rather amusing

Just watching the news on ITV and saw a clip from David Cameron talking about the fact that Labour are 7 points ahead of the Tories in the polls. (how? not that I like the Tories, but how is anyone supporting any of the three main parties?)

He said that 'polls come and polls go' but, of course, just being a clip, it could have been spelt anyway...Like

Poles come and Poles go? Except that they don't really....which is presumably why this government is planning on building lots more council houses so people like me who can't afford their own house pay for other people to get houses and then pay for other people to get rich by paying their mortgage from our rent.

Am just sick of this country, I really am. It all seems to be geared up for people who don't try hard. I heard a story the other day about someone who was done for a minor infringement and saw first hand police on first name terms with a repeat violent offender who got treated like it was a hotel, whilst this guy just had to sit there and suffer because he has done well for himself.

We all get taxed so much to pay for health services which don't work, politicians who don't listen and to fund the lifestyles of people who need to get off their arses and do some work instead of living off mine, and other people who contributes, money. These people are doing what they can to make sure anyone who can leaves this bloody socialist bolt hole

It's not like the Tories are any better. They are proving that they haven't gotten to grips with economics by failing to realise that cutting tax boosts economic growth by saying that they will wait for growth before cutting tax. mental.

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....

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.

Giles Chichester: telling porkies

It seems that there is some good news emerging from the EU that the Commissioner for Industry has said that in 2009 there won't be forced metrification in the UK.

If this is the case, and our government doesn't decide to gold-plate EU legislation on measurements, it must be claimed as a team victory.

It's a shame that Tory MEP Giles Chichester doesn't see it like that. The man who wrote the legislation which ended the crown stamp on pint glasses is now claiming that:

"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...

No, Giles, you didn't. What you actually did was allow a pretty picture to go on a pint glass as long as the EU CE stamp to validate the measurement is also on there.

I smell smoke. Is that because your pants are on fire?

Going a little too far?

Whilst I do enjoy laughing at Liberal Democrats, reading further into this story from The Times, Trixy became a wee bit irritated:

The leader of the Liberal Democrats in Darlington has been suspended from the party after backing a British National Party candidate in next month's local elections.

Party leaders could not explain why Steve Jones signed the nomination papers of Dave Brown, the BNP candidate for the North Road ward in the town, but admitted that it was an "error of judgment".

After an emergency meeting of local party officers, Mr Jones agreed to resign as leader. He was then suspended from the party pending an investigation, and will no longer be defending his seat in the elections on May 3. It is too late to find a replacement, so the Liberal Democrats have given up one of only three seats which they had in the town.

Well, it's okay so far. What goes around, comes around and all that. This is the party who caused a huge lot of bother for Councillor Ellie Bland when her husband forwarded an e-mail which was, I think, rather amusing, and accused her of being a 'racist'.

Seems to me that this chap up here just made a mistake. He didn't realise that he was signing the form of a neo-nazi but someone who was standing as an independent which was silly admittedly, but hardly a hanging offence. I should imagine that if this chap hadn't done it, then someone else would have, because the BNP does have support in this country, mainly due to the disastrous situation we are in with immigration. (Because of the EU, of course.)

The bit which really wound me up and caused something of a squeak, much to the chagrin of the person sitting next to me who was trying to work, was this:

Francis Maude, the chairman of the Conservative Party, called for Mr Jones to be forced out of the party altogether, rather than merely temporarily suspended.

Did he, now. Is he calling for the same thing to happen to the Conservative association chairman of their Sevenoaks branch, who sacked someone because she had breast cancer? When the BBC tried to get someone from the Spineless Conservative Party, they refused to talk about it. Sort out your own house in future, Mr Maude, rather than slinging round insults which make you look like a hypocritical idiot. Which in fairness, I suppose, is true. Signing the piece of paper of the friend of your wife is not even in the same league as deliberately trying to ruin the life of someone suffering from a terminal illness. But then that's the Conservative Party all over: all mouth and no trousers. They don't have any policies of their own, so they go around attacking other people and undertaking cheap publicity stunts.

I will end on a less 'friendly to the Lib Dems' note and relate a joke from my old Tory Party days;

There's a Lib Dem and a Labourite standing on the edge of a cliff. Which one do you push first?


The Labourite: Business before pleasure....

Yes another one

A little bird has told me about a certain Tory MEP who has a reputation of being eurosceptic saying something quite different from that reputation.

Conservative MEP for the South East region Nirj Deva was at a dinner the other evening making a speech about how we can all make the EU 'the leading knowledge based economy in the world.'

'ello, 'ello...what about the UK as an economy, or have we all gone into Euroland without realising? And even the Commission wouldn't be so dumb as to think that the EU could be so successful. One of their high profile attempts to make the EU in any way efficient and business friendly, the Lisbon Agenda, has been such a failure they keep on having to relaunch it: which is as close as you get to an admission of failure in the EU.

Not only that, but the poor chap seems to think that the partnership agreement between the EU and India is a good thing. He appears to be conveniently ignoring the fact that we as a country should be having our own trade policy and is rather keen on Peter Mandelson being in control.

I would have thought that it would have been better for the UK to lead the way with trade agreements with India. After all, they are a former colony and are ideal partners for us in global trading. As the third largest trading nation we should be fully embracing free trade with the anglosphere and ACP countries as soon as we possibly can, and when the rest of the world catches up with this rather jolly idea which increases global parity, they can jump on board too.

Let's not get tied down with bureaucracy and the economically illiterate, because no one will benefit: indeed, everyone will suffer.

UKIP candidates

I've noticed a few comments about recently which have rather pissed ol' Trix off.

The delectable Iain Dale writes that the BNP have been putting up lists of where UKIP candidates are standing.

Obviously there is nothing UKIP can do about this apart from make clear that they don't want racist votes from the BNP, thank you very much. But it does call into question exactly why BNP supporters think that UKIP are the next best thing.

They don't. They're trying to discredit the party, hoping that if people think that, then we'll be tarnished with the same brush without actually doing anything. The BNP seem to have this bizarre idea that UKIP and the BNP are in some way similar, when they are diametrically opposed. I'd rather vote Lib Dem than BNP, but in reality, I wouldn't vote for anyone other than UKIP, as no other party represents my views.

Also there have been a few articles written about UKIP saying that the party have been telling porkies about the number of candidates they're fielding

What is clear, however, is that UKIP do not have 1,000 council candidates, as claimed by Nigel Farage last week.

Can I just say that that's wrong. It's not my fault that the Tories cannot add up properly, but I suppose it's the price we pay for not having a decent education system.

So, the figures for the candidates are as follows:

The UK Independence Party will be fielding a total of 1031 candidates in the forthcoming elections.

This breaks down to 963 borough and district candidates
33 Assembly candidates in the Welsh elections
35 Parliamentary candidates in the Scottish Elections

This does not include the 218 town and parish council candidates.

So, ner.

Another reason

Why the Tories don't have a leg to stand on when they accuse UKIP of 'splitting the Eurosceptic vote'.

I popped in to see a friend yesterday and on the wall of the office of a Tory MP was pinned the front page of the Independent with '50 reasons to love the EU'.

I asked the girl in question about it, and she said 'oh, we like the EU here.'

And yet the Tories are still trying to kid people that they will do something about British membership of the EU, or that they will stop any further integrations. Or that they are eurosceptic.

As someone who studied statistics, if I had looked at the figures about which political party had taken the UK the furtherest into the EU and then made a statement saying that the Tories would be the party to stop further European integration I would have absolutely nothing to back that statement up.

On an even more annoying note is the Tories campaigning against the closure of rural post offices by having grand scale meetings, when they can't actually do anything about it because they want to remain in the EU, and it's the EU who are forbidding the government from subsidising rural posts offices properly.

It's lies. Damn lies. And I hate it.

UPDATE

Following on from my little post yesterday about the Tories sacking someone for having cancer, I thought you chaps might like to read this from the Mirror

Sacked by the Tory party for having cancer
By EMILY MILLER
7 April 2007

EXCLUSIVE BULLIED ROSEMARY WINS £38K

A TORY agent has won £38,000 after being hounded from her job because she had breast cancer.

Rosemary Holman said her life was made a "living nightmare" by bullying constituency boss Mike Broomby.

She claimed he picked on her, bombarded her with aggressive questions about her illness and refused to let her work from home.

Eventually he dismissed her, allegedly saying he "didn't care" about her illness. After winning a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, Rosemary, 48, said: "It's fantastic my suffering has been recognised.

"I cried when the judgment came through.

"This wasn't about money, I wanted to be taken seriously. I was left out of the loop as proceedings against me gathered force."

Rosemary was struck by cancer in 2004 after running admin for Sevenoaks Conservative Association, in Kent, for 10 years. She pressed on at work as long as possible.

She claimed Mr Broomby, 72, shouted at her so much she became terrified of going to the office and had trouble sleeping.

Mr Broomby told a tribunal in Ashford: "I was concerned about Ms Holman's health.

"I sacked her when she failed three times to go to a medical examination."

The party association was ordered to pay £31,936 to Rosemary, of Benfleet, Essex. Mr Broomby is liable for £6,403.

The sum covers pension loss, lost earnings and emotional trauma. The Association denied Rosemary's claims and may appeal.

Can the mud slinging begin now?

A few weeks ago, I posted a story which appeared in the Daily Mirror about the Tories in Sevenoaks being taken to court over a case of unfair dismissal. The lady in question was sacked unfairly by a chap called Mike Broomby, who allegedly is rather a nasty piece of work.

Anyway, Cllr Gavin Ayling left a comment saying:

Maybe we should wait for the result before slinging mud at the party who was doing the employing? Maybe...

And I didn't write another word about it. However, now that I know that the Tories have lost their case and the cancer suffering lady in question, who has been told by doctors that she does not have long to live, has been awarded |40,000 damages for her unfair dismissal, and the other side have to pay costs.

So, especially in light of how the Tories rubbed their hands with glee at the case of UKIP being blackmailed by a man with plastic knees, who completely made the story up, I am going to do the same to the Tories.

I am going to call the Tories mean, heartless bastards for bullying a lady with cancer and trying to make her go for a medical examination with the buddy of the Constituency Chairman, rather than an unbiased doctor. Especially when she had been to countless doctors, and the only reason for this one was because the Constituency Chairman Mike Broomby, was looking for excuses to sack her.

I wonder who is liable to pay? The Constituency as a whole, which used to have lots of money (but less since they loaned some to the main party who then decided to keep it) or the Chairman who was taken to court?

I will let you know.

The Two-Faced Tories

Following up from a post on The Englishman's castle, I thought I would just make a little point about the tantrums by the Tory party over not having the crown logo on pint glasses anymore.

The relevant article from Directive 2004/22/EC says:

Article 1

Scope

This Directive applies to the devices and systems with a measuring function defined in the instrument-specific annexes concerning water meters (MI-001), gas meters and volume conversion devices (MI-002), active electrical energy meters (MI-003), heat meters (MI-004), measuring systems for continuous and dynamic measurement of quantities of liquids other then water (MI-005), automatic weighing instruments (MI-006), taximeters (MI-007), material measures (MI-008), dimensional measuring instruments (MI-009) and exhaust gas analysers (MI-010).

Interesting.

Even more interesting is that the chap who wrote the European Parliament report on the Commission Directive, which resulted in the written question to HMG by the Tories and the subsequent outrage was...

A Tory!

His e-mail address is giles.chichester@europarl.europa.eu and his office phone is 0032 228 45296.

You can ask him all about it yourself, then....

So, Cameron; still standing by your claims...

That a Tory government would pull Britain out of the 'Social Chapter'?

As I have previously written, the Social Chapter does not exist as some sort of separate treaty which one can just withdraw from. So, as I and many others have said, for David Cameron and his band of spanners to claim that they will just pull Britain out of it is wrong. As my evidence, I call the President of the European Commission to answer the question:

Parliamentary questions
24 January 2007
E-0171/07
WRITTEN QUESTION by Nigel Farage (IND/DEM) to the Commission

Subject: Social Chapter opt-out
Answer(s)

Could the Commission comment on the feasibility of a Member State withdrawing from the social chapter under the current Treaties?

Would this action involve either the withdrawal of the Member State concerned from the European Union or a renegotiation of the Treaties which would require the unanimous approval of all Member States?

which he has done...

E-0171/07EN
Answer given by Mr Barroso
on behalf of the Commission
(26.2.2007)


The Commission assumes that when the Honourable Member refers to the Social Chapter in the Treaties, he is referring to the social provisions contained in the articles 136 to 145 of the EC Treaty. These provisions are part of the whole Treaty and cannot be isolated. All Member States are bound by the Treaties they have signed and ratified and which have entered into force, including the social provisions they contain. Consequently, a withdrawal from these provisions by a Member State would require an amendment of the EC Treaty in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

See that, Davy boy?

Despite your claims that you will withdraw Britain from the Social Chapter, YOU CAN'T!

now, are you going to apologies for your porkies?

Why is no-one listening?

I've been updating all my research material today from hansard, EU legislation and other committee papers. All of a sudden it hit me just how well the EU is winning their battle of destroying nation states and turning the EU into a new soviet style union.

Even the few topics I updated today made me want to scream with rage; rush out of my office and grab people on the street - forcing their heads over these words which are controlling almost every aspect of their lives, whilst they carry on in some ignorant daze.

• How we dispose of electrical items


• The Food Standards Agency being overruled in favour of an EU body


• Our Armed Forces


• The EU Constitution


• EuroPol


• The letter from Angela Merkel to hold secret meetings to keep the public in the dark about the Constitution


• The transfer of Criminal Law powers to the EU

The list is just endless, and yet the front page of the papers and the headlines on the news over the past few days have been about the BAFTAS, Anna Nicole Smith, Robbie Williams going into rehab and some prat jumping out of a plane and landing in a blackberry bush.

I have the TV on all the time in my office and I see how many opportunities these news networks have to report on some of the big events going on which are actually affecting our lives. This week Westminster is in recess whilst over in Strasbourg the European Parliament is busy passing legislation on how we can dispose of our rubbish: something which may sound trivial but could result in our country being covered in incinerators and bloody wind turbines. Today we had the speech by the new President of the Parliament speaking about how he feels democracy isn't necessary and we must push ahead with the EU project.

Why isn't this a big issue? Why don't the media cover this more? It took me so much time to get the message out about the true reasons for our immigration being out of control, and yet the newspapers still let David Davis and Damien Green blather on about how the Labour government must control our borders, when it was the Tory party who first gave away the power in 1994! The same people who wholeheartedly support enlargement which reduces our influence in the Council of Ministers (currently 8%) and who wrote the report calling for Bulgaria to join the European Union. I suspect Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, the man responsible for this, doesn't dare mention this to the white haired brigade in Chelmsford when he's at some Tory tea party. Why does no one try to stop this hypocrisy? How will things ever change if no one tries to change it?

I get so frustrated sometimes I actually just sit there and cry. It's often the only way I can express the emotion I feel when I see this all taking place under our very noses.

It's the same impotent rage which has, in the past, almost driven me to walking around London with a free newspaper attached to my forehead to try to stop the endless bombardment of the gratis tat being forced upon me. "I have one already!" I cry. But they don't listen. And I'm afraid that people in this country just like the hoards of people who every evening stalk the streets of London with their substandard publications.

Well, I don't want to be the person who takes the free paper just because someone shoves it in my hand. I want to be able to turn it down, and I want them to listen when I say I don't want one.

Maybe I have trivialised the whole issue by comparing it to a struggle with a free paper, but at least people understand the frustration of that because they are exposed to it every evening. With the EU and the loss of our democracy, most people are blissfully unaware of what is really going on.

UKIP finances: setting the record straight

Poor Trixy was woken up this morning by someone informing her that the Sunday Telegraph had written that UKIP was being investigated for dodgy finances. I knew they were writing a piece; my contacts in the party had told me how shocked they were at how little the journalist actually knew about the funding of political parties. For example, he didn't actually realise that parties with MPs in Westminster are already on the public slush fund and have been for many years.

So, to set the record straight:

1) UKIP filed the accounts 6 months late, with the permission of the Electoral Commission, as the position of party treasurer changed hands a few months ago, during which time it became the end of the financial year. Both men were part time working for the party and full time chartered accountants. The new party treasurer had to not only file the accounts, but catch up with the party records from the previous administration in a very short space of time and run his business during the busiest time.

2) Most of the financing for UKIP, particularly during elections, comes from individials. As the paper admits, a party does not have to register donations from individuals to the party if they are under £5000 or to regional offices if they are under £1000. UKIP is a grass roots party. People give us whatever they can afford, whether it be £5 or £100 or £10000. They do this because they genuinely believe in what the party stands for. The only personal gain they stand to make that there will be a political party in this country who believes in Independence.

There is the incentive in larger parties for people to give huge amounts of money because, as we have seen with the 'loans for peerages', they could stand to benefit on a personal level. That is not a view people take with UKIP. They give what they can to free Britain from the constraints of the EU and our statist government. The journalists should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for attacking those well meaning people for doing something they believe in.

For instance, Ukip's south-east office received donations of £291,000 in 2004, more than twice as much as the party's head office. Yet some £280,000 did not need to be declared because it consisted of individual donations of less than £1,000 each.

Notice that? They didn't need to. That's not UKIP making up the rules, or breaking the rules. That's the party following the rules and being different from others because it has the support of normal, everyday people.

2004: European Election time. If you want out of the EU, who would you donate some money to? Labour, Lib Dems? The Tories?

No, you'd donate it to UKIP because they are the only party who wants to restore Independence to Britain. And they did, in their thousands because they wanted to, and they felt they needed to and consequently, we beat the Lib Dems into third place.

The Sunday Cameron may not like that (they did, after all, censure Booker who is the paper's best journalist) but it's true. UKIP doesn't have lobotomised, tribal followers. It is supported by people who care deeply and passionately about this country and if the Sunday Cameron thinks this is some kind of financial irregularity, then that says far more about them than it does about UKIP.

3) Investigations by the Electoral Commission.

Yes, these were things like 'can you clarify the post code of x as we don't have them registered at that address.

oooOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhh

Honestly.

Put the kettle on

Oh, no, don't bother. I can't have a cup of Earl Grey anymore...

For almost 200 years, it has been the preferred drink of British polite society. But now the distinct taste of Earl Grey tea is under threat from meddling Brussels bureaucrats. Producers of the citrus fruit bergamot, which gives the blend its unique flavour, say they cannot afford to obey health and safety rules which will become law this year.

Under the regulations, bergamot oil, which is mainly produced for perfume, is classified as potentially dangerous and must be tested and resisted with the European Chemicals Agency. But owners of the small family-run farms in southern Italy, where the fruit is almost exclusively produced, say they will be ruined by the extra £35,000 cost, so will grow something else instead.

That would be the fantastic REACh Directive, which is supposed to ensure that us poor 'EU citizens' don't get killed by them nasty chemicals companies? The same directive which stopped someone in the West Midlands using pepper as a pesticide because it hadn't been tested to make sure it was safe for humans?

BIRMINGHAM MEP Mike Nattrass is determined to prove there are no flies on him by rallying against a "barmy" EU directive outlawing pepper from insect traps.

And the UKIP MEP is determined to show that the issue is not one to be sneezed at claiming that jobs could be lost if the pepper problem is not addressed.

Milled pepper is used in traps to prevent insects from clinging to a smooth surface, so that they fall into a catchment area.

The process is non-toxic to humans but small companies wanting to use pepper in several industrial products will now have to fork out £89,000 to get the age old powder passed by EU safety inspectors.

The Aston businesss-man said: "The EU should have kept their traps shut about this because it amounts to an assault on pepper for no reason."

"Small companies in Birmingham and throughout the country will suffer and it is just barmy.

"When humans eat pepper it is ok but when its used in insect traps it has to be pass safety regulations costing an arm and a leg which plays into the hands of multi-nationals who can pay for tests on their chemicals."

Of course, it actually has nothing to do with protecting people from dangerous chemicals, and everything to do with ensuring that large pharm. companies have less and less competition from small businesses and therefore keep supporting the EU.

It's also the typical law of unintended consequences: the minor metals used to make plasma screen TVs for example, will be far more costly to produce, and thus the cost of your nice TV goes up.

Should we be suprised, therefore, that the Boy Blunder ordered his MEPs to change their stance and vote for it?

David Cameron pressurised his party's representatives in the European Parliament to vote in favour of sweeping new environmental regulations, despite the MEPs' concerns about the impact on British business and jobs.

Several Tory MEPs were worried about the effects of an incoming law to crack down on dangerous chemicals. Their concern about the legislation, known as REACH, was that it could put too onerous a burden on companies, forcing them to move to countries such as India.

Yet in a vote on October 10, Tory MEPs backed a crucial part of REACH, which obliges companies to replace dangerous chemicals with safer ones where they exist. It is understood the change of position came after members of Mr Cameron's staff discussed REACH with the MEPs at the party conference.

I guess not. After all, one of the organisations lobbying massively for a hard core piece of legislation was the WWF, who, of course, organised Cameron's trip to that bloody iceberg...

Why vote UKIP?

Martin over at The Kitchen makes a very good point about why people can and should vote for the UK Independence Party.

Good enough for me, and it should be good enough for every Tory like me who ever trooped into a booth in Labour's heartland provinces and voted Tory in the full knowledge their guy wouldn't win.

Such a good point. Carrot-brained fools like the 56th best Tory blogger Caroline Hunt say people shouldn't vote UKIP as it will mean Labour get it, and obviously, even though we don't support the Conservative Party, we should do and we should vote for them.

Yet there are endless seats up and down the country where tactical voting comes into play in a three party system. Where voting Tory could have let the Lib Dems in, or vice versa. Do you think this stopped Tories voting Tory? Like buggery it did. And why should they? For whether Labour or the Lib Dems got in, it mattered not to them as neither were parties they supported.

Getting the link yet?