How many times do they have to say it?

So, it comes as no surprise that the wonderfully fucking democratic cunts at the EU have once again stuck their fucking oar in and said that Ireland's refusal to ratify the "Lisbon Treaty" is entirely unacceptable and they need to fucking have another vote. And I suspect that if the bog-trotters tell them to "feck off, you feckin' feckers" once more, it will just go around until they give in and give them the correct answer.

Fuck the fact that the Irish have a rule that says that constitutional changes require referenda. I bet once they're ground down into accepting Lisbon, there'll be some handy fucking clause that means that they will never have another referendum. They'll be fucked, and fucked forever.

Meanwhile, the utterly useless buttered new potato will be keeping his fingers crossed that the bog-trotters fold before he has to grow a set and tell the EU to take a flying fuck at a sugar frosted doughnut. Despite the fact that the cuntweasels in Labour promised us a referendum at the last election, which contributed to their election victory (probably not a lot, but it definitely did), we're never going to get a referendum thanks to the virulently pro-EU political class.

Call Me Dave has not got the stones to have a referendum, really. I'm not sure he doesn't want the UK deeply embedded into the pucker of the EU's arsehole. Even if the Irish do tell the EU to suck their collective balls, Dave's going to find a way out of this one. Wait and see.

But in the mean time, the fucking EU will keep on asking the question until everyone gives in. Or they'll just fucking ignore all the dissent and go ahead without our consent. Fuck, it's not like they need it already.

Your money will keep disappearing into the bottomless pit of the EU's unaudited-for-a-decade accounts, your rights and even the judiciary will keep being homogenised to EU standards.

The return of the individual to precedence will become ever more unlikely and the state will blossom from the current invasive horror of a dysfunctional, out-of-touch and unaccountable national government and quangoes to an even more dysfunctional, out-of-touch and unaccountable multi-national EU government.

So if you see an Irishman between now and the referendum, buy him a drink and ask him nicely to vote no. The longer we hold the EU at bay, the better the chances of something or someone game-changing coming along, like the LPUK or UKIP, if it survives the departure of Farage as leader.

Because there's certainly no LibLabCon fucker out there who gives me hope at the moment.

What a big porky pie!

Alas, dear readers, the website for the Council of Ministers has crashed and so I can't send you a working link to the text for the EU Consitution.

However, because I'm a helpful and friendly young lady, I can tell you a couple of interesting points about it.

Shoved away amongst 76 pages of protocols (after the 2 page preamble and the 250 pages of treaty text) are two very interesting little clauses:

Protocol 10 Article 10 (4) the EU by Qualified Majority Vote can force the UK to pay financial penalties for the opt out.

The opt out, by the way, is a five year derogation from the UK having to accept EU rulings on Justice and Home Affairs. But here's the 'science bit' as those folks at L'oreal would say: it's only a delay of five years for the laws which are made before the Treaty comes into being, expected around 1st January 2009 - because let's face it, they aren't going to let something like democracy stand in the way of their plans. So we'll just be 3 years late in amalgamating these laws into our statute book, and then we'll have to do them all at once.

Unless, unless...

we pay them MORE money! They don't get enough from the tax payer to waste on their stupid, harmful and nonsensical laws and trips for cankers like Lady Kinnock to go on jolly holidays to the Carribean to understand poverty. Oh no.

It gets better. According to a new article, 4a (2) in the Protocols, they have included this lovely little snippet which says that the Council of Ministers (yes, those foreign chappies who you don't have any say in electing and no say in removing)can decide by QMV to put pressure on the UK to sign up to the whole shebang and let the EU take control of our legal system.

Bye bye habeas corpus! Hello corpus juris. Bye bye Juries! Hello being thrown in jail and not being formally charged.

Don't you just love 'em?

(it was bust earlier, but now it might be available

Gordon Brown: One eye, two faces

Anyone listen to our esteemed Prime Minister on the 'Today' programme this morning? Or, perhaps, read his little piece in the Screws of the World yesterday? Or any of the coverage of the Labour Conference? If you have, then you'll know that he is saying that he doesn't need a General Election to "get on with the job" of implementing Labour's 2005 manifesto. Now, I happen to agree with him on that point. We don't have a presidential election in this country, so the MPs we voted for in 2005 are still 'representing' us.

However, I am slightly confused as to how Grawp can sit there talking about how he is going to implement the Labour manifesto but conveniently forget that this included a promise..hear that? A PROMISE for a vote on the EU Constitution.

Let's not beat around the bush: this Reform Treaty and the EU Constitution are basically the same document. Have a look here for some comments by other European leaders and politicians who have been a little more honest than our own representatives.

So if he wants to get on with the job of implementing this left wing handbook, can he and others stop talking shit and give us a referendum? I will be in Bournemouth tomorrow with the Freedom Association calling for him to do so. Come join us!

Traitors, the lot

Whilst we've all been out having fun (or sleeping if you're a sick bunny like me) Tony Blair has pretended that he's stuck to his Red Lines (I initially thought he said Red Lions which would have been much more exciting) whilst giving the EU a legal personality.

We already know that the ECJ is the highest court in the land but, as DK explains rather well, this new treaty goes even further. Quelle Surprise?

Our researcher friend made it clear that, in his opinion, from a full reading of the text, that the Constitution treaty, for the first time, explicitly says that member states are subservient to the EU Institutions (which become a legal entity). In other words the EU becomes the supreme central authority, and member parliaments merely subsidiary local authorities.

Need I point out that I consider this to be an appalling—if predictable—development?

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

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

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

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

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

Single to anywhere, please

Am not entirely sane of mind. The reason for this is that I am on a rather interesting cocktail of (legal) drugs for the range of symptoms I am suffering from.

They're quite exciting and they're making all kinds of pretty shapes in my vision. It really does make dull things more exciting to look at when there are pretty patterns in front of them! They've also made the headache I've had for what seems a million years go away, but I'm still finding it quite tricky to breathe. It was just as well I didn't go to Brussels really, as it's been quite a kerfuffle over there.

Got a phone call from colleague who is out there that the Belgian police, instructed by we can only guess had ordered a peaceful protest to the new EU Treaty up for discussion to be taken down.

When they asked why they were taking the peaceful protest down, which was placed on an area called 'Area of Free Expression' the officer in charge said "because I can". That's nice, isn't it! He was also asked whether or not the removal of any opposition to the new EU Treaty, which is essentially the EU Constitution but without the dreaded C-word (yes, yes it is. Everyone else in the EU is quite prepared to say so except our lying, cheating politicians who should all be hung, drawn and quartered. Even Merkel herself and the hateful Giscard D'Estaing)was politically motivated, which he refused to answer.

He threatened to arrest three MEPs there: UKIP leader Nigel Farage, the party chairman Dr John Whittaker and the London MEP Gerard Batten. When it was pointed out that they had immunity as elected representatives of some 2.6 million British people the police said they didn't care and that they would "put them in a cell for 12 hours and sort it out there."

I wonder if they would bother to tell them what they were being arrested for? For not agreeing with the Euro-Elite? For having the audacity to point out that sneaking around for months holding secret meetings with civil servants, Ministers being called in front of MPs and not answering their questions about what the Treaty is going to say and for ignoring the calls of people across the EU that they don't want any more integration is a bad thing?

They were asked on what authority they were taking the protest away from, and the answer that came was "a higher authority." That's nice. Someone just says, 'take down the perfectly peaceful opposition to what we are doing here as the TV cameras are on it and they're representing the views of rather too many people' and it is done.

I really do wonder what people think they are doing. Like my favourite journalist George Pascoe-Watson when he refuses to mention UKIP in anything, even when talking about the EU, and in the paper today has an article by William Hague who has completely sold out on the EU, talking about the damage the treaty might do. But hold on, William Hague thinks the EU is a good idea! Ah, well. Why should politicians have to stand by what they promised the electorate when there are political editors out there quite willing to ignore facts and pander to their needs to convince eurorealists that they aren't the EU loving numpties that we know they are.

But back to Brussels. Or not, in my case. On the table is, once again, the possibility that Britain give up her veto in Justice and Home Affairs. Blair has said that he won't do this, but this is a man who took us into an illegal war, told us the EU Constitution was like the Beano and thinks that this country is in a good shape, so quite frankly I'd sooner believe my dead grandma than him.

A quick summary of the main issues on this from one of my previous posts:

Transferring Justice and Home Affairs issues into the first pillar would mean that all proposals to harmonise criminal law across the EU and matters of police cooperation would:
• Be agreed on by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers
• Come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice which has until now had only a very restricted say on third pillar matters
• Gradually confer more power over criminal matters to the EU. Once the EU gains competence in a certain area the member states lose the right to propose new laws in that field of law
• Give the EU Commission the sole right to initiate legislation in these matters. By gaining a monopoly over the right to propose laws on criminal justice and police cooperation the EU Commission would enjoy greater power than it would have received from the EU Constitution under which it would have had to share the right to propose new laws.

With decisions being made by the Council of Ministers, it has already turned the British Constitution on its head, by allowing ministers - supposed 'servants' if one knows Latin these days - to dictate to Parliament. Now, even if a British minister votes against a proposal in the Council, he cannot put it out to pasture. Instead, the British Parliament would have to enact laws made by foreign ministers, unelected by the British public which were not supported by the British representative.

I'm sure I've mentioned them before, but this EU police force is already in existence:

EGF responds to the need to rapidly conduct all the spectrum of civil security actions, either on its own or in parallel with the military intervention, by providing a multinational and effective tool.

Their logo is a grey cruciform sword pointing upward; a grey flaming grenade, overlapped to the sword and surrounded by a grey laurel crown; 12 yellow five-points-stars upright, around the grenade and the sword.

According to the website:

SYMBOLIC DESCRIPTION

On a background of blue sky, the cruciform sword symbolizes the force, the laurel crown the victory, and the flaming grenade the common military roots of the police forces; the twelve golden stars represent the twelve stars of the EU flag.

If an inflatable bulldozer can result in incarceration based on political opinions are happening only a few miles away where our own Prime Minister is present, what will happen in the future when we have armed police forces who are answerable to people who are unelected and unaccountable to the people of this country, and who are governed by the European Court, who has a mission statement of furthering the cause of the European Union.

I have seen the future, and I do not like it.

Let them eat cake..

Trixy is a bit miffed, so she's going to have a rant. Why am I so miffed? I hear you cry?

Because of this greasy, orange, contemptible canker:


who has taken it upon himself to tell our defunct outgoing Prime Minister to 'ignore popular opinion in the UK'.

Erm, what?

Tony Blair was elected by, admittedly the minority, of people in this country to represent them and their views, and therefore his job is not to push ahead with signing a Treaty which may well secure a new job for him but would hand over yet more sovereignty to Brussels but to listen to what they say.

And they are saying that they don't want this Treaty, and that they want a referendum. A referendum which we have been repeatedly promised, and yet have not had since 1975. That means people like me, and even Nigel Farage MEP, have not had a chance to inform our government what we think of the EU in a straight forward question.

Mr Barroso was talking to the European Parliament yesterday when he said:

You know about the UK, and the respect I have for your country. We have to stand up in front of our national public opinions, not give up to some of the populisms we have in our member states.

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

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

Sounds rather like 'democracy' to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press release from 'eurosceptic' Conservatives

Release: immediate

Date: 28 March 2007

Issued by: Conservatives in the European Parliament

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


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


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


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



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



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


ENDS

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

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

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

Eurosceptic Tories?

I was rather interested to see this comment on the BBC website:

Europe is a great ideal for The Continent. We should be proud to have a close relationship with it. If we want to be in it then we should come up with a full proposal as to how it should be formed and what the constitution should be for a world class business and political entity. More action and less talk, please.
Guy Stacpoole, Petersfield, Hampshire, England.

Mainly because the chap in question is a Conservative councillor.

So to all those Tories who say that UKIP is splitting the eurosceptic vote, I say: How?

Ich bin ein Berliner

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.

A fucking bad idea, if you ask me. A customs union which is detrimental to not only those concerned, but to the rest of the world. Whose ruling elite are unelected and unaccountable to the people?

And I am getting rather sick of continually writing that the EU has not kept the peace in Europe for the last 50 years. as I, and many other, have said before, it was NATO, trade, no need to go to war and sheer bloody exhaustion from 6 years of fighting, not to mention the Marshall plan which stopped any more wars happening. The way I see it, forcing countries together and taking away their national identity is far more likely to cause conflict than stop it.

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.

This very document shows how little the EU actually cares for democracy, as it is a stepping stone towards the ratification of the EU Constitution which has been rejected by two founding countries of the EU.

And if the individual actually was the focus, wouldn't this be a libertarian system of government, rather that a quivering mound of statism?

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.

Well, some people are trying to get away with as little work as possible, actually. And lots of countries like, and joined the EU to get state funding from other countries who are better off than they because they embraced free markets. And fair balance of interests? Don't make me laugh. Again, France and the Netherlands haven't had a fair balance of interests because the EU has completely ignored what they decided about the EU. Britain doesn't because for one example, they've just been outvoted over the 'open skies' deal. It's a way of forcing through EU rules and making the EU stronger by cutting down on the power a national government has over the country it is supposed to represent.

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.

Sorry, run that past me again? Taking away democracy and traditions is a way of affirming uniqueness? What about the uniqueness of Trial by Jury and innocent until proven guilty? Of imperial measurements? Of a parliament which makes the laws for the country, rather than a supranational government? Of eroding down traditional counties and replacing them with EU regions? Of a Commom Education Policy which will tell history the way the EU wants it?

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.

Economic success? But the EU is declining massively in the global market and the only way it can think of countering it is by protectionism! And the Social Policy takes away the notion of responsibility from the indiviual and makes either the state, or an employer responsible. It erodes values like the instutition of marriage, of discipline. The Euro hasn't exactly made Italy stronger, has it? And countries like Ireland achieved economic success by ignoring the screams from the EU that tax competition was a bad thing. The EU is a bad answer to them. No doubt about it.

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.

So you will counter racism and xenophobia by removing freedom of speech. It's not going to work. And anyway, xenophobia is an irrational fear. Hw can that be a crime? I'm claustrophobic. Am I soon to be locked up for discrimination against lifts? And fighting terrorism? Surely embarkation controls are a good way to start when it comes to combatting terrorism, along with the ability to actually say what is causing these attacks, rather than some book given to countries which tells them what they can and can't say?

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.

Oh dear god. First of all, if you want to combat poverty, then finish the EU and let's all have free trade. It's not a hard policy to comprehend. I am also thinking 'Balkans' and 'Darfur' when I read about the EU trying to stop conflicts. It's having enough trouble trying to get this shitty document signed, how is it going to deal with something as complicated as conflicts caused by faith?

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.

Nuclear power is a good way of securing a reliable energy source. And Climate Change is driven by politicians who want more control and a way of raising more taxes.

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.

The only way I want the EU to be in the future is an example of how not to do things. Want welfare beyond your borders? Trade with them, then!

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.

How is poor economic growth, a bad environment for business, no freedom of speech and poor democracy a good future?

For we know that Europe is our common future

It's bloody not. If there's no way of getting out of this hideous institution which will drive Europe into poverty after it's turned it into a quasi soviet then I'm on the next plane out of here. And sod my 'carbon footprint'. The only footprint I'm worried about is the one my fabulous shoes make. Shoes which would be cheaper if we had free trade, of course....

Harry Pottering and the Ten Commandments

He hath spoken, and we must obey.

On Tuesday 13 February new EP president Hans-Gert Pöttering outlined his priorities for the next two and a half years. What will our institution be focusing on up to the next elections? The Pöttering 'ten commandments' say:

step up intercultural dialogue, especially between Europe and the Islamic world (use the EuroMed assembly for "peace and partnership")

Yet another pointless, politically correct quango giving jobs to people who should really restrict their lives to knitting. EuroMed is a monumental failure which is taking yet more and more power away from national governments, especially immigration. Trade, of course, has already gone tubby bye byes.

push for a new European constitution in 2009

See that, Tony? See it there? It doesn't really match up with your comments in the Daily Mail today:

The meeting on March 25 is nothing to do with the constitution. It is to celebrate 50 years of the Treaty of Rome. The constitution won't be discussed until after the French election

Right. That's odd, because the letter I have on my desk from Angela Merkel states quite clearly:

I intend to prepare the political Declaration to be adopted on 25 March 2007 in confidential consultations with Heads of State and Government and their close advisers. The same goes for consultations over possible ways to take the constitutional process forward....

followed by a 'tentative schedule for the consultations on the Declaration and the constitutional process:

25 March - Adoption of the Declaration in Berlin. On the margins of the celebrations a first exchange of views between Heads of State and Government on the constitutional process.

improve the EU institutions' credibility through better lawmaking.

How about no lawmaking? Let's face it, the rules are made to further the interests of those people who benefit from the EU, i.e the politicians and eurocrats. They make laws just to keep themselves in more work and give themselves more power. It is perfectly evident that the laws are badly thought out, and go through a process of amending which allows even the most retarded MEP to bugger up an already stupid suggestion. I know this to be true, for Liberal Democrats put in amendments which are passed.

strike up a democratic and effective partnership with Russia

Who have just stopped Poland being allowed to have anything to do with the 'Son of Starwars' because it is too close to them. Very convenient friendship.

remember that Europe and the USA are friends

Which just sounds like something thrown in at the last minute to keep the Brits quiet. But it won't wash, sunshine. The EU is far too socialist to 'be friends' with America, and never agrees with them.

don't let anyone deny the holocaust

Free Speech, anyone?

support Israel's right to exist and the Palestinians right to a state of their own

And keep spending tax payers money funding the terrorist organisation that is Hamas

help those who fight for freedom and democracy, like in Belarus

Unless they're Eurosceptic, in which case just anhialate them. And, of course, conveniently ignore that the EU is neither free or democratic, else the Commissioners would be elected and accountable, and meetings would not be held in secret.

make a stand against the death penalty

Surely this should be up to individual countries to decide? Oh, yes. Sorry. Forgot you wanted to remove the veto on Justice and Home Affairs and make it a full EU competence.

develop a common EU immigration policy

Although with Directive 2004/58/EC from the 29th April 2004 they have already gone most of the way. But here it is: the EU want to control every single aspect of immigration. Labour will say it's not true, and then start ranting about ID cards, the Tories will ignore it because it's politically inconvenient, what with they being the party who first gave away control to Brussels on immigration in 1994, and the Lib Dems will have a reception in the parliament with disabled people to celebrate what a wonderful idea it is.

And the press will probably ignore it, or write about it, but not mention that the three main parties are all in support of this.

hmph.

EU Referendum

I notice from the Devil's Kitchen that our great Prime Minister has replied about the vote to have a referendum on membership of the EU.

Well, some people may have had an e-mail, but I haven't.

I'm not sure I have anything to add that the Devil hasn't already. I don't even think I would bother to tone down the language.

Blair is such a hateful man. He's lying to us, he knows what's going on. He knows that however small that 'mini' treaty is it only takes one line to day, 'all decisions will be taken by qualified majority voting' and then BANG! Bye bye Britain.

All these men obessed with size. I think it points to a deep rooted psycological fear that they are too small down below...

Can I just say: if you voted for this man you are a prat.

And another thing

Further to my rant the other day about the EU and it carrying on, guns blazing (well, the guns it generally makes the British wield) here is a wonderful post by Eliab which clarifies the situation much better than my frustrated ramblings ever did...

Those little listening devices always reminded me somewhat of the TV screen whatsits in 1984 - some twat trying to drill into your head their agenda for the next squillion years whilst their minions sit around applauding, like the spasticated monkeys that they are.

I await with interest the 8th March, not least because I will be in Brussels.

At least they are honest

A story I read about a while ago, but just didn't get round to writing about:

Barroso addressed the Hague last Monday (12th Februrary) and told the Dutch government they had "a responsibility to present a good solution" after the Dutch people said Nee to the EU Constitution. To me, this just indicates that the EU will not be happy until they have a new treaty transferring more powers to the EU, and that the Dutch people have clearly done something wrong by voting No.

He refused to say the Constitution was 'dead' and said "we must continue the institutional reforms as we will not save the EU with instruments of the 1980s'. (the Treaty of Amsterdam was signed in 2002 I think, so not quite the 1980s)

The Dutch agree with London and Paris that a mini treaty would be better, as then they don't think that they would need a referendum. This is even though a mini treaty would at the very least include an EU president and an EU foreign minister.

Barroso said: "Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable." He said that any government considering a referendum on any new treaty should "think twice" about holding one, just incase one country said no.

When he was Portuguese PM he was pro referenda (knowing that the Portuguese would say yes and he would look democratic, I presume) but since 2005 he has been against them.

"I was in favour of a referendum as Prime Minister, but it does make our lives (sic) with 27 member states in the EU more difficult. If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the Euro, do you think these things would have passed?"

He added, "If you have signed a treaty, you should also ratify it." thus throwing democracy to the wind.

Excuse me whilst I have a short rant..

It seems to me that because JMB realises that some countries will vote no to the treaty, they should not have the opportunity to. He realises that the EC and the Euro are unpopular and that people do not want them, so they should not have the option of having a democratic opinion as it ruins the EU plans. He also is against unanimity in the Council, which is required now, as it means there is less chance of radical transfers of power going to the EU, as happened with Justice and Home Affairs, which would have seen police forces from other countries and EuroPol, who report to the Commission, having powers in other countries.

It's a single minded bureaucratic machine which wants to power on to a political superstate without the inconvenience of asking what the people who pay them think. I tell you, if this goes ahead, I'm emigrating!

As a colleague wrote to me:

"In Denmark, it will be politically impossible to avoid a referendum, but if we vote wrong we are used to being asked to vote again."

That's the tough this about democracy. In referendums, the ballot contains both "yes" and "no" and it is tricky to limit the possibilities on the ballot paper to "yes" and "yes please".

I'm sure they'll manage it, though...maybe by having a Head of State dinner in Brussels where it will be decided whether all 27 heads of state have to sign the Berlin Declaration, or whether the European Commission President, the European Parliament President and the Council President can do it. That means that our future would be decided by a Portuguese Kilroy and two Germans.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Well, I will know before you, but I'll make sure I pass the news on...

See also:

Brussels Journal

Expatica

EU-Serf