1000th post - and what they gave me to write about

Forgive, once again, my tardiness in commenting on the actions of the Tory Party when it comes to their least favourite policy: the EU.

Mr Eugenides had promised he would write a little something in honour of this momentous post but due to matters out of my control and probably to do with skirt, he's now too busy. However, I will forgive him because, as frequent readers will know, he has a bewitching hold over me.

But enough of that, for we have the Tory policy on the EU to mull over. And Cameron made a particularly fine effort when he used a lot of words to say not a lot.

The thrust of the argument is that William Hague will go to the other ministers and say that he wants the UK to have opt outs from the EU over issues on employment law, such as the social chapter (now articles 136 - 145 of the Treaty and thus not a 'chaper' anymore), taxation and general sovereignty issues.

I worry that the future Prime Minister, whose eyes appear only to be on getting the keys to Number 10 rather than the future of this country, does not understand that because of the Factortame decision European Law is superior to UK law and has been since The Lady was in charge of the country.

We will also introduce a new law, in the form of a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill, to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.

This is not about Westminster striking down individual items of EU legislation.

It is about an assurance that the final word on our laws is here in Britain.

Except that every schoolboy is wrong, and so is David Cameron. That's not bloggertarian hysteria, by the way: it's First year Law at every university in the land.

"Some public comments on the decision of the Court of Justice, affirming the jurisdiction of the courts of member states to override national legislation if necessary to enable interim relief to be granted in protection of rights under Community law, have suggested that this was a novel and dangerous invasion by a Community institution of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.

But such comments are based on a misconception. If the supremacy within the European Community of Community law over the national law of member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice long before the United Kingdom joined the Community. Thus whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary. Under the terms of the 1972 Act it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court, when delivering final judgment, to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law. [...]

As he who shall not be named for a few weeks at least points out.
Many Tories appear happy with this decision but whether it's because they think it will actually produce any results or whether it's settled their concerns that the electorate will view them as just another bunch of jumped up fuckwits more interested in power than actually doing anything with it, I am unable to say.

Helmer and Hannan are not happy with it, and as these chaps actually know a lot about the EU perhaps that should light a beacon in the view of the party activists and voters who want the British people to actually have a say.

Because the Tories will go into this negotiation having already informed their opponents that they will not play their trump card, withdrawal, I can hardly see them being a success. Such is the lustful panting of The Boy Dave over our slavish and costly membership of the EU their counterparts can just sit there and say 'NO' in a variety of languages knowing there will be no backlash.

And then what? This is already a five year policy - five years of paying billions of pounds to an institution which is going to vote itself another pay rise of 10% come December whilst the press look the other way. In that five years just think of what can happen seeing as it's only been four years since the French and Dutch said NON and NEE and now we have a Constitutional Treaty which has bound our parliament.

The blindness or plain refusal to admit to themselves and us that these big things we need to deal with, like the economy and public debt are bound up with our membership, is deeply frustrating. Cameron is displaying signs of Polly Syndrome: He says he will be lumbered with this astronomical debt but he won't take steps to stop us paying about £50 million a day to an institution which on top of this financial burden also wants to close down the City of London and does everything in its power to stop people being productive and efficient.

I expect it from Labour and the Lib Dems because I think they're mendacious, dribbling morons. They also don't pretend they are in any way eurosceptic which of course the Tories do.

UKIP now represent a very key part in the General Election and not just the jolly good battle which will take place in Buckingham. Aside from some cunt trying to bankrupt the party - conveniently after they beat Labour in the European Elections but that's the travesty that Blair did to the legal system and the civil service - they are now the only party offering the British people the chance to have their say.

Good news on the UKIP front today is that Tom Wise looks to be spending some time at Her Majesty's pleasure. And he used to be a copper which means he won't be having any fine wines unless they're shoved where the sun don't shine.

I am glad that Lindsay Jenkins now will not face charges because she was a pawn in the game of a very nasty man. It was all about the funding of a book, you see. The tale told to me was that one of Sunday Times hack Daniel Foggo's alleged contacts who has been causing trouble in UKIP circles for many years came up with this idea of her book being funded through secretarial allowances. Now, this is not allowed and one must ask oneself why this idea was proposed so vigorously to a number of UKIP MEPs who turned down the idea by someone who would know that this wasn't permitted. One of his lady friends decided to spill the beans on the plot, it has been said.

And why did she spill the beans? Well, our friend the rumour mill says it's because she was pissed off that she didn't get any of the money which was promised to her from Mr Wise. But seeing as I only received that information from party officials and not directly from the source I cannot confirm.

If this was true then surely there should be questions raised about the gentleman in question and, indeed, the lady?

I wonder how old Roger Knapman is taking the news of his friend pleading guilty? When Nigel Farage and John Whittaker took the decision to suspend Mr Wise over this, Mr Knapman was most affronted and one of the people who have been linked to the nutty Junius blog, his former researcher, even sent press releases to the lobby briefing against the party and not informing the UKIP press office. Roger Knapman was aware that Tom Wise was being investigated but had decided not to tell the UKIP leader or chairman. Ah, I was glad when he was no longer leader. It's a shame that one of the people who I understood to be working for a leadership contender also knew and decided not to say anything.

It was a most undignified mess but then most things under Knapman's leadership were including certain diverted e-mails from head office to a former MP who then, it has been alleged, decided to forward them onto the usual troublemakers.

I'd like to think that this has brought an end to the saga of the loonies. Many have left to form their own party and then quit that, some have died, some are still bimbling around inventing stories about Farage and Hannan and calling up Sunday journalists.

In any case, 1000 posts later I do feel that lines have been drawn under a few issues which were at the forefront of my life when I started this blog.

Most importantly, we know where the Tories lie on matters of national sovereignty and we know that when it comes to a vote on the future of our country, they won't be the ones to deliver.

So if we want to take our lives by the scruff of the neck and decide for ourselves then the Lib Lab Con won't be the people to vote for.