Because they seem rather surplus to requirements now that we have the EU defending our interests...
Am typing this from a hotel in Berlin, which is why the post might bit accidentally littered with ß, ä ö ü and zs instead of ys.
Anyway, computer has some kind of filter on it for websites. Went to the kitchen and it would not let me look at it because it contained the word fucker. (I would put that in quotation marks but I cant find them, or apostophes.) Well, okay. Kitchen is a bit sweary.
So I thought I would have a look at shoes. But that wasnt allowed either. The reason? Because I had written a post on genital mutilation.
This is happening to children probably younger than the ones they are trying to protect, so why dont they allow people to know what is going on? Censorship like that is the worst kind....
Anyway, Auf Wiedersehen. Im off to gatecrash a birthday party.
Well, not really. But if you have a bucket handy, here is the Berlin Declaration, which I have taken the time to edit for you lovely, and if I may say so, rather attractive folk.
For centuries Europe was an idea, a hope of peace and understanding. This hope is now fulfilled. European unification has made peace and well-being possible for us. It has created a sense of community and overcome obstacles. Every Member has helped to unite Europe and to strengthen democracy and the rule-of-law. We have the love-of-freedom of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe to thank that today Europe's unnatural partition has at last been superseded. Through European union, we have diverted our counsels from bloody conflicts and painful history. Today, we live together, in a way, which was never possible before.
We citizenesses and citizens of the European Union are, to our good fortune, united.
In the European Union, we are developing our common ideals: for us, the individual is the focus. His dignity is indisputable. His rights are inalienable. Women and men are accounted equal. We strive for peace and freedom, for democracy and the rule-of-law, for mutual respect and responsibility, for welfare and security, for tolerance and participation, for justice and solidarity.
We live and work together in the European Union in a unique way. This is expressed in the democratic participation of the Member-States and the European institutions. The European Union is founded upon equality and communal solidarity. In this way, we have made possible a fair balance of interests between the Member-States.
In the European Union, we affirm the uniqueness and manifold traditions of its members. Its open borders, and vital multiplicity of languages, cultures and regions, enrich us. There are many goals, which we cannot reach alone, but only together. The European Union, the Member-States and their regions and localities divide the work between them.
We stand before great challenges, which do not stop at national borders. The European Union is our answer to them. Only together can we safeguard our social ideal for the future for the benefit of all the citizenesses and citizens of the European Union. This European model combines economic success and social responsibility. The common market and the euro make us strong. Thus we are able to shape the increasing globalisation of commerce, and ever growing competition in the international markets, according to our concepts of good practice. Europe's riches lie in knowledge and the abilities of people; these are the key to growth, employment and social solidarity.
Together, we shall fight terrorism and organised crime. In the struggle against the opponents of freedom and citizens' rights, we shall thereby defend these things. Racism and xenophobia must never be given an opportunity again.
We are determined that the world's conflicts shall be peacefully resolved and that people will not bet he victims of war, terrorism or violence. The European Union wishes to promote freedom and development. We wish to drive back poverty, hunger and disease. In this way we wish to take an even more leading role.
In the politics of energy, and in protecting the climate, we wish to go forward together and do our duty, in order to avoid the global threat of climate-change.
The European Union will live on in the future thanks to its openness and the goodwill of its members, at the same time making firm, together, the internal development of the European Union. The European Union will also continue to promote democracy, stability and welfare beyond its borders.
As a result of European union, the dream of former generations has become reality. Our history warns us to protect this good fortune for future generations. For this purpose, we must renew the political form of Europe, ever and again, and in timely fashion. Today, therefore, 50 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, we have agreed on the objective of placing the European Union on a renewed, common foundation, before the 2009 elections to the European Parliament.
For we know that Europe is our common future
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
My short analysis of the budget.
The poor are worse off.
Incentives for workers on benefits to get out and get a job are diminished further
I will have to go abroad more often to buy cigarettes
Regardless of pennies here and there off the various rates of taxation, the tax system is still too complicated.
Gordon Brown has been pushed into a corner when it comes to international competitiveness and has made some cosmetic alterations. But it's really nothing more than that. If we want more FDI then we need to slash corporation taxes. And we need to simplify the tax system, which is why UKIP advocates a Flat Tax Policy.
And why do spirits never have duty increased on them? Is it because our dour Scots gobblemuncher is partial to a wee dram?
oh, and another thing. Am just listening to a broadcast by the gobblemuncher and he reminded me of another thing I am irritated by.
I don't approve of child benefits. I certainly don't agree that they should be increased.
Having children is not a right, and if you do decide to have them it's up to you and your partner should make sure you can afford them. Why should I have to pay more for your child when as a single, childless woman my taxes already go to paying its education. And because I am single, getting on the property ladder is a nightmare, so quite frankly I need every penny I can get.
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.
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.
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.
The sexy Mr Dizzy has nominated me for a Thogger.
Well, ta very much, dearie, but now I've got to nominate 5 people who I think are 'thinking bloggers'.
DK told me that I should nominate 5 people who cause me to question my own beliefs or some rubbish like that. I'm in politics, I don't do that.
Anyway, the 5 I have chosen are:
Timmy despite his habit of looking south
The Nameless One
Chippy (no one told me what I had to think of)
Sword in the Lake
and
Bruno Waterfield Who may not have written very much on his blog, but does when I communicate with him generally, and he has a blog. So there.
Oh, bugger. Am supposed to stick some logo thing somewhere in this post.
Can we all just pretend it's present and perfecly visible? Am off to listen to John Redwood talk bollocks perfectly and utterly non hypocritically about the EU.
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.
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.
Their ethnic group will also be passed on to admissions departments for the first time.
Bruno Waterfield, Telegraph Correspondent in Brussels, has started up a blog.
Read it here.
I think it will be one of the most important blogs reporting on EU affairs. This guy is sharp, and he can write.
His first post is so illuminating and I look forward to more posts like it.
It's a shame, I suppose, that the Telegraph decide to edit so many of the stories from Brussels, or just leave them out, because they are rather inconvenient for the Tories.
I had some difficulty walking across Parliament Square today because there were a lot of Socialist Worker protesters holding up signs saying that Bush was the world's No. 1 terrorist. Well, I personally don't think that's true at all, and I was someone who wrote their dissertation on why the conflict in Iraq was illegal and unjust.
But what struck me is how these people are also environmentalists (who,according to their high quality paper are in favour of solar panels and eco friendly council houses) and yet they have spent an entire day blocking up a major traffic route in London causing congestion and therefore more carbon emissions.
How did they also manage to get so many of them there, instead of being at work? They hadn't just come from some office as they were all in track suits and other delightful items of clothing not conducive to a professional career. They seem to manage to get large numbers of people to all their events. Do they, despite being called socialist workers, actually work?
An online gambling site is taking bets on whether Heather Mills' artificial leg will fall off during her upcoming appearance on "Dancing with the Stars."
Went to hear Polly last night at the Bow Group meeting in the House of Lords with DK, Jackart and The Nameless One.
She's a silly old bat who thinks that money is a finite resource. Wouldn't know a decent economic policy if it pooed on her head.
Spent most of the evening giggling with TNO and predicting her next statements. Which we managed to do rather well, mostly by predicting 'Sweden' and 'Sure Start'.
Sent a text to the former chairman of the Bow Group informing him of where I was, and this morning he replied in an e-mail:
Bloody disgrace
An article in the Telegraph this morning had a usually sedate Trixy jumping around the office in outrage....
Nothing for it, but to vent anger and frustration here...
Thousands of working mothers who fall behind in the queue for promotion because they have taken maternity leave will be able to sue their employer for sex discrimination, a High Court ruled yesterday.
It said that the time a woman takes on maternity leave - which can be up to a year from next month - must count as continuous service and be included where it affects her promotion. She is also entitled to be fully consulted about any changes to her job while she is looking after her baby.
In addition, the court ruled that a woman harassed by a customer can take legal action against her employer for failing to protect her.
Yesterday's ruling follows a case brought by the Equal Opportunities Commission that argued that ministers had failed to apply the European Equal Treatment Directive properly. The directive is the piece of legislation that implements sex discrimination law in Britain. Mr Justice Burton agreed that women in Britain did not enjoy proper protection.
He has told Alistair Darling, the Trade Secretary, that he has until March 16 to inform the EOC and the court how the Government plans to remedy the situation.
Jenny Watson,stupid bitchthe chairman of the EOC, said the court decision was a triumph for vulnerable women.
"It should also come as good news for employers, who now have a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities and won't find themselves tied up in expensive and time-consuming cases seeking clarification of regulations that are incompatible with European legislation," she added.
Pregnancy discrimination and sexual harassment affect thousands of women each year. A recent EOC investigation found that almost half of pregnant working women experience some disadvantage in the workplace as a result of pregnancy or maternity leave.
Sexual harassment cases comprise almost a quarter of all successful sex discrimination employment tribunal claims and sexual harassment remains one of the top five reasons for calls to the EOC's helpline. The High Court said the current definition of harassment was too narrow and failed to ensure that women at work were not subjected to any "unwanted conduct related to their sex which violates their dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment".
Harassment by clients is a particular problem in the hotel and restaurant sector, which employs 670,000 women.
Mr Justice Burton agreed that a woman should be protected against harassment if her boss knew of such conduct but failed to take any steps to prevent it. Women's rights during maternity leave were also unclear, he said.
Susan Anderson, the CBI director of human resources policy, said: "We will have to look at the details of this judgment carefully and fully consider its implications. "There should be zero tolerance of bullying and harassment within the workplace, but when it comes from customers or members of the public it can be difficult for employers to manage."
A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has responsibility for policy on equality issues, said the Government remained committed to ending discrimination against women.Unfortunately, the EOC and the EU aren't. They are very keen to make it as difficult as possible for women to get jobs, it seems.
"This is a case about the technical interpretation of regulations and the requirements of EU law and we will be studying the ruling carefully before deciding on the appropriate way forward. "We have delivered the largest ever package of practical support for women in the workplace, including a doubling in paid maternity leave and maternity pay since 1997."
to ask how he was planning on ensuring his constituents aren't completely done over by Dave Chameleon and his dangerous green policies:
Dear Mr Wilshire,
I read in one of your leaflets during the T5 debate which,
incidentally, I thought you handled very well, that 25% of the
population of Spelthorne are employed at Heathrow airport. Given the
new agenda of the Conservative party, which appears to be focusing on
the unproven and scientifically flawed notion that humans are
responsible for climate change, how are you planning to ensure that the
new idea of regressive taxation on flights and the airline industry
will not affect the livelihoods of people who need a strong airline
industry for their livelihoods?
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Trixy
Am getting so sick of politics. Am getting really sick of political journalism.
I did rather hope that the European Council summit on Thursday and Friday of last week would maybe lift my spirits a little (not in the sense that I thought they would say anything sensible, like let's disband the whole thing, but that it might give me something to get angry about and start caring again) but listening to the utter tripe they were spouting, I just felt exhausted.
I turned up to listen to press conference at which that prize turd, Hans-Gert Poettering, was speaking at. He was telling us how the EU was going to save the world through a combination of healthy eating cookery lessons for newly conceived foetuses and 'binding targets' for CO2 emission reductions.
Yawn.
They don't get it, do they? The same night they were all blathering on over dinner (I hope it was raw - don't want to burn fossil fuels cooking food!) there was a programme on Channel 4 (watch it in full here) about how maybe all this climate change stuff isn't as cataclysmic as our dear politicians make out. Yet along with racism, denial of climate change and it's 'devastating effects' is the new witchcraft.
Not that I would ever accuse someone of political opportunism, but it does all seem rather convenient that the EU had a terrible year in 2005 and 2006 wasn't much better. Then, along comes Climate Change, which everyone agrees cannot be handled by countries individually, because the environment doesn't stop at borders, and voila! A new reason for the EU.
Now they have an excuse to talk about how essential the EU is, how we need to give it more power and we all need to cooperate otherwise we are all going to die. Horribly. Stuff the science behind it and let's all have meetings about how the EU needs to have criminal competence over environmental legislation. Lordy, if you've managed to get the leader of the so called Eurosceptic Conservative party going along with it, then it must be a winning idea.
Which is why I had to sit through not just the bullshit by Poettering, but also the press conference afterwards with Angela Merkel and her band of merry men. They're going to make sure that 20% of the energy supply in the EU is renewable, doncher know. They're going to cut CO2 emissions by 20%. Oh yes.
No actual mention of how they're going to do this, though. I mean, it's all very well saying something, but if it's unrealistic and ill thought out and essentially just an arbitrary figure to grab headlines then what is the point?
Sometimes saying things are or can be does actually make something plausible. For example: if a reputable bank such as the Bank of England says consumer confidence is high and we can look forward to a period of sustained economic growth, then regardless of whether at that particular moment that is the true situation, it doesn't matter. The fact is, that if the BoE says it, then because they are trusted and have a good track record people will believe them. Consquently, there will be more consumer confidence, which will increase national income by increasing the 'C' part of the national income equation.
Y = C + I + G + (X-M)
Companies will have more incentive to invest, there are more jobs, people have more money, and thus you get a lovely spiral upwards in national income. The forecasts of the Bank have been proved right.
So one could put that argument forward for these arbitrary targets from the EU. Except that the only thing the EU has a proved track record in is futhering its own aims. More power, more commissioners, more countries, more competences. What actual benefits have become the normal people of the EU? Food is more expensive, there is less democracy, economic growth is only just managing to be sustained (but mainly through sources external to the EU), people in Africa are dying because of the trade policies, and most importantly, their record in environmental matter is abysmal.
CFP anyone?
So why would anyone believe the EU when they tell us these targets? Well, they won't. And the targets won't be achieved. And they'll keep on moving the goalposts, telling us they need more power, making more rules and regulations until businesses in the EU can no longer compete. And this will go on long after any serious concerns about the end of the world being a week next Thursday are taken seriously.
But the devastating effects of the EU will live on to be seen for as long as we remain a member of this backward looking, socialist, destructive customs union.
So can we leave yet?
Last year, I wrote a rather dour post on this celebration of all things women, about the treatment of women in other parts of the world. So this year, I thought I'd write about something a little more cheerful than lawful beatings and unacceptable rape laws in Islamic countries.
So here is a truly hideous video about female genital mutilation.
My colleague could not watch this video to the end. I did, and I felt sick and angry and close to tears.
Watch it. Please.
UPDATE: naturally, the government has no idea whether their legislation has worked or not.
Chris McCafferty (Calder Valley, Labour)To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many social service interventions have taken place relating to female genital mutilation since the introduction of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003; and what assessment he has made of the outcome of such interventions.
Parmjit Dhanda (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills)
holding answer 1 February 2007I have been asked to reply.
The Department does not hold this information.
Because watching the latest work of genius from The Spine I laughed so much my tampon almost came out.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson of EU-lovin'
So there is also very important evidence about the work of OLAF. I notice that we did not hear too much from some of the UKIP members about OLAF. That might be because OLAF is currently engaged in investigating allegations of fraud by one of UKIP's members in the European Parliament. I am glad to say that, albeit belatedly and somewhat reluctantly, UKIP was forced by the pressure of public opinion to suspend that member from its party, thus reducing its membership by a substantial proportion.
The noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughby de Broke, are the only visible and tangible oasis of peace and calm in the current UKIP panoply, with the turmoil that we see in the European Parliament. I presume that they are taking time off from advising their party on how to deal with allegations of fraud by their MEPs, apparently including the purchase of motor cars. They threaten defections. An even worse nightmare, there is a rumour that Robert Kilroy-Silk might seek to rejoin them one day. I do not know how they would react to that. With the drastic reduction in their numbers in Strasbourg, the two noble Lords will presumably have considerable advice to give their colleagues when they next see them.
I am going to tell the next people who tell me that voting UKIP splits the eurosceptic vote where they can shove Slick Dave's 'eurosceptic credentials'.
Because today, he is holding court in Brussels at a conference on 'reforming the EU' with a load of people who knit their own knickers. Like the head of Greenpeace.
Why so sceptical, Trix?
Well. Because I have been hearing the same line from the Tories ever since I was born, and yet we're still in the EU, and they now make an estimated* 80% of our laws.
Let's have a look through their past manifestos, shall we?
1983: Opposing Brussels bureacracy
Meanwhile, with the help of Conservatives in the European Parliament, we shall continue to try to shift the Community's spending priorities away from agriculture and towards industrial, regional and other policies which help Britain more.
We shall continue both to oppose petty acts of Brussels bureaucracy and to seek the removal of unnecessary restrictions on the free movement of goods and services between member states, with proper safeguards to guarantee fair competition.
This Government has taken Britain from the sidelines into the mainstream of Europe. But being good Europeans does not prevent us from standing up for British interests. The agreement we negotiated on the Community Budget has saved Britain £4,500 million since 1984.
We will continue to work for strict controls on the Community Budget.
We have played a decisive part in the development of the Community over the past decade. It was a British initiative which launched the Single Market programme and our insistence which reformed the Community's finances. Britain has promoted co-operation on foreign policy and in combating terrorism. Britain has also persuaded our partners to welcome new countries who apply for Community membership.
The Maastricht Treaty was a success both for Britain and for the rest of Europe. British proposals helped to shape the key provisions of the Treaty including those strengthening the enforcement of Community law defence, subsidiarity and law and order. But Britain refused to accept the damaging Social Chapter proposed by other Europeans, and it was excluded from the Maastricht treaty.
We will work to strengthen the Western European Union as the European pillar of NATO. We will press for a European reaction force.
The total size of its armed forces has shrunk from 305,800 in 1990 to 195,900 today, leaving it No. 28 in the world, behind Eritrea and Burma. This downsizing has reduced the entire British army (107,000 soldiers) to almost half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps (175,000). Storied regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, with histories stretching back centuries, have been eliminated.
The government has a positive vision for the European Union as a partnership of nations. We want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. We have much to gain from our membership of the European Union - in trade, in co-operation between governments, and in preserving European peace. We benefit from the huge trade opportunities that have opened up since Britain led the way in developing Europe's single market. We want to see the rest of Europe follow the same deregulated, enterprise policies that have transformed our economic prospects in Britain...
We will argue for a flexible Europe which fully accommodates the interests and aspirations of all its member states and where any new proposals have to be open to all and agreed by all. We will not accept other changes to the Treaty that would further centralise decision-making, reduce national sovereignty, or remove our right to permanent opt-outs.
The guiding principle of Conservative policy towards the European Union is to be in Europe, but not run by Europe. We will lead a debate in Europe about its future, promoting our own clear and positive vision.
The European Union has, with the prospect of enlargement, reached a fork in the road. Down one route lies a fully integrated superstate with nation states and the national veto disappearing. The Government is taking us down this route.
The alternative is a Europe of nations coming together in different combinations for different purposes and to differing extents. In other words, a network Europe. If Britain leads the debate, we can make this alternative a reality.
We will insist on a Treaty 'flexibility' provision, so that outside the areas of the single market and core elements of an open, free-trading and competitive EU, countries need only participate in new legislative actions at a European level if they see this as in their national interest.
At the same time, we are willing to support the principle of 'reinforced co-operation' in Europe, under which small groups of countries can become more closely integrated if they wish to do so, providing it does not damage Britain's national interest.
The next Conservative Government will keep the pound. We will maintain our national veto on European legislation. Giving up either would put our ability to govern ourselves at risk. We will not ratify the Nice Treaty but will renegotiate it so that Britain does not lose its veto.
We also propose to amend our domestic law to include 'reserved powers'. This will prevent EU law from overriding the will of Parliament in areas which Parliament never intended to transfer to the EU.
This policy will be reinforced with a determination to veto further transfers of power from Westminster to Brussels. Should any future Government wish to surrender any more of Parliament's rights and power to Brussels they should be required to secure approval for such a transfer in a referendum.
We intend to press for the single market to be completed and for competition laws to be stronger so that British businesses which play by the rules are not undercut by other companies that do not.
We will also press for Europe to tackle fraud and maladministration as a matter of priority. If the EU reduced waste and abandoned ill-considered programmes, it could make significant reductions in the overall size of the European budget.
Conservatives support the cause of reform in Europe and we will co-operate with all those who wish to see the EU evolve in a more flexible, liberal and decentralised direction. We oppose the EU Constitution and would give the British people the chance to reject its provisions in a referendum within six months of the General Election. We also oppose giving up the valuable freedom which control of our own currency gives us. We will not join the Euro.
In a reformed Europe, the restrictive employment laws of the Social Chapter will have to give way to more flexible working. We will ensure that Britain once again leads the fight for a deregulated Europe by negotiating the restoration of our opt-out from the Social Chapter.
The common policies on agriculture and fisheries are unsustainable, damaging to free trade and conservation, and waste huge sums of money. The CAP needs further and deeper reform. And, because fisheries would be better administered at the national level, we will negotiate to restore national and local control over British fishing grounds. We are determined to ensure national control in this area.
We will also build on the success of enlargement, making Europe more diverse by working to bring in more nations, including Turkey.
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).
I am more than a little bored of politics at the moment. I went to read the BBC news page today, and my eyes glazed over at the samey samey whingy, moany old crap being written.
A summary of the three news stories I managed to scan:
"whinge, moan...blah blah...dead....politicians said...sanctimonious turdtalk..blah...moan....woe is me...whinge....more people dead..."
So instead, I thought I would post a picture of the shoes I wish I could buy if I didn't spend all my money on thin air*
Donations gratefully received.
Which reminds me of something funny that happened today. Estate agents came round as flatmate and I are moving out as this place is quite pricy. I only moved in recently as other occupant moved out. Estate agent asks flatmate (I am not there) if her roommate is called Bob i.e the guy who lived there before. Yes, she replied, forgetting that this could lead to issues when estate agent walked into mine/bobs room.
"Impressive collection of ladies shoes" he said. Flatmate smirked. Well, Bob could be a transvestite, and who would we be to comment?
Anyway, am off to Brux at end of the week to find out what will be going on at the Heads of State dinner. Trouble, I suspect. I hope that it will cause me to be angry enough to start caring again, and then I can write something decent. Or, at least, the usual crap minus the pictures of overpriced footwear.
*it may as well have, for I can't see what I have managed to spend that, and the money I have borrowed from Mastercard, on. Apart from the fabulous shoes, of course. but a quick calculation worked out that the ones on my shoe racks (winter) cost me £2300 which isn't all the money I have ever earned...conundrum.
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?
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.
Right. Am going to set the record straight on this whole 'UKIP disabled discrimination' bullshit. And my, is it bullshit. This:
I told the 650 people who voted for me that I would not stand again for the council but Ukip talked me into standing for them.as reported in the Guardian today, for example, is a huge pile of steaming poo and lies.
"Ukip withdrew its support when they found out I was registered disabled following a double knee replacement.
I have just received a letter from Vicki Sharpe, Chairman of UKIP Dorset which states that because I am registered disabled I cannot stand for the Council in Wyke Regis - where I had 680 votes as an Independent
Further to your email of today, I would like to set the record straight. Our Chairman, Vicki Sharp, did not say that you cannot stand as a UKIP candidate for Wyke Regis.
However, you said yourself that you are "useless" at leafleting which equates to being unable to canvass. This was discussed with Malcolm Wood (south west organiser) as mentioned, and in view of this, and the fact that you are registered disabled (i.e.unable) it has been decided that canvassing would be very difficult for you and therefore the best course of action would be for you to be a 'paper' candidate.
But given that UKIP are also mounting a campaign against my councillor daughter (UKIP minded anyway) I do not want to be either a paper or real candidate for UKIP. The last chance gone, I think I will emigrate
John,and
I have been special Forces. I am a very good friend but a very bad enemy.
If you stay on track, ignoring me, but trying to unseat my UKIP minded daughter I will take the story for the Echo, ref you do not want disabled candidates for UKIP.
This is not a threat but a promise.
One of the main local issues that almost everyone is against is the Pier development. My daughter was one of 8 Councillors who voted against this. And you have people "in droves" to vote against her.
I read on the BBC that asylum claims are down by 9% this year.
According to the article, Home Office figures show that this is the lowest level since 1993.
Hmmm, am not surprised, personally, seeing that the year afterwards was the year where control over our borders was first given away to the EU by Michael Howard when he was Home Secretary, and since then the Labour government have been doing a mighty fine job of ensuring that they hand over as much control as possible.
Brown, of course, wants to make people do volunteering work before they get citizenship, which is a step on from the tests they are supposed to do, called Life in the UK.
I called up the Immigration directorate to ask about who has to take the tests, and who would have to do the volunteering work if this idea is accepted, and they confirmed to me that anyone from the EU is excluded from these requirements.
Alas, the fact that 450 million people are excluded from this seems to have passed our MPs and press by. Does no one apart from me think that not only is it sickening that our poliicians can deliberately mislead us by making out that this will affect all immigration and also that is essentially imposes a colour bar on people who wish to naturalise?
The people from our Commonwealth countries will have to jump through hoops to come and stay here, but anyone from the EU can just wander in.
And of course, because we aren't allowed embarkation controls from transportation coming in from EU countries, regardless of whether people on that flight, or that boat originate from an EU country, we don't really have any idea who is in this country.
Meaning, of course, that we can't really do anything about illegal immigration.
Posts
All Comments
