..."

Such language however produced a firestorm of reaction in Sweden when the report emerged in the Swedish media in June.
At the time, the Swedish government had recently narrowly passed legislation that gave officials the power to open all emails and listen to any telephone conversation in the country, and Ms Mikko's proposals around blogs seemed to be of a similar nature to the government's surveillance bill.

anyone?

Commentators across the political spectrum confused the report, which has no legal weight, with binding legislation, and claimed it would have produced a "blogger registry." One Swedish politician condemned it as "another example of Big Brother snooping into people's daily lives."

That's because if the idea is in their head then they will do it. This report was tabled under Rule 45(2) which has to get approval from the Conference of Presidents. So it's not like a group of MEPs sat there and said 'what shall I try to regulate the life out of today. Well, okay, it is like that but then they asked another group of MEPs, all turds with the exception of one and possibly a sensible rep from the non attached who don't have voting rights who are responsible for the Parliament's links with relations with other EU institutions, the national parliaments and non-EU countries.

"I've been subject to a lot of attacks from bloggers all over Europe," Ms Mikko told reporters after the passage of the resolution. "I've been called Mao Tse-Tung, Lukashenko, Ceauscescu - it's not very pleasant."

I can imagine it's not very nice, but the thing is, by trying to stop people writing things because you don't know who they are and you don't like what they are saying is rather dictatorial. If they break the law then there is already legislation covering this, but I don't believe you are doing this to clarify any legal position. I believe you and the EU are trying to regulated blogs so they can close down the ones they don't like because they are being far too good at getting across the other side of the argument which you and the MSM, with many notable exceptions but who are still in the minority, don't want to be seen.

"I understand and yet I don't understand the reaction of bloggers," she said. "Nobody is interested in regulating the internet ... But I understand how a sensitivity was touched. I'm sorry that's the playground we're dealing with at the moment."

It's not a fucking playground, it's about freedom of speech. People died to retain that right and people will continue to do so. I think maybe living under communism for some time and then working in the EU which is trying its best to bring that back, has made you forget that vital fact.

She pointed out that while print and online journalists in various jurisdictions are restricted by slander and libel legislation, the status of bloggers as reporters is unclear.

As far as I am aware, but please feel free to correct if I am wrong, bloggers are covered by the same law as journalists and anyone else who writes or says something which damages a reputation unjustly. Blogger might be hosted in the US but the impact of this blog is, whilst being small, going to be mainly in the UK which means that I am governed by the 1996 Defamation Act.

"Are bloggers equally trusted [as journalists]? I'm getting a little bit concerned."

Firstly, I don't care and you shouldn't because it's really rather irrelevant. Someone can believe what I write on here, or not. I tend to back up what I write with examples and links which I notice MEPs don't like to do. Don't like it, don't read it. I'm not forcing you to, am I. I'm not forcing anyone to. Quite why you are concerned is more a reason for you to go get a hobby than bugger around with freedom of speech. On another line, when I was studying politics at uni there was a survey in my text book which showed that only 30% of people believed what they read in newspapers. Should something be done about that?

"All you journalists know how powerful the web is," she said, speaking to reporters at a press conference. "But do all bloggers think the same? The web is a weapon in your hands. You can kill someone with your words."

Er, no you can't. If I walked up to you and said "Marianne Mikko, you are a perfect specimen for a Richard and Judy makeover" you might be slightly insulted, but I'm not actually going to kill you by saying it. Moreover, I think bloggers, by virtue of the fact they exist only on the internet or at events where free alcohol is present, are more aware than most about the power of the internet. In much the same way, a soldier is more aware of the power of his gun than Mrs Tibbs who lives at No. 6 is. They use it more, it's their medium.

The brou-ha-ha over the supposed blogger registry has overshadowed the main elements of the resolution, which focuses on corporate concentration of the media.

Bitter? You?

While there has been a proliferation of new commercial outlets in recent years around the world - particularly within broadcasting and on the internet - a slew of mergers have sharply narrowed the number of companies in the media business to the point where the majority of outlets are owned by just a few major conglomerates, such as Bertelsmann, Vivendi, News Corp, Viacom and Time Warner.

That's a reason for not regulating blogs, you dumbass.

Media critics worry that these conglomerates lean toward a single centre-right political perspective, crowding out other views.

Newspapers are in the business of shifting copies. If people don't like what they write, or the angle that they take they don't like the papers.
I don't read the European Voice because I find it's a one sided, inaccurate report of the EU which distorts the truth. Ergo, I don't buy it. I buy a paper which I generally agree with the editorial line of (hence these days I don't actually read newspapers) because it will make me less angry. What does that tell us? That most people are of a centre right persuasion. They don't like paying tax and they don't want a state which controls all the aspects of their lives and gives more 'rights' to minority groups than the man on the Clapham omnibus. The EU might not like that but then the EU should be lucky that most people ignore them or they would never get half their socialist manifesto through.

Further, to prevent owners, shareholders or governments from interfering with editorial content, MEPs called for the creation of editorial charters.

Why? Who decides what the truth is? You guys? No thanks.

The resolution also encourages the disclosure of ownership of all media outlets. In a veiled reference to Italy, it says that within Europe, competition law and media law should be interlinked to avoid conflicts between media ownership concentration and political power.
In Italy, media watchdogs are concerned that Silvio Berlusconi is not only prime minister and ultimately the boss of the public broadcasters, but is also the owner of much of the country's private media outlets.

They don't have to watch his TV or read his newspapers, just as they didn't have to vote for him. I wouldn't say it's an ideal situation but I would say that the people who should not have anything to do with it are the European Commission and MEPs, particularly as the former President of the Commission is Burlusconi's opposition Romano Prodi and the EP are rather unhappy with how Italy and Burlisconi's party have dealt with the Roma in Italy.

Dear God

At the time, the Swedish government had recently narrowly passed legislation that gave officials the power to open all emails and listen to any telephone conversation in the country, and Ms Mikko's proposals around blogs seemed to be of a similar nature to the government's surveillance bill.

Polly must be thinking her Swedish fantasy has just gone to the next level.

Remind me not to go to there.

It's the economy, stupid.

What's the blogging equivalent of speechless? In a single word. Because whatever it is, I am it. My jaw is still resting somewhere near my chest and I'm struggling to find the adjective which describes how I look on the people who have caused me to do this rather accurate impression of a haddock.

Get this: people, that's normal people like you and I who can remember to breathe in and out without prompting, tie our own shoe laces (well, with one exception perhaps but I'm sure that's just a rumour)and get dressed in the morning before they leave the house, trust Gordon Brown and Captain Alastair Darling to run the economy better than Cameron and Osbourne.

According to the Press Association,

The poll for BBC2's Daily Politics programme found 36% of respondents said they most trusted Mr Brown and Mr Darling to steer Britain's economy through the current storm. Some 30% preferred the Tory team of Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, while only 5% of those polled said Lib Dems Nick Clegg and Vince Cable.

Now, it is true to say that I can think of many people better placed to run the economy than the Tory duo; people with a grasp of economics, for example. But what really concerns me is that people might actually not think that the Labour party have fucked up the economy at all, that it's not their doing or that if it's their mess then they are best placed to sort it out. By not admitting they've done anything wrong and not changing any aspects of their disastrous fiscal and monetary policy. Without even touching on the lunacy of their supply side views.

How? I still don't understand. If you got a builder round to do your house and the roof fell in and all the walls collapsed, why would you think that they would be the right people to rebuild your house? Surely you'd ask for your money back, warn people never to use them and steer well clear?

Not in Britain, evidently. We're more likely to change our brand of butter than we are realise we are voting for morons.

So it must be true; you get the government you deserve and clearly this country deserves the Labour party.

It's times like this when I do really see the weakness in universal suffrage...

Unless they took the poll in Manchester near the conference centre during the week. That might explain it.

hmmmm

oooh, you tease!

A load of old bull

So, the new ID card has been announced and - shock horror! - it's just like any other EU ID card. As I have written before:

. Biographical data
The ID-card shall be machine-readable in compliance with Part 3 Volume 1 of ICAO Document 93031 ("Size 1 and Size 2 Machine Readable Official Travel Documents") and the way they are issued shall comply with the specifications for machine-readable cards set out therein.

The portrait of the holder shall not be affixed but integrated into the material of the front side of the card by the issuing techniques referred to in Section 5....

The EU is not actually forcing the UK to adopt ID cards, because this Labour government signed up to the measures at EU level. However, signing up does make them committed to their introduction...

It makes it very difficult for political parties who are opposed to ID cards, but want to remain in the European Union, to scrap the proposals if by the next election, the harmonisation process is very advanced.

[from Council Document 15th november 2006 15356/06 JAI 598]



There aren't any British symbols like, ooh, the union flag. Instead there's a bull and five stars representing Zeus banging Europa and leaving her a single mother of three. Which is, perhaps, appropriate.

But of course our beloved Home Secretary doesn't think there is any issue here at all (well, there isn't for her because she wants the UK to become a region of the EU)even over the question of maths...

Biometric data, including copies of all of the person's fingerprints, will be stored on a special security chip.

Miss Smith admitted that it would be impossible to include fingerprints of some people on the card. But she denied that taking 10 prints from the elderly or those with missing fingers would be a problem.

You know what, honey? It will be a problem taking 10 prints from someone who doesn't have 10 prints. That's just fact.

Now, how many people will actually make a fuss about it, and how many people geniunely think that anything will be done by those appalling politicians in Westminster?

That's why, on 5th November, I am going for a walk. Some nice exercise to help me remove any stress I might have.

"If you see what I see, if you feel as I feel and if you would seek as I seek then I ask you to stand beside me and together we shall give them a 5th of November that shall never, ever be forgot."

Save Dave takes to the streets of Manchester

Well, I would if I didn't have an awful lot to do here, and Manchester wasn't quite so, well, like Manchester. In my experience there's only one place to go should you decide to go significantly northwards and that it bonnie Scotland.

What does one, for example, wear to Manchester? I don't think I have the right pair of shoes for the situation, and I have an awful lot of shoes.

But I digress: my reason for even considering getting on a train to such a city is because I think that my love needs me.



People who SHOULD KNOW BETTER have started attacking him again saying that he's a liar.

Well, even if he is he's been put in simply the most terrible situation, the poor darling.

The foreign secretary, who has been at the centre of leadership rumours, said the BBC "should know better".

He paid tribute to Mr Brown in his speech but aides were heard telling him it was being given "six out of ten".

A BBC journalist heard him reply: "I couldn't have gone any further. It would have been a Heseltine moment."

I can't even imagine he would need to challenge that monstrous meany for the job of leading the Labour party. Oh, and the country. For the time being at least. Quite frankly, Gordon should only need one glance at his boyish grin, his soft hair (it is always soft in my dreams when I run my fingers through it) and the fact that he is as clever as a chap with three heads to see that he should offer him the reins on a red velvet cushion with diamante accessories.

But say that he did say that, which if he says he didn't then he certainly didn't: who can blame him. The poor duckling is stuck between a rock and a hard place (and breathe) and every time he turns around there are menopausal women running after him, desperate to get into his shorts trousers.

So come on, chaps. Lay off the more wee mite or you'll have an angry Trixy to contend with. And I bite.

Wake up, they are fascists

So, we already have the report trying to shut down blogs which ignore the obvious failings of the EU and drool over the prospect of an EU state, we have the President of the Parliament banning MEPs asking the Commission any question they like and now they are trying to link the NO vote in Ireland with a CIA plot.

Questions over the funding of the No campaign in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty referendum
Raising a point of order, Co-President Daniel Cohn Bendit (Greens/EFA , DE) said: "Last weekend, the Irish press revealed that there possibly exists a link between the financers of the no-campaign in Ireland and the Pentagon as well as the CIA. This was a very interesting story and the explanation given was that Europe should not become too strong. I would ask the President to please clarify this matter and suggest that we also ask the Council as well as the Commission to inform us next time, because if this story turns out to be true it would be an interesting fact indeed, confirming what lies behind the €1.2 million which was used to finance the no-campaign in Ireland. I therefore would like to ask the President to please look into the matter so that we receive information and achieve transparency."

The whole story can be found here, but not for much longer because:

So long, farewell, auf weidersein, goodbyeee. Ladies and gentlemen, I am sad to announce that from henceforth England Expects shall be consigned to the dustbins of history. I say this with a heavy heart, but it is the case. And this is why.

Yesterday I was summoned by my Secretary General and informed that a formal complaint had been made about my posting on this blog. My activities were found to be in contravention of the Staff Code of Conduct

I am fucking furious. If you are, write to the man responsible one Harald Romer who I have never heard a nice word about at:
harald.romer@europarl.europa.eu

And whilst you're at it, copy it in to: hans-gert.poettering@europarl.europa.eu

If you don't, you'll be next. It really is that simple.

Reading the newswires, I stumbled across this little story:
'LOCALS 'THOUGHT BLACK FARMER WAS STEALING CROPS''

Which did actually make me laugh initially. And then I read it and I stopped laughing and smiled because I assumed there was going to be a lot of 'they're all racists and I want compensation and an enquiry' in quotation marks and instead this smiling and evidently hard working chap (he has lots of fields with lots of crops all over the country) from Zimbabwe said

"The police were doing their job. It was a bit of a misunderstanding with the local people, I think. All of a sudden there's a black man behind them in fields putting maize in a van.

"They really thought I was stealing it. I don't blame the neighbours."

Because, let's face it, there are lots of people more scared of being called racist than stopping someone in the act of theft, or confronting gangs of youths in unattractive clothing. I even thought twice about writing this and saying that I wish Ghaffur had a similar attitude. But if I felt scared about writing something based on the 'r' word then they've won.

EU in 'lack of democracy' shocker

Lots of lovely bloggers have been writing about this example of 1984 style legislation instigated by a former hack who decided life would be more cushy being an MEP rather than getting a proper job. She clearly doesn't like the fact that bloggers aren't bound by who their editors are having lunch with that week or, more importantly, who they'd like to have lunch with and so can actually write things as they are such as the news that the Government used the fact that you can't trust a word they say, as their legal defence which was not touched by the dead tree press or telly.

They can also publish videos of events happening in the European Parliament which the MSM don't touch because either they don't understand it or they do but they'd have to explain why so much domestic legislation comes from Brussels and yet they still count it as foreign news and they don't really understand it anyway.

It starts with:

having regard to Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

which fellow political geeks may recall was not supposed to be binding in the UK
From the explanatory statement:

In this context the report points out that the undetermined and unindicated status of authors and publishers of weblogs causes uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits.

It recommends clarification of the legal status of different categories of weblog authors and publishers as well as disclosure of interests and voluntary labelling of weblogs.

Because, of course, the EU has found a way of ensuring one sided media coverage by using tax payers money for its own set of tv channels Goebbels would be proud of, and a bargain at only £7million a year.
And when journalists try to cover, say, a protest by MEPs objecting at the lack of democracy in the EU, they get told not to film it by the Head of the Parliament's audio visual services.

Tory Chris Heaton Harris has jumped on the bandwagon

Chris Heaton Harris, a British Conservative Euro MP, has rejected any moves to "regulate and restrict independent media sources".
"Mrs Mikko obviously does not understand that blogs have become the life blood of a vibrant democracy," he said.
"I hope these proposals are kicked out."

So do I and, I would hope, so do all right thinking individuals.
However, I notice that some of CHH's colleague don't.
Tories voting in favour of reports in the main committee or the committees invited to give an opinion: Den Dover (twice), Giles Chichester, Jonathan Evans, John Purvis and possibly Philip Bradbourn (someone in his committee voted against it - just the one - but there are no names).
Lib Dems: Sharon Bowles, possibly Bill Newton-Dunn (see above)
Labour: Michael Cashman, Peter Skinner (who I used to like) and Fiona Hall.

And that's just in committee stage.

Now, before you eurofanatics start jumping up and down and saying it's only an own initiative report, you know (or you should) that the Commission use INI's as a way of gauging the reaction of MEPs to proposals which they, as the unelected bureaucrats and the only people who can propose legislation, will then put forward in a legislative document. As Bruno Waterfield reports in his article:

A recent internal European Commission report, leaked three weeks ago, found that the EU was losing the battle for hearts and minds online.

"Blog activity remains overwhelmingly negative," it said.

Wonder what that memo will lead to?

Proof at last!

Yes, not only are UKIP more in touch than the Lib Dems but I have indisputable proof that the Daily Mail are openly biased against UKIP and Nigel Farage in particular.

Armed with only my pocket calculator (I did an economics degree which required the purchase of a snazzy calculator with buttons that did stuff) and The Great Clegg Clanger Quiz I have shown an unwarranted bias.

Using the results from Simon Cowell and Edwina "eugh how could you" Currie who both scored 8/10 and Richard Briers and Duncan Bannatyne who scored the same as Nigel Farage with 7/10 I set about working out the errors in the answers they gave about the price of stuff and how much it actually cost.

Simon Cowell made errors totalling £4.49 and came top. However, according to the Daily Mail he scored the same as Edwina who made £28.33 in errors.

Second was Nigel Farage who scored £20.78 in errors although we do dispute the child benefit figure because it's only £18.10 for the first child and £12 for any subsequent.

Third was Richard Briers, who scored the same as Farage and Bannatyne but less than "eugh" with their 7/10 who made £25.31 in errors.

Out of my selection, fifth went to Duncan Bannatyne with £40.40 in errors. Blimey. Tony someone also scored 7/10 but considering that in one answer alone he had an error of over £45 he clearly wasn't going to buck the trend.

So there you have it. Proof not only that I can be a wee bit of a geek but that the Daily Mail is biased.

Post Office Closures Part, oh...a million?

Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Bob Spink (Castle Point, UKIP) | Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform if he will place in the Library the minutes of the meeting of 12 September 2007 in Brussels between his Department, the European Commission and Post Office Ltd.

Patrick McFadden (Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Wolverhampton South East, Labour) | Hansard source

holding answer 5 June 2008

No minutes of the meeting were taken.

This was the meeting in which the future of 2500 Post Offices were decided upon and there were no minutes taken. Why? I thought the EU wanted openness and transparency? Or do they not like the fact that they sat in a meeting with POL and the UK govt reps and said they weren't allowed to extend state aid because Deutsche Post had been making yet more complaints?

We'll never know, I suppose.

'Brown Baffles Blair' and other unlikely stories.

Insomnia struck last night and so I channel hopped to find a suitable programme to help me drift off. As luck would have it, BBC Parliament were showing the Lib Dem conference.

Not so lucky, the debate was on the EU. Some fat git stood up and said that they needed to be positive about 'Europe' because in the 2009 Euro Elections, UKIP would be spreading half truths, lies and conspiracy theories worthy of the Da Vinci code.'

Not quite true, Mr Man-Made Fibres. UKIP base their arguments on facts and use real examples to back them up. On the other hand, the Lib Dems go around canvassing areas, including their stronghold of the South West, telling people they are eurosceptic.

If you actually went around telling people what you were really like: you're in favour of ID cards via the EU's biometric passports, you want uncontrolled immigration and Vince Cable is the only person in the party who seems to have even a basic grasp on economics, then I'd be happy.

The next man up on the platform had a beard! Joy of joys! Mr Face Fungus was so dim he needed to be locked up for his, and our, safety.

According to him, the reason we are in a recession is, and I am still laughing at this, because we didn't join the Euro. The reason we didn't join the Euro, he tells me, is because Gordon Brown used unnecessary technical language to bamboozle Blair into not joining it with his economic criteria. We didn't need economic criteria to join, because it's about political union. Well, thank you. I think most of us had worked that out but actually, thank you Control Freak Brown for stopping us going headfirst into that disaster.

Ask Italy what they think about joining the Euro for just one example of how converging monetary policy doesn't work.

But yes. Brown confused Blair. How? He has no grasp on economics, how could he? I suggest that Mr FF and our great leader would probably get on quite well together.

Now, why does anyone vote for the Lib Dems? Seriously. I can't think of a single reason.

Fat police on the loose

I am jaw droppingly appalled by the fat police marching the streets of Scotland:

A team of NHS nurses is patrolling Scotland's streets to target pot-bellied members of the public and tell them how to lose weight.

Armed with measuring tapes to check waists and equipment to test blood pressure, the "Street Nurses" are policing busy shopping centres, supermarkets and community centres. Any man with a paunch, or woman with an "apple-shaped" body whose waist measurement is higher than recommended limits is given diet and lifestyle advice or referred to local slimming classes

How fucking dare they? I suppose it's all in the name of the 'greater good' because, after all, we have a national health service.

Rather like climate change, these national projects are nothing more than an excuse to bully, nanny and tax us to buggery. Health insurance would quickly sort out any crisis the NHS fatties, smokers and drinkers cause, if they actually, did of course. Which they don't.

The government, EU and opposition parties also love the fact that by lying to us about man made global warming they have an excuse to tax us more for, well, pretty much anything they see fit. Even if, at the beginning of a recession, the actions they call for like extra duty on airline fuel is one of the most stupid things they could do.

If someone had the audacity to come up to me and tell me to get down the gym, particularly if they were wearing polyester and a 'high-vis' vest, I would feel it my duty as someone who enjoys chocolate cake and having a decent pair of breasts, to tell them to get stuffed. How about you go to hospital and treat sick people? People with arms and legs falling off, not someone whose daily exercise consists of running to the cake shop. If they want to be fat, that's up to them. It's not up to the government. Our beloved Comrade in chief gets paid enough to employ a personal trainer but lots of us, including me, don't.

I don't particularly like walking around having ugly people to look at. I don't enjoy sitting next to someone on the train who is a bit whiffy but do I tell them to put a bag on their head/wear make up/ wash?

Only when drunk. And I don't charge the tax payer for it.

I wish I wasn't on a diet and just off to the gym. It would make it mean more, I think.

Out of Control

How the EU is costing the earth

Godfrey Bloom has produced this film which destroys the myth that the EU is 'good' for the environment.

Tax doesn't have to be taxing...

Well, wow. Clegg has won a vote calling for tax cuts and cuts in public spending, although only by £20bn. And they're still throwing that useless, meaningless phrase 'social justice' around.

The party's annual conference approved a policy document promising "big" reductions for struggling families at the next election...The vote means the Lib Dems are the only one of the three main parties currently offering tax cuts.

Of course, UKIP grasped economics much earlier than the policy wonks in the LibLabCon.

In general, I think we can still think of them as a party on the left, given:

Science spokesman Evan Harris tabled an amendment to the motion, insisting public services should be the main priority, rather than tax cuts, but this was easily defeated.
"Hero worship of our leader does not help him avoid the pitfalls of being labelled a tax-cutting party," he argued.

Well, indeed. Heaven forbid you are known as a party which believes in individual liberty and that people have a right to keep the money they earn themselves rather than have it stolen by the government of the day to waste in a series of pointless PR projects.

But there is still the clear signal that our mighty leaders haven't grasped basic economics or how economic growth is brought about.

You know the economy is in trouble when unemployment rises. This is because people are employed because they earn the company they work for money. More profit, more investment. More people earning money means more people spending money in the shops, on holidays, buying shares..you get my drift. So if companies aren't hiring, they aren't making money. If people are being sacked they don't have the money to spend and we are in trouble.

So if our esteemed leaders actually wanted to do something sensible they would be talking about cuts in corporation tax and removing the tax on dividends and savings.

If they want to 'tighten their belts', here are a few of my ideas:
1) leave the EU
2) Abolish the Scottish Parliament. You have MPs in Westminster. You may consider them useless fuckwits but, if that is the case, don't vote for them.
3) Abolish the Welsh Assembly. Any organisation which spends time discussing the need for bilingual signs on lavatories is a waste of time and money.
4) Abolish the London Assembly. Again, you've got MPs. Why are you so important that you need more? Constituencies are drawn up on the basis of population after all.

There's a few billion a year spare, pretty quickly. And you've also got some lovely buildings to turn into offices which can make money instead of spending it. And I'm sure if you ask nicely they might even let you hold you 'self awareness and social diversity through the medium of cow bells' in one of the meeting rooms.

Woman, 99, dies

Following on from the 'Headlines in a Guernsey newspaper' we have actual headlines from BBC online, as sent to me by Minge:

'Woman angry over poor bus access'

Which must come as a real shock to those millions of people who love a shitty transport service and


'Child porn 'risk to relationship'

Again...

Ha! Guess who is number 1 on google for 'I love David Miliband'?

ME!

UPDATE: Mark Wadsworth tells me Iain Dale has now taken over which, I agree, is actually even funnier.

As good a reason as any.

Minge was on fine drunken form last night, sipping his mint julep in what can only be described as a butch and heterosexual manner. The conversation at the Knightsbridge eaterie had moved on, mistakenly I think, to American politics and Sarah Palin in particular, something he has rather a passion for. He's still the head of the 'Republicans Abroad' in Qatar which is saying something, especially for someone who doesn't actually live in Qatar.

I do find it typical of the left to rave on about Obama but then attack Palin for being inexperienced. For what is Obama if not a bit of a chancer with no bills to his name. The teams seem to have been picked by the PR department for Obama has a Washington Insider as his wing man to counter the calls that he's inexperienced whereas McCain, who has actually been involved in national politics, has the cute youthful token as his vice president.

Personally, I'm not sure I'd vote for either of them being as I am a libertarian first and foremost. The Democrats have yet to sit down for their 'economics for beginners' course and understand the importance of cutting taxes and 'red tape'* but the Republicans are rather too devout for my liking. One thing I find incredibly important in a democracy is that we are not ruled according to religious dogma or doctrine even if it is the one I was ostensibly raised under.

However, I do have a soft spot for the glamorous Mrs Palin, mainly because she looks like Karen Walker from Will and Grace.





Well, I think people have actually voted for more fickle reasons: I'm just commenting.

*But I read in The Times that George Osborne has, yippee!

UPDATE: It seems the Telegraph agrees with me....hmmm

Don't say that, don't touch there...

The return of Charlie, the safety elephant has brought out something of the feminist which occasionally resides in Trixy.

For are there not women in the cabinet (note the distinction between 'women' and 'ladies' here, chaps) who have sacrificed themselves on the pillar of public service, with a dream only of making our lives better and, more importantly, safer?

There is one who is 'living the dream', if the dream happens to be busybody interference in our day to day lives, coupled with a desire to remove anything that is vaguely fun, exciting, witty or clever from our existence. A woman who would be happy for us, poor citizens of the New Labour State, to live in hermetically sealed bubbles, spared the effects of one drink too many, a fondness for cigarettes or a preference for cars over push bikes eating lentils and knitting our own knickers until we are all so fucking bored we are begging for Alzheimer's to spare us from knowing what pointless, flaccid lives we are leading.

Harriet Harperson is Sexual Harassment Panda.



Here's hoping that very soon, she will be sent to the Misfit Mascots Commune.

Very amusing in a worrying way

Is this

via Mr E and DK

We do much the same thing at home, actually. put weeds in little graves if we accidentally dig them up so the pretty flowers can flourish.

'This rock has the most amazing life'. But honey, it's probably squashed up next to your backside! As my friend said, 'it would envy us...if it could.'

I couldn't actually cope with watching the whole thing yesterday; the hangover was too bad.

Gosh

Gosh, a big thank you to everyone who voted for Shoes at Iain "scrummy bottom" Dale's list compiling wotsit.

66 in the top UK Political Blogs up from fuck all last year, so I'm chirpy.

I'm still more interested in cracking Etude in E Major than I am in politics at the moment, though.

Not so reliant Robin

I hear Robin Page has been mouthing off about not being on the list for UKIP in the Eastern Region.

As far as I am concerned I don't see what the problem is. Everyone else managed to fill their forms in in time, and the Eastern Region was massively over subscribed. Why should he be any different? It wasn't like he ever used to write about UKIP in his articles. In fact, number one on the list there is the excellent David Campbell Bannerman, deputy leader, followed by Stuart Agnew who is of very high calibre and Andrew Smith who was bright, loyal and dedicated.

I guess he is attacking the current MEP Jeffrey Titford and his advisor Stuart Gulleford, who fought for a place on the list and came 4th and maybe the RO who didn't fill his form in for him?

Really, why is he being so vitriolic? He was given more time than any other candidate in the country to get his signatures together and his forms in. It's precisely because they were not held like a banana republic that he was not slotted in somewhere on the list without having to go through the same criteria as everyone else. Can you imagine how other people would have felt if he'd been given extra allowances? That would have been a stitch up.

I personally am heartily disappointed in him. I forgave him when he went around calling up the media saying he was going to be the next MEP over the Tom Wise rigmarole, I didn't have to deal with cross BBC departments calling me up to ask why this man was demanding every single piece of information about him under the Freedom of Information Act Request.

But this latest piece of crap I cannot. Really. Page is in this situation because he failed to do what many others managed to do and I've slotted him into the same category as John West who, when he didn't get on the shortlist, reported Titford and Gulleford to the police on the say so of who knows.

That is why there is a mention of OLAF: because jealous people report them so they can say 'they're being reported by OLAF'. Anyone can be on the basis of a targeted smear.

Good luck to all those people who were selected, there are some bloody good people on the list including Paul Nutall and Mick Mcmanus in the North West, Nigel Farage and Marta Andreasen in the South East, the Eastern region, Godfrey Bloom in Yorkshire and the Earl of Dartmouth in the South West.

Take Cover

Godfrey Bloom MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire takes no chances on a roof collapse in the Brussels Parliament. Such as happened in Strasbourg recently just above his seat.

As the only member of the 'woman's committee, outspoken Mr Bloom it is rumoured sometimes he keeps the hat for committee attendance.

We'd be lucky for a cold war

EU leaders are meeting in Russia today to talk about the situation in Georgia and so David Cameron has been on the today programme putting his tu'pence worth in. The simple answer, he seems to think, is that Georgia and the Ukraine join NATO and the EU and then everything will be rosy.

Super!

He clearly hasn't quite worked out that the expansionary policy of the EU has been like poking an angry tiger with a sharp stick. Russia has seen the countries which surround it be consumed by the obese EU, which likes to swallow up small, newly formed democracies like canapes at a drinks party. Croatia, Serbia, the Ukraine and now Georgia are all on the guest list for this club even though they are not really part of Europe. We are having arguments about the fact that only 10% of Turkey is in Europe but Georgia is even further to the East.

I listen to what our great leaders are saying and it seems that either they have no understanding of Geopolitics, natural human emotion or they want a war.

However amid the rising tension, Russia has announced it has successfully tested its long-range Topol ballistic missile from a launch site in Kamchatka in the far east of the country.

Russia says the rocket is capable of penetrating the proposed US missile defence shield - another source of uneasiness between the two sides.

It's becoming a cold war already and I can see this escalating into a hot war if we're not careful. What have Russia got to lose by sitting around and watching the West change the shape of their part of the world? The EU is toothless militarily, of course, and are only trying to do something because they want a Common Foreign and Security Policy so they can turn around and say 'look, we need the Lisbon Constitution because otherwise we can't be so strong on the world stage' (knock yourself out, scream that from the roof tops because if anything is likely to get a second 'NO' vote in Ireland it's hearing that). But this dreadful pontificating by Cameron and Miliband along the Daily Mail lines of 'something must be done' without really understanding what can be done and why things have happened as they have done is actually rather dangerous.

Banning a country from dialogue, such as the G8, might make it look like a tough line has been taken, it might make the Boy David feel like a man when he writes it, but it's stupid. For a start, the G8 is non binding anyway and for another, if you want to sort something out, making one side feel excluded is not going to encourage them t step into line, it's going to encourage them to play up and get attention. And I'd rather a country with a button to press were fully participating in the world stage rather than being made to feel insignificant and badly behaved by organisations like the EU and countries like America who, given the choice, would behave badly all the time.

On a final note, why do people say they like these small, independent democracies and then say they should join the EU which does everything they can to stop democracy and doesn't even listen to the voice of the people stuck living in it? Cameron, it seems, has conveniently forgotten that the Irish result was ignored even though he and his party were supposed to be the champion of the people in Britain who voted for that referendum. He's slipped back into his natural position of being europhile and thinking that the EU has the answers.

I'd sooner trust the WI to run things than the EU.