Merry Troughmas!

Note: I am not the lovely Trixy.

All aboard the Christmas gravy train:

The European Union’s institutions in Brussels have been accused of squandering millions of Euro of European taxpayers’ money by paying for their employees’ Christmas travel expenses at a time of economic crisis. Hans-Peter Martin, an independent member of the European Parliament from Austria, wrote to the press denouncing this “shocking privilege.”

“The money would be better spent financing meaningful social projects,” Martin wrote. Last year, the European Commission and the European Council jointly spent just under 47 million Euro (USD 65 million dollars) to pay for the Christmas travel arrangements of their 22,800-odd employees.

Now, 47 million Euro is chump change, let's face it, when compared to horrors like the cost of the CAP. And many people might even say that it's quite fair for an international organisation to fund a trip home for Christmas. All good and well.

But (and you knew there was one, didn't you?) let's just do the sums shall we? 47 million Euros divided by 22,800 employees gives us an average of well over 2000 Euros per person!

Now, given that the EU institutions are, by definition, all in Europe, what the fuck do they need an AVERAGE of 2000 Euros for, to get from one bit of Europe to another bit of Europe? For fuck's sake, you can drive from Belgium to most of the EU in a day. 2000 Euros buys an awful lot of fuel. Accepting that far-flung places like Spain and Portugal or the Eastern bloc might need a flight, that's what, 250 Euros? 500 Euros if you're generous to a fault. And I bet that more people who work for the EU live closer to their work than those that live further away.

What the fuck are they pissing all our money away on?

what next?

I am sure we have all seen this morning that the Scottish Executive, to bring Scotland into line with the rest of the EU, have decided to threaten people who wear unlicensed sporrans with a fine, or even prison. Oh, yes. Even if those sporrans were bought 13 years ago, you must dig them out and pop down to the sporran licensing office.

Just one question: How come badgers are now endangered, according to the EU, and yet we are regularly getting debates on the radio (particularly 4) about the need to cull badgers? Am I missing something? Or perhaps it is the law of unintended consequences which normally emerges from the quagmire of doom and ignorance that is the European Union?

I made a quick phone call to the lovely people at MAC to ask what their brushes were made of. They told me that the natural hair ones I have were from pony and squirrel, and that they brushed them off the little creatures rather than kill them for their tails or something, so I am okay. She asked me why, and I said that, well, if I was a water colour painter I could be in trouble and have to register them all or face a fine, because proper water colour brushes are made from sable. And if you don't, then don't put it past these people not to have organised the 'paintbrush police' and 'secret sporran services' since people have already been in trouble for owning an unlicensed having brush. Am not kidding.

She asked me what the world was coming to, with all this bureaucracy.

That's what I like about the girls at MAC: they do great make up, but they're also libertarians. Maybe I should go back to being a make up artist. The people I used to work with spoke more sense than the people in Westminster, I can tell you...

Traitors, the lot

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?

Even more fun than that is the news that they have paved the way for an EU Common Defence Policy. Yes, boys and girls. Our armed forces will be under the command of not the nice lady in the hats who lives in Buckingham Palace, but the bad man with the orange tan who you never elected and can't get rid of! That's fun, isn't it! That's Democratic and sensible and a jolly nice idea?

Well, it's not, really, is it. I tend to think that the main function of a government should be that it can protect the state as an entity, which means that it has the ability to 'blow shit up' should the need arise. There are very few areas I would like the government to get involved in, but I think that foreign policy and defence are the ones which are important. So now it looks like it won't be long before our armed forces, badly treated and under paid and yet quite simply the best in the world, will be under the command of some Euro-Prick. We shouldn't be surprised. If the Control Key on my lap top was working properly I would put in the link from Lord Pearson of Rannoch about the deal signed at Farnborough Airshow some years ago, and also point to the demise of the historical regiments which have been replaced with ones on a regional level, to nicely fit in with the idea of the EU.

If people don't get up in arms about this, I seriously do wonder what the point of going on is. We have a nation enthralled with a relationship going on in a room in the South of England somewhere between some chap and a girl who is so lacking in ideas she aims to look like someone else, whilst at the same time our entire relationship with out government, our laws and our neighbours is being rearranged and no one seems to care.

ARGH! I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate it! I said, quite profoundly, a few months ago that what it will take for people to actually bother and do something about this is for it to touch them directly. Now I fear that even if it does they won't know it, won't know the real reasons and won't be bothered to do anything about it.

Anyone going to join me in emigrating somewhere lovely? I think Australia looks like a jolly good country to go to. Nice, sensible politics over there. And I could buy a house and get a swimming pool, instead of paying a million pounds a second to rent a room in London. Yes, jolly good idea. Going to start packing right now!

Let them eat cake..

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.

Right, let me have a little look in my dictionary...

Populism: policies which appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.

Sounds rather like 'democracy' to me.

So Mr Barroso, who was not elected by the people of this country and yet heads an organisation which even this government admits makes most of the new laws now governing us, who is paid with the contributions of the British tax payer, is telling our Prime Minister to ignore what we, the British people think, because it's not what he wants.

Well, tough, Mr Barroso. You, as an unelected, unaccountable apparatchik do not have any right to tell the person who is supposed to be representing us to ignore us. Why should we not have a say over the future of our country, our jobs, our laws and our lives?

The reason so many people in this country don't want to be governed by the EU is because you make monumentally bad decisions which only further the interests of paid up Commissioners, Eurocrats and businesses and industries who don't want to have to face globalisation and become more competitive. 69% of people in this country according to polls, either want to take back power from the EU (30%) or for Britain to withdraw altogether (29%).

You might not like that, especially in light of our money which you spend telling us and our children (through your one sided, malicious propaganda like the Europa diary sent out to 16 year olds to brain wash them)how great the EU is, the British people can see through your plans. That's tough on you, quite frankly, because it's not our job to make sure you have a cushy little number whether we like what you do or not.

In just over a week Blair will be going to Brussels for the European Summit where he will in all likelihood, sign up to proposals for an EU Constitution. It might not be called an EU Constitution, but that is just semantics. I don't care what it's called, I care what it does, and what it will do is take away more power from national governments, who are directly elected and accountable, and give them to the EU.

Mr Barroso has called on Mr Blair to "have the courage" and scrap more national vetos. This includes Justice and Home Affairs, which I have written about before, which will be devastating to this country and to democracy.

This Treaty is unprecedented in the way it has been formed. We aren't even going to have a debate about it, it's all being done with meetings between Heads of State, so the public and the media can't find out what evil they are plotting and try to stop them in their plans. Normally when we have a Treaty, the details are decided first, people are aware of the content, and the big meetings are to discuss the headlines. This time, the headlines are being discussed (far away from anyone who might object) and the details are being left for another day, hoping that we will all lose interest and not realise what they are putting into action.

So what we have here is an outgoing Prime Minister planning to sign up to a Treaty which he will not give us a referendum on (because he knows he will lose it), the content of which we are not allowed to know or debate and which he is lying to us about by saying, once again, that it's a 'tidying up exercise'.

It's not a tidying up exercise, it's another Treaty which will take powers away. We should be fuming about this. We should be in uproar at the way we are being treated by this government, who are once again taking the chronic piss out of us, whilst we sit back and let them. It's no good expecting the Tories to provide any kind of rational opposition, because they have handed away sovereignty to Brussels hand over fist when they have had the opportunity.

So if you don't want Blair to sign this Treaty, can we all kick up a bit of a fuss? I myself am going over to Brussels for it and shall, hopefully, be running some kind of a commentary as the evening progresses.

I hope the people of this country take an interest and realise what is going on, because if they don't, then to be honest I don't see why we just don't throw democracy away now.

Putin is right about something

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.

Or, more precisely, it lies with our lying, cheating politicians who have given away the right for Britain to control her own borders to the EU. (Labour and Tories in the UK, and all of them except UKIP in Brussels.)

That's why we can't deport criminals who are from the EU, or deny people from the EU into Britain on the basis of their criminal record, or have embarkation controls between entry ports within the EU, or stop people we don't want to come in, like Bulgarian mafia, from coming in.

Nice one! Go and award yourself a holiday on the taxpayer. And stay there, you horrible little slimeballs. Bleugh. You make me want to vomit.

Yet more hypocrisy from the Tories

I read the story the other day that up to 3000 foreign criminals would be released without being deported and wondered how it was once again in the news. Only 250 EU criminals (and I'm not talking about MEPs here) will be even considered for preliminary deportation procedures, according to a probation circular.

Well, I'm not surprised. Last year I was talking about the same regulation stopped countries from denying entry to EU nationals on the basis of a criminal record:

Article 27 (2) of 2004/58/EC says:

'Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures (restricting freedom of movement).'

If we continue:

he Conservatives said yesterday that the revelation was a further embarrassment for Home Secretary John Reid.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: 'Yet again we see that the public will be put at risk as a direct result of John Reid's failure.

'He spun he had a deal to remove these offenders but the rhetoric has not matched the action. John Reid was brought in to deal with the foreign prisoner crisis yet one year on as he quits office we see he has totally failed.'

Oooh, the Tories are criticising an EU law! But why? This law came into force because of EU enlargement to ten new member states, which the Tories were in favour of!

As I have said before, it was also a Tory who wrote the report in the European Parliament calling for Bulgaria to join the EU, and they are also in favour of Turkey joining.

It was under Michael Howard's stint as Europe Minister that laws governing control of our borders were first given away to the EU, and also the Tories are always talking about how much they love the single market, and how freedom of movement must be incorporated into this for it to work properly.

So what is David Davis complaining about? Why is he blaming John Reid? If the Tories didn't like it, they could have voted against it, rather than supporting it....

Poor Spam

Back in March the Boy Blunder was in Brussels speaking at the launch of the new group called the Movement for European Reform which wanted a new EU agenda for the 21st century. I'd quite like one of those, where the UK is out of the EU and we can have some democracy, free trade, a free markets approach to business and small government. I don't think Davey-Boy and his pals share my thoughts, though, as they seem to rather like the EU, despite the fact it is holding back development and globalisation.

One of the groups that Spam wanted to join his little group of centre-right fun was the SDS (or UDF in English) has not done that well in the Bulgarian European Elections, though....

Right-wing parliamentary formations SDS and DSB failed to clear the electoral bar of 5.6% and will not participate in the shareout of the 18 MEPs seats that were up for grabs.

What will anyone offer me for Tory MEPs still being in the EPP in 2010?

what people say when they think no one is listening

The kettle broke in my office today so I had to pop along to my club to have a cup of tea. as luck would have it, I had some entertainment in the form of a press conference given by William Hague and David Cameron.

It was ostensibly about Iran and what the UK should do (which from what I gathered was mew pitifully at the feet of the US and the EU) but when it came to questions, it was very definitely back to the subject of grammar schools. I'm not surprised the press aren't giving up on this subject, because it's a good one. William Hague did not look all that happy about what Cameron was saying about grammar schools not promoting social mobility. Maybe he understands that for them to really do that you need more of them, especially in inner cities, to avoid the situation of the 'post code lottery'.

What amused me more was when I popped into the bar afterwards to finish my cup of tea and have a cigarette and Cameron and Hague were there with their team. As people drifted off, it was just Hague left with his press lady, who informed him that he had a live interview lined up where they wanted to talk about the Litvinenko case and road pricing. Old Bill didn't look too happy at that news. In fact, if I recall correctly, he placed his hands on the bar, leaned on them and say he 'didn't know anything about road pricing' and that he wasn't that confident on Litvinenko.

I had a look at the interview on the TV and he was right, he didn't know that much. I'm so happy that a policy being debated in the House of Commons today which is of considerable importance, especially if Galileo has anything to do with it, is off the radar of the Shadow Foreign Affairs Secretary. As someone whose portfolio includes the European Union, he really should know that road pricing using satellites is a nice way of the British taxpayer funding this black hole in the EU budget, which has already cost them £200 million. As UKIP have pointed out:

This government signed up to Directive 2004/52 which will ensure the entire road pricing schemes in EU countries are the same, and can be linked to Galileo.

And as I have written before:

Galileo satellite system: Multi billion pound 'grand project' that is driven by delays, costs and technical problems. Will be superseded by competition. The need to pay for this project is the main reason for the hated road pricing scheme.

So there we go. I'm glad that Mr Hague is so on the ball.

A weighty issue

Lots of talk today about imperial measurements being 'saved', which I thought I would just clarify. It's not the most simple of topics and, being rather new to the debate, it's taken me a bit of time to gather the information. The main point it that it is still illegal to sell goods in imperial measurements. Your butcher cannot sell you a pound of sausages, he has to sell you it in metric.
The claims in the papers are regarding a derogation on supplementary indicators. From 31st December 2009 it was going to be illegal for shops etc. to include the price of things in imperial as well as metric, but now that has been dropped, although the Commission and the DTI are yet to make an official statement on it.

What has rather irritated me, as I pointed out in the post below, is the Tories jumping up and down about how they are the St George to the imperialist virgin. They aren't.

If we have a little look at Hansard from the 11th April 1989 we can see that it was none other than the current Conservative Party Chairman St Francis of Maastricht who brought in yet more measures about metrification.

European Community (Weights and Measures)

10.17 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude) : I beg to move

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4102/89 on units of measurement ; and welcomes the proposals as providing adequate transitional periods to enable businesses and consumers to adapt and become used to the new measurements. In 1965 the then Government announced their support to encourage the adoption of metric units as the primary system for weights and measures in the United Kingdom.

That was a decision taken for purely domestic reasons, in response to urging by the CBI and others ; it had nothing to do then with possible membership of the European Community. In 1971 the then member states of the Community adopted a directive which established the sole use of the metric system throughout the Community. When the United Kingdom and Ireland acceded to the Community the Government accepted that eventually the metric system should be the only system to be used.

In consequence, a White Paper on metrication was published in 1972. It stated that all practicable progress towards the full use of the metric system should be made within the next few years, in the interests of economic prosperity. This led to the education system moving to the use of metric units in 1974. As a result, 11 million children since then have been taught only in the metric system.

he goes on:

Under the present weights and measures legislation, which has been in existence, subject to amendment from time to time, for a long time, it is, and has been for many years, a criminal offence to sell goods in measures which are not authorised under the legislation

Which does rather make a mockery of the statement by Giles Chichester MEP that:

The threat to miles, yards and pints is off the agenda after Giles Chichester MEP, Conservative Industry Spokesman, got confirmation from Industry Commissioner Verheugen that "dual marking" of goods in imperial and metric will 'continue indefinitely'.

I'm still smelling that smoke...is anyone else?

Giles Chichester says: "After saving the crown on the British pint, I am happy the Conservatives have persuaded the Commission that it is good not only for international business but for the British people that traditional measurements are kept. I just hope there won't be any more need for metric martyrs and that the government will avoid forcing metrication down the public's throat."

But you don't mention that it's still illegal to sell in imperial? Still trying to convince your voters that you're eurosceptic, are you? You're an embarrassment to the nation, Giles, and I hope you and your cronies are thoroughly ashamed of yourself. I also hope you don't get elected in 2009 and you have to find a job in the real world. One that then gets shut down because of all the harmful EU legislation that you and your other MEP colleagues have helped to bring about to justify your own existence.

Shame on you.

A few of my favourite things

Shoes and Trade!

It seems that Clarks shoes have finally felt the sting of the harmful and economically backward decision by arch numpty Peter Mandelson:

Profits at C&J Clark, the family-controlled shoe company, fell last year after the EU imposed tariffs on shoes imported from China and Vietnam.

CandJ Clark's profits fell last year as a result of EU imposed tariffs on shoes imported from China and Vietnam.

Turnover at the company, which owns Clarks, Britain's largest shoe retailer, rose from £920.6m to £972.7m in the year to January 31 2007, but pre-tax profits slipped from £71.9m to £69.4m, according to accounts filed at Companies House.

In his statement to shareholders Peter Davies, chairman, said that the "politically inspired decision to impose anti-dumping duties on footwear imports from China and Vietnam" had cost the group £4.8m and warned that it was likely to cost a further £13m this year.

As I have written before, the decision by the EU to impose tariffs on shoes coming from China and Vietnam was nothing but a politically motivated decision designed to appease the countries in Europe who have not, and do not plan to, adapt to globalisation.

What was particularly stupid about this decision was that the European Commission team went to Brazil to decide whether or not China and Vietnam were engaged in anti competitive practises.
The GDP per capita in China is $8600
The GDP per capita in Vietnam is $7600
The GDP per capita in Brazil is $3100

So they aren't exactly identical now, are they. What's more, with the sheer numbers of people, particularly in China, their wages are much lower. Now, whilst not paying workers very much might cause a huge tizz amongst the bleeding heart socialists, in order for countries to develop and get rich, they take advantage of the resources they have in abundance. If poor countries develop then yes, the rich get rich first, and then there's a trickle down effect. If you have a look at the Kuznets curve we see that inequality rises initially when there is a switch away from primary products markets to the secondary sector.

There was no real reason for these protectionist barriers to free trade to be imposed on Chinese and Vietnamese exports, apart from countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal not being able to compete with them, because they like the over regulated, union driven markets which the EU holds in such high regard. And as a consequence, British firms and consumers have suffered.

As Nigel Farage MEP said to Commissioner Mandelson:

How can 25 countries have one single trade policy? One size does not fit all, whether it is trade policy or shoe sizes.

Quite. It doesn't. We are the world's third largest trading nation, and it is outrageous that we don't have UK representation at the WTO.

So, can we leave yet?

Brown admits he shouldn't be chancellor

From The Sun:

“I did maths at school and for one year at university.
“I don’t think I was ever very good at it — and some people would say it shows.”

Yes, Gordon, it does. Not just your lack of mathematical ability, but also your inability to grasp even basic economics. Let's look at the fiasco over our gold reserves, shall we?

whilst these normal folk can grasp supply and demand, our Chancellor of the Exchequer is still learning from the Fisher PriceTM easy learning guide to buying and selling.

Just in case you’re a little short of time, Gordon, let me summarise the basics for you. Firstly, gold, however much politicians like it or not, will always be purchased, especially in times of uncertainty and instability. Secondly, the price of gold goes up and down depending on demand and supply. The idea is to buy when cheap and sell when the price is high. This is one way of getting some cash in your coffers and it doesn’t include taxing people to buggery.

Thirdly, if you announce when the price of gold is already low that you are going to sell 60% of the United Kingdom’s gold reserves, it’s going to mean yet more people will sell ahead of the inevitable drop in price once a large amount of gold is sold back onto the market. Once they’ve sold theirs, the price drops even more! And here’s the golden (excuse the pun) rule: once you’ve announced you’re going to sell, don’t then wait a few weeks and sell gold which essentially belongs to more people than just you at a 20-year-low. But hey, you’re the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I’m just a girl with a few letters after her name: there’s no way you’d ever make that mistake! I mean, if you had waited just a few years, then you could have raised ₤4bn which would have gone down nicely at a time when the tax burden has risen from 39.3% of income in 1997 to 42.4% right now.

It came on the day that the Governor of the Bank of England warned of an economic slowdown (well, interest rates have been rising for some time to try to halt the growth in borrowing) and research showed that the UK has the most complicated tax system in the world.

I'll take the last point first. It's very simple, vote UKIP and you get a flat tax system. There. That was easy.

Yes, we do have a culture of borrowing. But is that so surprising when for a huge number of 18 year olds, the government is telling them that it's okay to be thousands of pounds in debt, even at such a young age. I speak of Student Loans. At 18 when I went to university I had to take out a loan, as did most of my friends. So at 18 my friends and I considered it normal to have debts of £10,000 or more. When friends and I now bemoan our dire financial situations, it is normally said as follows:

"I owe x...that doesn't include my student loan, which is about £12,000 now."

I thought nothing of taking out the loan, because my parents told me I had to if I wanted to go to university and it was, after all, a government loan. And yet, without even realising, I was becoming immune to the fear of owing money.

I said this to the Local Government Minister the other day, who conceded that I did rather have a point. Does that mean they will do anything about it? Does it bollocks. They will continue with their arbitrary target of trying to get 50% of young people into higher education, because they have some kind of chip on their shoulder about people not being worthy unless they have a degree, even if it is from a former polytechnic.

I see it as a huge problem trying to get this country back on track for an economic recovery unless we leave the EU. The EU sees tax competition as a bad thing, thinks that all businesses are bad and wants to stop people working more than 48 hours a week, which is the way most people manage to get themselves out of debt. Think about it. If I am being taxed to buggery, then it's going to be very difficult for me to lower my cost of living, because most of what I earn goes on simply surviving. So I will try and earn more, to have a greater disposable income at the end of the month. Except that the EU want to stop me doing that, and think that they are, in some odd way, helping me.

Just as, I presume, they think they are helping me by interfering so much in agriculture and thus making my weekly food bill more expensive. Or by trying to focus the attention of energy onto renewable sources which excludes nuclear and therefore makes it less likely that the UK will move to nuclear energy which will be a much more secure and cheaper way of producing energy and will help out no end with our foreign policy.

And on a final note:

But there was some cheer for Mr Brown when the Bank boss also predicted a sharp fall in inflation — which hit 3.1 per cent last month — over the next six months.

If anyone with a brain realised that the CPI, forced on us by the EU, which excludes among many things, mortgages, is a completely irrelevant way of calculating the rise in the cost of living. It's so consistently under the RPIx, or even the RPIy that it is actually a bit of a joke.

So, I ask again, can we leave yet?

The EU: providing us with yet another reason why it should not exist

According to Reuters

The European Union agreed on Monday to inform groups and people why they are put on its list of terrorist organisations, a move aimed at avoiding decisions being overturned in court...

EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday agreed that reasons for blacklisting 29 other groups and more than 30 individuals remained valid.

"Therefore the Council intends to maintain (them) on the list," a statement said.

"The persons, groups and entities concerned will be informed via a statement of reason of the specific information that form the basis of the Council's decision," it said, adding groups would be allowed to comment on the decisions.

That seems like a jolly good idea: let's tell a load of terrorists why we think they're terrorists. That way, we can let them know what we have on them and, more to the point, what we don't have on them. Well Done.

The EU blacklist includes the Palestinian Hamas group, Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Blacklisting means groups are banned and have their assets frozen.

Hold on a minute...I know that the rest of the world had caught on to the fact that Hamas is a terrorist group, but the EU decided that funding the Palastinian Authority i.e Hamas was a jolly sensible thing to do. Am all confused, now. Perhaps they are?

Either way, it should be up to the democratically elected and accountable politicians of this country to decide on where aid goes, and which groups are considered terrorists. I was going to tell this to a group of Iranians outside the FCO the other day, and inform them that they needed to stand outside some EU institution, but I couldn't be bothered and I had a meeting to make.

I suspect even if I had told them, they wouldn't have believed me. I mean, it is rather a joke that the third largest trading nation in the world is ruled by a group of crackpot politicians who wouldn't know a sound economic policy if it landed on their head and bit them. And yet, we are.

Gordon Brown: Thieving Bastard

As the Devil points out, Gordon Brown has decided to give yet more of our money away to try and combat VAT fraud.

Gordon Brown was plunged into fresh controversy yesterday after he was accused of backing down in a year-long row over the European Union budget.

The Treasury confirmed that he had stopped haggling over the details of the deal negotiated by Tony Blair in December 2005, but EU diplomats claimed it would result in a deeper cut in the UK rebate than Mr Brown had wanted.

Britain will now pay its full share towards rebates for other big net contributors to the 27-nation bloc's budget, contrary to Mr Brown's interpretation of the original deal.

You may remember at the time of the rebate discussions, there was one man trying to stand up for this country:



So the tax burden is sky high in this country, public services are failing, economic growth is no where near as high as it should be, mainly due to the damaging social policies of the EU who want regulation after regulation which harms British businesses and yet now he's not going to be Chancellor for very long, the bastard has decided not to try to fight to keep more of our rebate. And why? To try to combat fraud for a regresive tax which is imposed on us by the EU. The EU should not have anything to do with our taxes. The fraud in VAT is enormous, and yet we have to go begging to France to get anything done about it, when if we weren't in the EU we wouldn't even have to ask anyone else for permission to do what the government must do as a duty of care.

It's astonishing that anyone can think that the EU is a good idea, unless they are mentally retarded. It damages everything it goes anywhere near.

So why are we still in it? And when can we have our say in a referendum?

How did I miss this one?

What the European Union has done for us, from A-Z

A is for Arsenal Arsène Wenger and Thierry Henry's exercise in footballing elegance (with barely a British boot on the pitch) would hardly be possible without Europe's open transfer market
So you're saying that having a British team with hardly any British players is a good thing? Interesting. Also, are you aware of what the EU are trying to do to football? May I suggest that is possibly has more to do with the money offered. Oh, and the EU are trying to stop non EU players from joining British clubs, and they were trying to get the EU flag flow and the EU anthem played for matches with clubs from the EU.

B is for borders During a journey from Belgium to Luxembourg to France to Germany to Poland a passport had to be shown only once and then cursorily
If open borders facilitate legal trade, then it will also facilitate illegal trade, but to a greater degree. If you think this is a good thing, I am not expecting any more articles in the Guardian about people trafficking.

C is for climate change 27 governments have just agreed the most ambitious package ever to tackle global warming. If the US, China, and India followed suit, the future would look less bleak
Doesn't that just rather prove the point that, even if humans did have much to do with climate change, this stupid idea of Fortress Europe is backward looking and pointless? The UK should not be ignoring countries like India and China, but the EU seems determined that we must only look at them as a threat. And also, the sheer arrogance of EU countries telling other countries they must cut carbon emissions, and thus not develop, and then bleating on about eradicating poverty makes me scream.

D is for democracy dictatorships in Spain, Portugal, Greece and all over eastern Europe are in the dustbin of history
But alive and well in the EU where the European Commission are the only EU institution to make laws, and the Commissioners who are the guardians of the treaties, cannot be sacked by the people they claim they represent.

E is for the euro On trips across much of Europe, travellers no longer have to change currencies and no longer come home with a pocketful of useless coins
Economics text book over here, please. Having a single interest rate for vastly different economies is a bad thing. Ask Italy. Or Germany. Or France.
And since when was currency 'useless?' Even if one never went back to the country, surely all those little coins would be rather useful to hurl at stupid guardian journalists who write lists full of shite?

F is for flights Stag parties in Prague? Shopping in Barcelona? How could we afford it without the cheap airlines enabled by deregulating European air traffic
Well, it's called competition. It's what happens in a market economy. Basically, even though the different sectors of the airline industry could be called oligopolistic, as a whole it's competitive. I would suggest that the ability for consumers to compare prices easily on the Internet has made the industry move slightly more towards the Utopian 'perfect competition'. But hold on: I thought we had to combat climate change, and flights were bad? I'm all confused!

G is for Germany Until anchored in the EU, Germany caused untold grief to most of us
Ha! If anyone from UKIP said this, can you imagine the cried of 'racist' from the pages of the guardian? That is, once the sandal wearing gaggles of hairy jumpers had picked themselves up off the floor. Yes, Germany did cause lots of grief. But so did Russia. For a lot longer. And Germany didn't join the EU for quite a few years after the Treaty of Rome. And they didn't actually have any desire to go to war again.


H is for homebuying The British mania for that place in the sun is a result of the EU requiring members to open their housing markets to foreign EU citizens
I think people bought homes abroad before the EU...However, the EU has failed spectacularly to stop 'land grab' in Valencia. But let's just keep quiet about that one, eh?

I is for international clout Europe's sum is greater than its parts when it comes to making a difference internationally
Like at the WTO, when as a group it makes sure that developing countries remain poor by insisting that the trade policy of 27 countries is protectionist? The influence of the EU is declining, whilst other countries like India and China are waxing. So why should we limit our choices and stay on the sinking ship?

J is for jobs Working anywhere in Europe is now easy and occurring on an unprecedented scale
Yes, and the number of unemployed in Britain is rising, whilst there are shortages of workers in Eastern Europe; migrants are living in tents in Hyde Park and people like me can't afford to get on the property ladder because of the spectacular increase in demand.


K is for Kosovo The biggest challenge. EU is preparing to steer the province to independence in its first such mission
Funny. When my dad was working hours and hours of overtime over Kosovo, it was NATO he was working for.

L is for London As Europe's pre-eminent financial centre, the City of London has benefited enormously from the single market
Bing! Thank you for playing! The EU hates the fact that the City of London is more successful than Frankfurt and yet didn't join the EU. Especially since they also trade more Euro than Frankfurt. Which is presumably why the EU is trying to shut down the City by bringing in damaging regulations like the Market in Financial Instruments Directive, which will be one step further to the financial centre switching to New York.

M is for market The single one of goods and services has been a boon for European consumers
Too small. Too Fortress Europe. And the protectionist policies of the EU have harmed British consumers. Like higher prices for shoes, and an extra 20 quid a week on a food bill because of the CAP.

N is for nationalism It ain't what it used to be
True. Now it's EU nationalism. Well, apart from the rise of nationalist parties like Front National and the BNP because of the desire for the EU to erase national identities and cultures. Force people together, and the split will be bloody.

O is for openness What the EU has done best in expanding from an original six to a current 27 countries
Any back up for this? I don't understand why those countries in Eastern Europe went from Communism to, well, borderline Communism. Apart from money in the short term, I suppose.

P is for peace Don't take it for granted in the continent that gave us Auschwitz.
Back to attacking those Germans again! Look, matey. It was NATO and trade and a lack of money and desire to have another war that kept the peace.

Q is for queueing Less and less of it on the borders between EU countries
I'd rather queue for a bit and know who was in the country, personally. Maybe that's just me being fickle?


R is for regions Remote and poorer areas of Europe benefit from structural funds that amount to a great social democratic exercise in wealth redistribution
Yes, they get hand outs instead of developing and being competitive. What a jolly good idea! I mean, it's worked so well in Sub-Saharan Africa...And I also really don't see why my money should go to pay for the public services in other countries, when the ones in the UK are shite.

S is for soft power if the EU's so bad, why does everyone else want to join?

I would have thought that the comment above would go some way to explain that. Or have you already forgotten that you wrote it?

T is for transport All of Europe is being knitted together by road and rail infrastructure projects
Like road pricing controlled by Galileo! Hurrah! Like the open skies deal which means foreign airlines can pinch slots at LHR instead of making their own airports work properly. Jolly good!

U is for unification In 2004, when eight post-communist countries joined, made Europe whole (nearly), democratic, and free for the first time ever
Except that the EU is not democratic, so that kind of blows that one out of the water.

V is for variety From Krakow to Florence to Edinburgh to Seville, no union has ever comprised such splendid diversity
So why try to eradicate it? Why, if it's so good, can't we have imperial measurements, for example? Or different currencies? (which I think you said earlier were bad...)

W is for welfare The European social model cushions the effects of globalisation
THAT IS A BAD THING, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!!!!!!! Jesus. I mean, where do you start? Have these people no brain? Globalisation makes everyone better off, except the lazy people who are currently being propped up by spastics in the EU.

X is for xenophobia National prejudices start to break down the more the citizens of Europe mix and meet
Were we not allowed to talk to people from other countries before the EU, then?

Y is for yard Europe encouraged all countries to unify measuring systems
Which means we won't be able to use yard. And since most of our exports go to America, where they use imperial measurements, how is this good? And also, I thought you just said above that differences were a good thing? So why are these ones not good?

Z is for Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe and his henchmen are barred all over Europe, at British insistence, but only because Britain is in the EU
How do you know that? What a stupid thing to say. Again. The UK has not done enough towards Zimbabwe, but I don't understand how us crawling to the EU to try get something done about sanctions is in any way beneficial.

Press release from 'eurosceptic' Conservatives

Release: immediate

Date: 28 March 2007

Issued by: Conservatives in the European Parliament

Timothy Kirkhope MEP, tel: +32 (0) 2 28 45 321Conservatives urge Merkel to lead the 'Europe of Results' not the Europe of declarations and constitutions


Conservative leader says European people need actions not words to re-establish interest in the European Union


Mr Kirkhope said: "The European Union today is viewed as a distant bureaucracy. People see the EU as an over-regulating body that is encroaching on too many matters that could be better regulated by the nation state. People want to see co-operation in Europe, but they do not understand why politicians in the EU and in this Parliament spend so much time on constitutional and institutional issues. It is results that matter, not the drafting of constitutions.


People ask what Europe is doing to combat global climate change, to fight the scourge of global poverty and to make our continent more competitive in the face of globalisation. They are not asking for Constitutions and Treaties. They want us to deliver on the substance, and not dwell on processes."



Rejecting the need for a new constitution, Mr Kirkhope added: "In the 21st Century, we need more flexibility and more decentralisation to enable our economies to win in international markets. We do not need more regulation in Europe, we need less. We do not need more majority voting to fight climate change or global poverty. Rather we need more effective intergovernmental co-operation.



"Constitutions and institutions do not generate prosperity, they do not make our economies more competitive, they do not reduce C02 emissions and they do not feed hungry people in the developing world. I urge governments to respect the 'no' votes of the French and Dutch peoples, avoid a lengthy and divisive constitutional debate and get on with the job of delivering on policy substance."


ENDS

So once again to all those of you who ramble on about UKIP splitting the Eurosceptic vote, I say, "how?"

This press release could have been written for Blair himself. Or Merkel for that matter. It is as clear as a bell that the Conservatives are dedicated to not only remaining in the EU, but want to promote it in the UK and want it to have more power.

And I ask the question of Mr Kirkhope: with regards to his comments on poverty in the developing world, does he actually understand about trade policy? The EU is not going to eliminate poverty in the developing world, anymore than I am going to become a card carrying member of the Liberal Democrats, become a ballet dancer and have a crew cut.

another EU scandal?

News reaches me that dawn raids took place this morning in France, Italy and Belgium because of an investigation into alleged corruption surrounding EU embassies.

According to reports, EU officials may have been giving the gravy train an extra buffet car by indulging in some dodgy tendering for contracts for the security arrangements for EU embassies and the buildings themselves.

There shouldn't even be EU embassies. The EU is not a country (yet) and the UK has it's own diplomatic corp to represent British interests abroad. I can't imagine that I would ever be in a situation where, if I was in trouble abroad, I would say "well, thank god there's an EU embassy who can help me!"

They probably wouldn't ever be open, when they were they would be understaffed because of the working time directive and the long lunch hours, and the paperwork would just be unimaginable. In fact, I suspect that it would be quicker to be arrested and face trial than get the EU to help out in a sticky situation.

Especially if past form on corruption is anything to go by, because the security staff would all be dentists....

I don't love EU anymore

Dear John,



Your birthday might be a bad time to tell you this, but I don't love EU anymore. Our relationship was meant to be one of mutual benefit and companionship. Over the last few years it has become increasingly apparent that if there are benefits, they are all one-way. I feel taken for granted, and the time has come for me to tell you that I want out of this. You're within your rights to ask why, after a relationship spanning so many years, I have come to make this decision. So I have made you a list:


1) 75% of our laws are now made by the EU. Roman Herzog the former German President recently said that 84% of the laws in Germany are now passed in Brussels.

2) Democratic Deficit: The Commission are unelected and unaccountable. Turnout for the EP elections is less than 50% across the whole EU, despite voting being compulsory in some countries.

3) Common Agricultural Policy: Funding farmers for not producing (formerly wine lakes, butter mountains and now non-existent olive groves, dairy herds and vine yards), the farce of subsidy payments whereby DEFRA was fined £300 million for late payment of subsidies, paid from British taxes that had been sent to the EU and partially returned.

4) Galileo satellite system: Multi billion pound 'grand project' that is driven by delays, costs and technical problems. Will be superseded by competition. The need to pay for this project is the main reason for the hated road pricing scheme.

5) Retirement home and pension funds for politicians rejected by the electorate: Neil Kinnock, anyone?

6) Airbus: Business driven by politics, and a black hole for tax revenue.

Failing business model driven by EU politics not markets and business requirements, resulting in the collapse of the A400M which is supposed to provide heavy military lift.

7) ID Cards: The drive for ID cards the database state is coming from the EU. You can't buy cigarettes in Germany unless you use your computer chip ID

8) CFP: Destruction of European fishing grounds and wrecking the livelihoods of British fishermen.

9) Strasbourg: £250 million a year, for what?

10) Corruption: Edith Cresson employing her dentist as an advisor on developing world aid, Santer Commission resigning in disgrace, covered up accounts scandal within the Committee of the Regions, Eurostat being described by the House of Commons as 'a grand enterprise of looting'…need we go on?

11) OLAF: A anti-fraud body that arrests investigative journalists rather than criminals

12) Groundwater Directive: Desert Orchid could not be buried at Kempton Park

13) Weights and Measures: Unnecessary criminalisation of selling in pounds and ounces

14) Crowns on Pints: Replacement of 300 years of tradition for a wannabe super state symbolism.

15) Accounts: Have not been signed off for 12 years. The one time a professional accountant raised the problems with the accounts she was fired.

16) Cucumber Directive: what's wrong with them being bent?:

17) Ladders: The EU has ordered us on how we should and shouldn't use ladders. Why is our money being spent on legislation which we do not need. Do they think we're idiots?

18) Football: The EU wishes to decide who can play for British clubs, how much they can be paid:

19) Balkans: EU forces watched while 6000 were murdered at Srebrenica

20) Euro: One interest rate for 13 countries with massively different economies does not work. High inflation in some countries, stagnation in others. One size does fit all.

21) Immigration: not having the power to decide who can and who cannot come to live and work in a country is a basic requirement of a nation. The enlargement of the EU to include Eastern European countries has seen the highest level of immigration into Britain ever. The UK is not allowed to deny entry to people from the EU with criminal records, nor are they allowed to deport criminals from the EU once they have finished their sentence.

22) Regionalisation: The aim to rearrange police forces, ambulance crews and fire crews to a regional structure is driven by the regionalisation project of the EU, which has also brought in an extra layer of government in the form of regional assemblies which are unwanted, unelected and unaccountable to the people they are supposed to represent.

23) Habeas Corpus: The replacement of our Common Law and its protection of freedoms by the Napoleonic code which sees people as guilty until proven innocent. It would mean the removal of trial by jury and imprisonment without trial. The classic case of this is the Greek plane spotters.

24) PC lexicon: The European Commission has issued a document to go to all member states informing them of the language they are able to use and words which are forbidden, in the event of a terrorist attack. They have refused to release this guide, but admit it exists.

25) Mandelson: Twice thrown out of the British government, and yet his new position makes him more powerful than Gordon Brown.

26) Europol: The fact that police can have immunity under the law breaches the basic idea of legal equality. They do not swear allegiance to the British Head of State and can therefore ignore the requests of our government.

27) EuroGenFor: A European paramilitary force designed specifically for the putting down of civil dissent

28) Working Time Directive: The EU, not the individual, decides how long they can work for. This has caused financial problems for some people who cannot do enough hours to earn a decent wage. High profile cases of Ambulance crews not being able to answer emergency calls because they have to take a break, meaning lives are lost. Yet, parliamentary assistants aren't covered by this.

29) Red Duster: Attempt by the EU to replace the red ensign with the EU flag, meaning that vessels are covered by EU law rather than British law.

30) Aid Policy: The UK pays about 15% of the EU aid budget, which, as Clare Short pointed out, is often used for political ends rather than to help those who genuinely need it.

31) Flight Taxes: The EU talks about the importance of free movement of people but is attempting to scupper its own plans by imposing extra taxation on flights. Against the wishes of their own President.

32) Education: The EU is trying to create a common history syllabus, airbrushing out most of our history. The World Wars become European civil wars and the EU will be the bringer of peace.

33) EU Constitution: Despite the French and Dutch rejecting the EU Constitution, the EU leaders are determined that it is ratified. This weekend's 50th anniversary Berlin Declaration is all part of this process.

34) Anti Americanism: The EU's main foreign policy objective is driven by contempt for Europe's greatest ally. The deliberate repudiation of the Marshall plan, and 50 years of defensive shield, like a teenager who resents their free rent

35) Climate Change: An unproven theory which has been taken up with some vigour by the EU who see an opportunity to increase their power. They are using the concern people have about global warming to increase their influence and how people view the institution and are opposing a fair and open debate on whether climate change is as devastating as certain organisations make out. In short, they have made denying it the new witchcraft.

36) EU 'open skies' deal: Despite the British Transport Secretary voting against the decision, the EU has decided that foreign airlines can bid for British take off and landing slots from Heathrow to JFK. This shows that we have so little power that we cannot even decide about our own airport slots.

37) Beef Ban: Despite being found guilty of every rule under the sun, France continued to ban the imports of British beef for ten years. The EU did nothing to make them abide by the law. It took the promise of a separate Parliament to make them lift the ban. (see ' Strasbourg')

38) Rapid Reaction Force: The creation of European Military capacity as a direct challenge to the NATO alliance. Understaffed, undermanned, under equipped and unnecessary.

39) Ruddy Ducks: The EU eradication plan for much loved bird in England to protect a Spanish duck.

40) Employment Law: Where to start? The new age discrimination laws are yet another reason against a small business employing someone, as these laws make them a liability. Gender discrimination laws and positive discrimination openly discriminates against women, and questions whether women in jobs are there on merit, or because of a quota.

41) Iran: The EU's Trialogue has allowed the Iranian authorities to continue with their nuclear weapon programme, providing a massive threat to the stability and security of the Middle East and beyond.

42) Hamas: A terrorist organisation now part funded by the British taxpayer via EU aid.

43) Propaganda: The endless drive to ensure that everyone learns to stop worrying and love the European Union. Essentially using our money to tell us what to think. The latest idea includes a film prize in which entrants must be subtitled in all official European Languages: Text only film.

44) Diplomatic Corps: The slow replacement of National diplomatic representation around the world and the creation of the EU Diplomatic corps, (External Action Service) despite their being no legal basis for such a thing.

45) Energy Policy/Russia: The EU is relying more and more on Russia for its energy sources despite Russia recent use of energy in its brinkmanship with the Ukraine and Georgia putting the EU's energy supply in great danger.

46) Lobbying: 50,000 lobbyists from big business, the NGOP sector live and work in Brussels, doing deals behind the scenes and affecting the rule making without any recourse to public debate

47) Transparency: The Council of Ministers still meet in private. 3,600 working groups meet in the European Commission, nobody is allowed to know who sits on these Committees.

48) Regulation: Estimates on the cost to British business of regulation are approximately £40 billion since 1998:

49) Misuse of Metaphors: Trains, tracks, on, off, back, forth, up, down.

50) EPP: The Conservative Party's friends in Europe are lead by a French farmer who is under investigation in a massive corruption scandal.

51) France: Plus ca change, plus le meme chose

I hope this answers your questions. You can see how it makes no sense for me to continue with this relationship but, dear John…can we still be friends?


With kindest regards


The people of Britain

The Independent

The Independent has decided to put a list of crap on the front page. 'What's new?' I hear you cry?

Good point. But this front cover irritated me more than most.

50 reasons to love the European Union
As the EU celebrates its anniversary, The Independent looks at 50 benefits it has brought, and asks: "What has Europe done for us?"
Published: 21 March 2007

1 The end of war between European nations

Hey hey! Start off with a cracker, why don't you! I think you'll find that it's NATO and trade which has kept the peace, along with most countries in Europe being tired of war and not having a reason to go to war. Which reminds me. At that lecture the other night, some silly woman called Sylvie Gouland said that if it wasn't for the EU then France and Germany would have gone to war. I happen to have a little more faith in these countries that she does, clearly.

2 Democracy is now flourishing in 27 countries
But not in the EU, where the guardian of the treaties, the European Commission, are unelected and unaccountable. I would also point you towards Eliab and his comment on this.

3 Once-poor countries, such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal, are prospering

Well, actually Greece and Portugal aren't doing so well, but I might suggest that one of the reasons that the Irish economy boomed was the fact that they slashed corporation tax meaning that they had massive inward investment.

4 The creation of the world's largest internal trading market

With an external tariff and an organisation which stops global free trade which would increase global parity.

5 Unparalleled rights for European consumers

Why can't national parliaments do this? Or, why can't the market do this? Surely consumers can make the choice about where they buy from?

6 Co-operation on continent-wide immigration policy

Where? Do you mean the removal of embarkation controls which means we have no idea who is in this country? Or do you mean the plans for a Common Immigration Policy? As Milton Friedman pointed out, you can't have free movement of peoples with a Welfare State. Duh.

7 Co-operation on crime, through Europol

I'd rather not have Europol, thanks all the same. Something to do with police on our streets not being answerable to our state and the members and their families being immune from arrest. Nice.

8 Laws that make it easier for British people to buy property in Europe

Hasn't helped people in Valencia much, has it.

9 Cleaner beaches and rivers throughout Europe

As Eliab points out:

The blue flag scheme has been by and large a success. But it was a French national initiative that launched in 1985, years later it became something picked up by the EU and is now superseded by the UN Blue Flag Scheme. So an EU thing, nope sorry it doesn't stand up. You will be telling us that drinking wine is an EU success story, because it came from a European country, or television, or railways.

10 Four weeks statutory paid holiday a year for workers in Europe

I'm not that happy about the EU having control over employment law. Because when they do we end up with damaging laws such as the working time directive and these pointless discrimination laws which are harmful to the people they try to help, and which only benefit ambulance chasing lawyers.

11 No death penalty (it is incompatible with EU membership)

Surely that should be up to individual countries to decide?

12 Competition from privatised companies means cheaper phone calls

*smash* sorry, just fell over. Is the Independent saying that privatisation is a good thing? On the subject of roaming charges, the conferences I attended made it clear that if charges were limited by the EU, services would be reduced. Clever, clever...

13 Small EU bureaucracy (24,000 employees, fewer than the BBC)

I keep on hearing stupid phrases like this. Look. There are people in the British civil service who are carrying out the work of the EU through regulation. There are people who share an office with me who are paid by British tax payers to promote the EU in this country. There are Health and Safety officers, compliance officers, discrimination awareness sandal wearing officers....these are all because of the EU.
And that's on top of the 54,000 workers that are actually employed by the EU.
14 Making the French eat British beef again

If they don't want to, why should they? If we have control over our own trade policy, this kind of thing just wouldn't be an issue. And I raise the question: Why should we have the Strasbourg parliament, costing an additional £200m a year, because we wanted the French to lift their ban on British beef.

15 Minority languages, such as Irish, Welsh and Catalan recognised and protected

I recall being in the EP a few months ago and hearing the President of the Parliament cut the mike and order the interpreters to stop working after someone started speaking in Catalan. As for Irish and Welsh - why don't those countries protect them?

16 Europe is helping to save the planet with regulatory cuts in CO2

What fucking bollocks. No, I can't even bother with this one. Twats.

17 One currency from Bantry to Berlin (but not Britain)

No, and that's why we're doing better than the EU12. (or is it 13 now?) Ask Italy how much they like having the Euro. Or France, or Germany, or anyone who is feeling the pain of a single rate of interest for completely different economies. Keeping your own currency is a real no-brainer.

18 Europe-wide travel bans on tyrants such as Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe

And I've just heard Cameron pleading to Blair to ask the EU if they can continue with sanctions on Zimbabwe. Why should the EU control our borders and international diplomacy?

19 The EU gives twice as much aid to developing countries as the United States

Including to Hamas. Nice one. I don't agree with international aid. I believe in international trade. Why should my taxes go to prop up corrupt and murdering dictators and not to helping farmers trade their way out of poverty, and me getting cheaper things as well?

20 Strict safety standards for cars, buses and aircraft

hmm..okay. But would it have happened anyway? Do we need them?

21 Free medical help for tourists
Which I don't actually agree with. The NHS is in enough trouble as it is. When I ended up in a Belgian hospital (some nasty chap spiked my drink) I paid for it, and then claimed it back off my medical insurance. Why should the Belgian tax payer have to pay for me?

22 EU peace-keepers operate in trouble spots throughout the world

Most of which come from the British army. Where are the Germans in the Helmland?

23 Europe's single market has brought cheap flights to the masses, and new prosperity for forgotten cities

No, that was Freddie Laker. And don't the EU want to stop everyone traveling by air? And what about Ryanair?

24 Introduction of pet passports

As Eliab once again points out, this was initially a policy of the monster raving loony party, which was followed up by the British government.

25 It now takes only 2 hrs 35 mins from London to Paris by Eurostar

Or less, actually. But what does that have to do with anything?

26 Prospect of EU membership has forced modernisation on Turkey

Doesn't it rather say something that we have to bribe them to change? And I don't want Turkey to join the EU, and I'm quite happy for Turkey to remain independent and a secular state. It is globalisation which will change backward countries, not undemocratic organisations such as the EU.

27 Shopping without frontiers gives consumers more power to shape markets

Erm?

28 Cheap travel and study programmes means greater mobility for Europe's youth

And British tax payers now have to pay for students from the EU to go to our universities.

29 Food labelling is much clearer

The British Food Standards Agency did that, and then the EU came up with another set of rules which are more complicated. And the FSA don't want. And also, can I mention Bowlands Dairies?

30 No tiresome border checks (apart from in the UK)

Tiresome? To have some idea about who is in the country? Hello? And soon I am sure we'll hear something about people trafficking, or smuggling, or illegal immigrants...

31 Compensation for passengers suffering air delays

Isn't that something of a consumer choice? But okay, I will give you that one.

32 Strict ban on animal testing for the cosmetic industry

Didn't we do it first ourselves? And I notice the author excludes REACH which will mean yet more unnecessary animal testing.

33 Greater protection for Europe's wildlife

Back to Eliab again: CITIES was an international convention.

34 Regional development fund has aided the deprived parts of Britain

It's OUR money in the first place! Just less of it, and the EU tell us how to spend it. And we have an extra layer of bureaucracy we have to pay for.

35 European driving licences recognised across the EU

Yes. Weren't they before?

36 Britons now feel a lot less insular

What?

37 Europe's bananas remain bent, despite sceptics' fears

er....what? If you've run out of things to say, just stop! (and the regulation still exists)

38 Strong economic growth - greater than the United States last year

But it's not good enough. It could be so much better if we were free from the regulations of the EU which costs about EUR 600 billion a year.

39 Single market has brought the best continental footballers to Britain

And the EU are trying to stop that:

And the Ivo Belet report will stop us bringing in the best non Continental players (including Norwegians and Icelandics. Also it is the money in the British (particularly English) game that has brought them in, not the EU.

40 Human rights legislation has protected the rights of the individual

I dispute that. It is the HRA which has had such a detrimental effect on sentences and seen all sorts of claims from criminals about their human rights, completely ignoring the human rights of the victims. Prisoners getting compensation and drugs?

41 European Parliament provides democratic checks on all EU laws
Have you been to the EP before?

42 EU gives more, not less, sovereignty to nation states

Hold on. The British government now only has 8% of the vote over about 75% of the laws which affect our country. Is the author a retard?

43 Maturing EU is a proper counterweight to the power of US and China

No, the EU is a declining influence which is stopping Britain from taking a proper and full part in the global market, which will damage our economy massively.

44 European immigration has boosted the British economy

Can I have some proof for that?

45 Europeans are increasingly multilingual - except Britons, who are less so

That's because the English language is so successful.

46 Europe has set Britain an example how properly to fund a national health service

Private medical insurance? I agree. Is the Independent advocating this?

47 British restaurants now much more cosmopolitan

True. I love a curry. Oh, hold on. India isn't in the EU...

48 Total mobility for career professionals in Europe

Which they had before

49 Europe has revolutionised British attitudes to food and cooking
And that's because of a supranational government is it? Prick.

50 Lists like this drive the Eurosceptics mad


All lists which are full of inaccuracies and lies drive me mad.

Miss Europe beauty pageant

Tonight I went to a debate organised by Intelligence Squared at the British Museum with the title: 'Thank God for Brussels'.

The debate by the people speaking for the motion was the typical naval gazing, 'EU has kept the peace in Europe', 'We need the EU for prosperity' backward looking rhetoric. It was just like a beauty pageant for 'Miss Europe'.

The argument against was slightly more factual, with speakers actually using facts and figures to back up their argument. The one exception was Ruth Lea, who is something of an idol for me, who used her allotted time to talk about the future. Fancy that, eh? Someone who wants Britain to withdraw from the EU not because she's a 'little Englander' but because she wants Britain to be a proper player in the global market.

Anyway, Trixy managed to get the first question in, and she asked:

'We are the third largest trading nation, yet we do not have a seat at the WTO and , despite imports making countries rich, the EU still imposes trade barriers. How is this either beneficial to our economy or giving us power?'

(Pro speakers had been talking about the EU giving us power and being beneficial).

The person who first answered this was former EU Commissioner Peter Sutherland, who is now a big knob at BP and Goldmann Sachs. He was around at the beginning of GATT, which became the WTO, and therefore spent a lot of time shouting at me from the stage saying that if the EU hadn't existed, then there wouldn't be a forum for international trade talks. He failed spectacularly to answer the second point of my question which was how can EU trade policy, which is protectionist, be beneficial to this country or, indeed, any other?

Thankfully, Ruth Lea managed to raise these points and as she pointed out, the EU was instrumental in ensuring that the Doha round was not successful over farming subsidies. (which they cannot, simply cannot remove because the EU is dominated by countries who don't want to adapt to globalisation and compete on a global market.)She also pointed out that the shoe-wars and bra-wars, which I have written about before in exasperated tones, were true indications of why we should leave the EU.

Chris Huhne MP said that the EU was going well about the CAP because in the 1970s the CAP was 78% of the total EU budget and now it is only 44%. He failed to mention these figures in real terms, which for someone who was a city economist I thought was rather poor. Considering that the EU budget has risen, it may well be the case that total spending on the CAP has not fallen significantly.

An MEP asked John Redwood MP how the Conservative Party were going to carry on with their green policies and still maintain a line that the UK needs to regain powers back from Brussels. Mr Redwood said that his constituents were more concerned with local issues, like green belt and planning permission, which doesn't really coincide with what Dave is talking about.

I would argue that Cameron can go full speed ahead with his green agenda, because hell will freeze over (wait until that next global cooling spell) before he regains any competences back from the EU, and with his 'we must all work together on climate change' line, he will be giving yet more powers to the Commission and the ECJ.

Which brings me on to my final point, which wasn't discussed during the debate but I spoke about with Ruth Lea afterwards.

People who talk about stopping the human effects on global warming through, for example, cutting CO2 emissions are rather like people who are pro EU. They are arguing for continued poverty in the developing world.

Just as the EU is a protectionist trade bloc which has policies which actively keep farmers in the third world at subsistence level, which have international aid policies which prop up corrupt and vicious dictators and which rapes the natural resources of these countries instead of allowing them to develop their markets and compete.

How dare we in the developed world tell the developing world that they should cut their carbon emissions, when the secondary sector is required in development for people to be lifted out of poverty? We are actively telling countries such as India and China that they need to look for sources of 'clean energy' but miss out of that nuclear, by far the best way to have a secure energy policy and reduce CO2, but we don't want them to do that because we don't want them to develop nuclear weapons.

We are telling them not to have geographical mobility of labour and to inhibit their communications by not wanting them to travel around the country or use technology which requires energy to function.

How hypocritical is it, of these politicians to in one breath talk about wanting to combat poverty and in the same breath say they want these countries not to develop.

Not that I am accusing them of stupid policies and rhetoric and political opportunism.

I hate social engineering

I thought that I would be immune to the dire, damaging and downright dangerous policies of this government, but when I heard about the latest plans for higher education I was once again very angry.

Top universities are in revolt at controversial plans to force students to reveal how well-educated their parents are and what jobs they do.

For the first time sixth-formers will be asked detailed questions about their parents amid fears middle-class pupils may lose out to youngsters from more deprived backgrounds despite having better qualifications.

Can someone please tell me where is the incentive for 'middle class' children to study hard at school if, desite, whatever what grades they get, some kid whose parents don't earn as much, or didn't go to university, can leapfrog them in the race for a place at a good university?

Children cannot help who their parents are. So why are they being disadvantaged by this corrupt, venal government because their parents went to university, worked hard and perhaps, just perhaps, sacrificed new cars and foreign holidays to put their children through private school because successive UK governments have completely bankrupted our education system?

The move was condemned as "social engineering" and now eight leading universities - including Oxford and Cambridge - have said they will boycott the scheme.

Admissions tutors insisted they would admit pupils on academic merit, whether or not they were the children of graduates.

Well done those universities. But doesn't it rather say something, that these universities famed the world over for their academic excellence are rejecting this direct social engineering from the government because they don't want to be outlets of the DfES. They want to remain at the top of their game by taking in the brightest and best, and so they should.

It makes me sick that the government could do something so obviously geared to get the left back supporting them regardless of how much damage it actually causes. Sorry for Trident, but hey! You're child isn't that bright, but we'll fuck up the system so they can go to university and that should keep you happy.

Their ethnic group will also be passed on to admissions departments for the first time.

WHY? If people are selected to go to university on the basis of the colour of their skin, then that strikes me as being racist. And therefore, surely, illegal under the EU discrimination employment laws? Although I guess as long as they're not white, then that's okay.

I hate these people. Who the fuck do they think they are?