European Affairs debate a complete joke

Am listening to the European Union Affairs debate in the House of Commons and am getting rather angry. Firstly, there are about five people in the chamber and, considering that the European Union is really the biggest issue in British politics, I think this shows what a complete bunch of losers we have in our parliament.

Get your heads out of the fucking sand, you bunch of rabid ostriches. You all sit there listening to Gordon Brown waxing lyrical about a 1.25p rise in petrol duty, and then you all fuck off and ignore the debate which is controlling far more of our money and the plans for this country to give away even more power to Brussels. Why are you there if you have no interest in the important matters which affect this country? Hmm? I mean, you've all sat their with your fingers up your arses saying how little you get paid and how you need to take yet more of our money for your wages, but what are you actually doing?

Secondly, am desperately trying not to grab TV and throw it out of the window whilst I hear the so called 'opposition' agreeing with the 'basic thrust' of what that facially inept Foreign Secretary says. And she is saying that she wants enlargement, that the European Union should have more powers, that we should continue being members of the European Union because that's the only way we're going to compete with Asia...

Compete with Asia whilst being part of a socialist trade block which thinks that trade protectionism is a good thing? Which has a globalisation fund to subsidise countries and industries which have lost money 'due to globalisation'? What the fuck? Our MPs support subsidising inefficient industries and countries which can't be bothered to become more efficient and compete on the global market - surely the quickest way for these countries to go down the pan.

The way we compete with these Asian countries is to embrace free trade, lower taxes to encourage investment and hard work and to rid ourselves of the burden of harmful EU regulation such as the Working Time Directive. Not by jumping on the large waterbed of the EU orgy and gang-banging everything to do with 'cooperation' and 'the future of Europe' and 'combined decision making with our neighbours'.

After hearing Graham Brady encouraging further migration from the EU to the UK, despite the Shadow Home Secretary making numerous comments about how immigration needs to be controlled, I think that if the UK Independence Party did not exist, rather than vote for any of these shower of shits, I would rather poo on my ballot paper to properly register my disgust with this millenium consensus in Westminster.

Learn to Love the EU

From the Mail on Sunday:

A multi-million pound propaganda war to force the British people to love the European Union and Brussels bureaucrats is to be launched by Tony Blair as part of his legacy as Prime Minister...

It's actually taken me a day to calm down and try and discuss this rationally, but just typing that out again makes me want to run the short distance over to Westminster and scream "what the fuck are you doing with my tax money, you bunch of utter cretins?"

Don't get me wrong: As much as I hate the EU I would welcome debate. But fair debate. The EU itself already has a huge propaganda budget with which to try convince people that what they are doing is all about fluffy bunnies and happy, smiling children, as opposed to the plans for a super state with a spot of third world death along the way. So why do they need more money?

I suspect it's because no matter how much they love the EU, people can see beyond their lies, their deceit and their selfish disdain for the feelings of others. The fact that they have to hide the truth from people means that even they must know, ignorant and spasticated as they are, that the CAP, the Euro, the Constitution, the 'aid' deals with the developing world, the biometric passports, the Euro Army with Germany, France, Italy and Spain (because they have such a good military record) are not wanted and not needed by the general public, and people can see how much damage they do.

The operation is to overcome strong opposition to the EU in Britain and soften voters up in the event of fresh moves to forge closer links with Brussels was secretly agreed by Mr Blair and his Ministers at last week's Cabinet meeting

Would these be the plans currently being undertaken in the FCO for the British to lead the way in a new treaty? The ones which our leaders (and I use that in the loosest sense of the term) think they can scam past the public because British people wrote it, so it can't be something 'nasty' from Brussels? The one which will probably appear in some shape or form on the 25th March in Berlin, possibly under the name of the 'Berlin Constitution Declaration'?

I haven't filled in my tax forms yet, but I think I may be deducting some from the final total: EU contribution, funding of Hamas and paying good money for these shower of spastics to tell me what to think about the EU. I'll tell you what I think - I think you should shove your 'Blue Flag' clean beaches up your fundamental...

Smoking: funding the NHS for nearly 60 years

Forgive me if my typing is not so accurate today: I am combining writing this post with smoking a delightful cigarette. In the office. I felt that I had better make the most of it before that malevolent witch Patsy Hewitt makes it illegal to do so.

"A ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces in England
will come into force on July 1 next year, Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, announced last night. From next summer all offices, factories, shops, pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs, public transport and work vehicles that are used by more than one person will be smoke-free. The new law will also mean that indoor smoking rooms, still common in workplaces, will no longer be allowed. Anyone wishing to smoke will have to go outside instead."

There are three people who work in my office and we all smoke. There are a few other people who come into the office occasionally: some of them smoke, some of
them don't, but if they have a problem with the foggy air then we tell them to fuck off don't smoke whilst they are there. The point is, that we don't need some mad old bat who is completely fucking up our health service trying to tell us how to work.

More annoying than that was this comment from the Express:

"However, people will still be able to smoke outdoors, in private homes and places that Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt says are "like homes", such as care institutions, Army barracks and prisons."

Right. So some criminal who would probably have to have murdered 25 people, raped a few children and mugged the entire population of Kent to actually end up in prison can smoke, but I can't.

Let's not forget that inmates these days are allowed to take drugs, which if I recall correctly are illegal, and six inmates actually received compensation for their horrific 'cold turkey' treatment.

The cost of treating smokers, even at the highest estimate, is £1.2 billion. The money raised by smokers is £9 billion. Maybe that's the reason why smoking is still legal? Because as much as Mrs Hewitt hates smokers, and peers out of the window of the dept of health giving her evil glare to anyone in Main Building nipping outside for some 'fresh air', she needs us smokers to fund her department and the establishment which she is slowly running into the ground.

So if I summarise the few articles I have seen in the media these last few weeks I would draw the following conclusions. If, on July 1st 2007 I am still a smoker, the best place for me to go would be prison. Because there not only would I be able to smoke, they would give me drugs or compensation, I wouldn't have to work and I wouldn't have to pay tax.

Mind you, the chances of anyone actually being sent to prison these days is pretty slim: even our own Home Secretary quietly told some troublesome youths in Westminster to 'behave themselves lads' "you know the prisons are full."

Justice and Home Affairs

You may or may not have seen this topic in the news recently, but it's one UKIP were pushing pretty hard on. We did manage to get the Sun and the Telegraph to comment on it, but alas they did not mention UKIP. I guess it's all part of the plan not to highlight how desperately pathetic the Conservative Party are and not to weaken them by pointing out there is a party out there campaigning on the issues people care about...

At the end of the last Commission in 2004, an evaluation took place which highlighted major obstacles to 'progress'. One of these areas was the requirement on unanimity in the Council on Justice and Home Affairs.

The basic plan is to transfer criminal law and police cooperation from the 3rd pillar of the EU treaties into the 1st pillar. In English:
The first or ‘Community’ pillar contains the EU’s core policy areas such as the environment, single market and employment law.

The Third pillar covers “Provisions on Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters.” Which was formerly known as the Justice and Home Affairs pillar before the transfer of policy on asylum, migration and judicial co-operation in civil matters to the Community pillar.
The plan is for a 'bridging clause' which, in the Commission's own words would, 'constitute a solution to overcome these difficulties in applying the 'Community method' to the policies in the area of freedom, justice and security.'

This would abolish the national veto and would massively increase the power of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, the in-house court, who has as it's aim the supporting of an ever closer union.

The ECJ already has power to declare any national law which is inconsistent with a law of the EU invalid. Moving JHA into the community pillar could potentially widen the scope of the Commission's Competence to almost anything involving police and the judiciary. It means that if the EU legislates on anything to do with JHA it becomes a Community competence. On 13th September 2005 the ECJ gave the EU powers to set criminal penalties for the first time: a combination of these factors could prove explosive.

The UK govt. in May stated that they would not reject this. The House of Lords has warned of the 'creeping competence' of the Commission which this change could bring about.
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.

The loss of trial by jury would probably be the most visible alteration. Habeas Corpus is an alian concept to the European Justice System - who do not have to have evidence before they arrest people and can keep people locked up in prison without charge for weeks, as in the case of Chris Lees, who was locked up in a Spanish jail for 50 weeks with no case ever brought against him.
There already exists a miniature EU police force called the Euro Gendarmerie Force - made up of 5 countries. (Spain, France, Portugal, Italy and Belgium). They are military police who have as a logo the ring of stars with a sword and a flaming grenade inside. They are not controlled by their government - they are a supranational police force who recognise the EU as their authority.

For pretty pictures and the such, visit : www.Eurgendfor.org

A few home truths

Am back! And so happy to be so.

Am no longer working in Brussels, but in London where I have been endlessly frustrated with these stories on immigration and foreign prisoners.

Firstly - immigration.

Let's get this one straight - the EU is not just about trade, it's about the free movement of people. If someone is a member of an EU country, they can travel into the UK and stay there for 3 months without having to get in touch with the immigration authorities. Considering that this government can't keep control of who comes in and out of this country, can you really imagine them spending time and money tracking people down after 3 months if they didn't know they were here in the first place?

Our embarkation controls were removed in 1994 by the Conservative Party - which had David Davis in it at the time. In fact, he was the Minister for Europe. So why, then, are the Conservative party saying that the government has failed on immigration when their MEPs voted for enlargement, the Major administration allowed the free movement of people from the EEA and they don't want to withdraw from the EU which is where the Directive saying who can come in and out of the country comes from? Don't believe me? have a look at
EU DIRECTIVE 2004/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004

You'll also find some useful comments in there about people with criminal records, which brings me to my second point.

If John Reid wants to change the law to allow the UK to deport criminals from within the EU he is going to have a pretty tough time. Considering that it's the aim of the EU to have a common decision on Justice and Home affairs and they don't think that their powers over immigration go far enough, how is he going to get them to repeal that Directive?

He's not.

If we want to control our borders, decide who stays in this country and refuse entry to criminals, then the only way is out.

We are forbidden from having border controls from transportation from EU countries. We can't deport foreign criminals. We can't stop foreign workers coming into the UK, along with their families.

Isn't it about time the government and the opposition stopped with their outrageous hypocrisy and told the British people the truth?

At least UKIP is there to try get the message out.

Funding of Hamas

Have been getting a bit wound up about this: previously mentioned e-mail author Luisa morgantini has been spamming e-mail inboxes with some mulch about how the innocent of Palastine shouldn't suffer from lack of funding. Here are my issues:

1) Why should we give them money?
2) Are they really innocent if they elected a bunch of murdering terrorists to represent them?
3) Why should we give money to murdering terrorists?
4) Maybe if they stopped trying to kill people and fight the whole time, and concentrated on leaving people the f*ck alone then they wouldn't have to rely on money because they could go to work, companies would invest, they could, essentially, make their own money.


Seriously - why should we be giving money to these people? They make their choices and they should abide by it without needing the rest of the world to prop them up. Those who live by the sword, die by it.

UKIPwatch give away their fears

A little look on UKIPwatch and I notive that mr Corbett et al have been encouraging UKIP voters not to elect Nigel Farage as their leader. This in itself tells me that voting for Nigel Farage as leader is exactly what we should do, as it has the opposition rattled.

What did rather amuse me was that one of the reasons they put for not voting was that he was accused by some mad tart of having sex with him, which he denies outright. Indeed, I understand the words 'order' and 'harrassment' have come into the situation. Yet, this was published in the same week as the news broke about John Prescott (two johnnies)and his two year affair using public money with a colleague. I'm not a purist who thinks that someone elected to public office should live the life of a nun, but my problem with Prescott is that he spent so many years attacking the Tories for 'sleaze' and has done the same thing himself.

I sent an e-mail to Richard Corbett asking what he thought about John Prescott, especially in light of his comments about Mr Farage. I am still waiting for an answer but I will let you know.

Another e-mail I am awaiting a reply from is regarding Mr Chris Davies. He has been forced to resign after writing to a constituent saying that he hoped 'she enjoyed wallowing in her own filth'. Classy, Mr Davies, but at least he had the decency to apologise and step down. More than Mr Prescott, let's face it, and Mr Davies didn't have a bit of slap and tickle in Ardmiralty House!

Naturally, people have been e-mailing to express their solidarity and support to Mr Davies:

'Subject: concerning freedom of thought : no comment


My solidarity and respect to MEP Chris Davies. I dont know if he used rough words. But for sure he is right on the violation of human rights and international legality perpreted by the policies of israeli government.'

What we have there is someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about assuming that justice has not been done because she doesn't like Israel, and neither does Mr Davies. I am so glad these people have a vote in European legislation.

Wait for the next one, though:

Dear Chris, dear all

I would also wish to express my deep respect for your firm position, Chris.

It is shocking that you are punished for being courageous enough to express a clear critique of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians in the occupied land. This ill-treatment is clear for everybody with open eyes and scandalous for everybody with a warm heart. The EU is in a shameful position, our passivity and silent acceptance of what is going on is also an offence against the Rule of Law.


Best Regards

Margrete Auken

Punished for being courageous? What planet does this woman live on? Even Mr Davies thinks he went too far, but Mrs Auken thinks insulting the people who pay your wages is good and proper!

I wrote to her, copying in the Daily Telegraph article just incase she didn't have a flying fuck of a clue what she was talking about, and am waiting for the response....

I can't stop watching this...

This is quite funny. It is a Belgian TV chat-show interview with a man who was castrated by mistake during an operation. The man's wife is sitting next to him. The entire conversation is in Flemish, but this does not matter.


Click below, and make sure you have sound turned on.


http://www.controlancy.co.uk/fun/lost_jewels.htm

Dave the Chameleon 2

Very funny...

http://www.backingblair.co.uk/dave/

England Expects: March 2006

England Expects: March 2006

hmm...I wonder if I can go into the 'not making shoes business' and therefore qualify for some subsidy for keeping Spanish shoe makers in business?

Dave the Chameleon

From Question Time last night....

Question Time – Osborne argues distinction between ‘Dave the Chameleon’ and UKIP ‘fruitcakes’


Thu, 20 Apr 06 | Adfero Report - Broadcast

Summary
The Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has dismissed suggestions that the Conservative Party are just as likely as the Labour Party to use negative campaigning to attack other political parties.

The Conservatives have attacked the Labour Party over negative campaigning after the Labour Party, in their first local election broadcast before the local elections in May, decided to brand Tory party leader David Cameron as a chameleon. Although, the Conservative leader himself made disparaging comments recently on a radio phone-in that the UK Independence party were ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly’.

Speaking on BBC One’s ‘Question Time’, Mr Osborne responded to the chameleon comments: ‘I thought it was a pretty significant moment. Here is a government that’s been in office for nine years, that keeps telling us and is desperate to tell us “don’t worry we haven’t run out of ideas and we’ve got lots of things we want to do in the future”, and here is their big change- they’ve got their party political broadcast… and they choose to do a negative attack on the new leader of the Conservative Party.’

He observed: ‘This is a party by the way [Labour] who came to office saying “I will never ever use negative advertising ever again” and that’s what’s happened nine years later.’

‘They’ve got nothing to say for themselves’, he remarked.

However, when suggestions were made by a members of the audience that the chameleon slur was not dissimilar to David Cameron’s suggestions that the UKIP were ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly’, Mr Osborne stressed: ‘There is a difference between a radio interview and designing a party political broadcast because this is all part of a Labour strategy.’

Commenting on Mr Cameron’s comments, he said: ‘The fascinating thing about that was the reaction of the UK Independence Party, which I promise you said “We don’t mind being called fruitcakes or loonies, but we object to being called closet racists” .’

‘Then the founder of the party, a guy called Alan Sked, came out and said “actually he was right to say that about us” ‘, Mr Osborne added


Odd thing is, Dr Sked isn't a member of UKIP. Guess which party he is a member of.

Cameron, the Tory Party, hypocrisy and nepotism

After the childish Mr Cameron threw his toys out of the pram by calling UKIP "racists" I thought I would write to his office and ask for either a jusitification or an apology.

My letter to him:

Mr Cameron,

I am writing to request from you an apology for the unfounded slur you made on the UK Independence Party, it's supporters and voters. Indeed, as a former member of the Conservative Party I know of many of your elected officials and long time members who have voted UKIP and who, therefore, come under the umbrella of your accusation.

I had the pleasure of your company one evening at a dinner at Royal Holloway College where we were sitting next to each other: I trust then that my company did not lead you to believe that I was a racist.

Politics is made interesting and lively by people sharing different views, and debating those views. My opinion that the UK would be better off outside of the EU, where we could experience a proper democracy, sensible legislation and our own trade and development policy is one shared by many, and does not make me a racist. Nor does my view that those of us living in the South East who would prefer not to have an extra 1.5m homes built, essentially in our back gardens, make me a fruitcake: particularly given that with the current hose pipe ban, car washing and manicured lawns in Surrey is made very difficult.

You must be aware by now of how answering the question of why you think UKIP are a bunch of racists with the jealous and spiteful mutterings and lies of Dr Alan Sked is not taken seriously by anyone. I await your reply with interest and hope,

Yours etc,

'his' reply to me:

Many thanks for your email to David Cameron about his recent comments regarding UKIP - I'm replying on his behalf.

I must apologise for the delay in replying to your email - I'm sure you can understand that we've been completely inundated with correspondence since David took over as Leader.

I can appreciate your views, however, a number of people have made allegations about UKIP’s links to the far right. David Cameron was simply reflecting that fact when he was pressed about his opinion of UKIP.

You might be interested to know that Ashok Viswanathan of Operation Black Vote has said: ‘There’s no doubt that when you talk about the UKIP they’re wolves in sheeps clothing… We know that a number of candidates who have stood for UKIP have BNP links – there’s no question there are links’. He suggested UKIP had been spreading ‘hate and bigotry’, adding: ‘It’s not just about anti-Europe. It’s anti-black, it’s anti-minority, anti-migrants, anti-asylum seekers. And we should be very clear about that when we vote on June 10th’ (Black Information Link, 9 June 2004).
The Commission for Racial Equality in Wales has also stated that during the European Elections in 2004, ‘we received many complaints from members of the public about election materials issued for both the BNP and UKIP’ (Annual Report, Commission for Racial Equality in Wales, 2004).

Regarding Europe, we want Britain to be a positive participant in the EU, championing liberal values. Britain has an enormous amount to gain through co-operation and free trade in Europe. The EU does much that is worthwhile. It allows people and goods to move freely across Europe. Just as importantly it has brought stability and has helped to entrench democracy in newly free countries.

But the European Union is not working as it should. It does too much and too much of what it does do, it does badly. The EU needs reform, and Britain, one of its leading members, must be at the front pushing for change. We must challenge the culture of the EU - leaving it to focus on its real job: making the single market work properly and championing free trade. Every European country needs to be competitive with the emerging giants such as China and India. Britain needs to be able to operate a highly flexible labour market. British jobs depend on British Governments being able to retain and enhance that labour market flexibility. That is why our priority is must be the return of powers over employment and social regulation.

The EU needs reform in other areas too. The Common Fisheries Policy has not worked well. We can do more to conserve fish stocks through local management and bilateral agreements. Our farmers have already made tremendous efforts to adapt to change in the Common Agricultural Policy, but reform here too must go further.

We believe in an open, flexible Europe. We do not believe in a United States of Europe. That is why we oppose the EU Constitution in principle, and why we must make sure that the federal agenda contained within it is not introduced through the back door. It is best for Britain’s economy if Britain controls its own interest rates, so we rule out ever joining the euro.

Thank you once again for taking the time and trouble to write.

Yours sincerely,


Alice Sheffield

Christopher Booker's notebook, Sunday Telgraph 16th April (hasn't the Telegraph gone all sensible recently!)

David Cameron spells out his new recipe for disaster
'Catch the bus when you can." "Get to know your neighbours better." "Pick up one piece of litter from the street every day." "Don't overfill your kettle." With advice such as this, the leaflet handed to delegates at last weekend's Tory spring conference in Manchester must rank as the most self-parodyingly condescending piece of litter ever produced by a political party.

Last week it became more apparent than ever just what a catastrophic blunder the Tories made in picking David Cameron as their leader. In talking to Tory activists, MPs and councillors, three incidents seem to have confirmed their view that the party has been hijacked by a gang of spoiled children who appear to have no contact with the realities with which the rest of us live.
The first was that toe-curling speech in which Mr Cameron seemed to emphasise that the only policy in which he believes is the "green revolution", typified by his plan to spend three days "watching glaciers dry" in Norway.

The second was his outburst against the "closet racists" of the UK Independence Party (Ukip). When various Ukip supporters wrote asking how Mr Cameron could justify this insulting claim, the reply from his correspondence secretary, Alice Sheffield, was that his view of Ukip had been confirmed by Ashok Viswanathan of "Operation Black Vote".

It then turned out that Miss Sheffield is Mr Cameron's sister-in-law and that Operation Black Vote is a rum outfit indeed for the Tory party to be consorting with: an aggressively propagandist black lobby group, chiefly funded by the European Social Fund, the European Parliament, various Labour councils and Ken Livingstone's "Government of London". If a similar body were to be set up calling itself "Operation White Vote'", it would soon be prosecuted under the Race Relations and Public Order Acts.

The third shock, just when our country is ruled by the most incompetent, corrupt, discredited government in its history, crying out for trenchant opposition on almost every conceivable issue, from the shambles of the NHS and the destruction of our local government, to the selling out of our Armed Forces to political correctness and a cracked dream of European integration, has been the way that Mr Cameron and his gang seem to have decided that their "Not The Conservative Party" must stop trying to be an opposition - the very task for which we taxpayers give them £4 million a year.

"The real problem," as one dismayed senior Tory put it recently, "is that it is going to take two more years before this disaster can be undone. Labour walks the next election, and then we're going to have to start all over again."

I couldn't have put it better myself

Mr Heffer was excellent on Any Questions, and this editorial in the Telegraph marks a much welcomed change in the Torygraph coverage. I had actually stopped reading it, ever since work UKIp did on a story and quotations from Nigel Farage were attributed to Dan Hannan and the Tories. Not cricket, my dear fellows.

Simon Heffer on Saturday
By Simon Heffer
(Filed: 08/04/2006)
Not all the loonies are in UKIP, Dave

You won't believe this - no, really, you won't - but there are people now running the Conservative Party who think it was brilliant of Dave to describe UKIP as "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly". One of them is his own party chairman, Francis Maude, who was clearly on something yesterday morning when, with no regard at all for the truth, he described UKIP as wanting an "all-white Britain". These two "loonies" regard this smear on thousands of decent, harmless and patriotic people as a masterstroke in Dave's desire to
"reposition" the party.

More in sorrow than in anger - I can't take Dave and Francis sufficiently seriously to get angry about them - I feel I must offer some advice. They are repositioning their party in much the same fashion as Senator Ted Kennedy used to reposition cars after a night's boozing. It's all very well abusing your core vote, provided you can find others to vote for you instead: but the UKIP blunder has simply served to remind everyone of Dave's inexperience, stupidity and shallowness, and that is hardly going to help drum up support.

Two years ago, a friend who is also a Tory MP - indeed, who is now a member of Dave's shadow cabinet - asked me to speak at a dinner in his constituency. I delivered a speech about the wickedness of the European constitution, then not the dead duck it is today. It was a month before the European elections. Afterwards, streams of people queued up to tell me the same thing: that, despite being members of the Tory party, they would all be voting UKIP in the euros.

Dave would like to pretend to the contrary, but a sizeable proportion of those activists on whom his candidates will depend to run their election campaigns in 2009 or 2010 are regular UKIP voters. That is because they regard the Tory party's position on Europe as dishonest and unrealistic. They are right to do so.

This does not make them either loonies or fruitcakes, and by no stretch of the imagination does it make them racists, closet or otherwise. And they will this week have heard what their leader said about them, and been horrified. Indeed, their horror has been eloquently expressed on the letters page of this very paper.

The more one thinks about what Dave did, the more idiotic he seems. If he finds UKIP's position so appalling, why is he proposing to shift his own MEPs towards it by withdrawing them from the EPP grouping in the European Parliament? It couldn't be because he needed to say that to win the backing of Right-wing MPs during his election campaign, could it, and that, since he has no principles, it was an easy promise to make?

More stunning even than that, though, is the failure of this man - whose friends are always telling us how clever he is - to apologise for what has universally now been recognised as a damaging and stupid mistake.

With that smug, self-righteous arrogance we have come to expect of a man whose only training for high office was to be a PR spiv, Dave has not only failed to do that, but he has also compounded his offence by attempting to defend himself. The overpaid teenagers who work for him and write his jokes will have told him that this makes him look decisive, resolute and tough. In fact, as older and wiser hands in his own parliamentary party readily concede, it makes him look a little plonker.

Well, Dave, old boy, if you want to continue this strategy of cleaning out your core vote, here are a few more suggestions. Use a keynote speech at your conference this weekend to attack the Women's Institute ("bigots"), the Brigade of Guards ("fascists"), the Salvation Army ("paedophiles"), the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association ("Nazis") and Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother ("crackhead"), just to liven things up a bit. And enjoy your retirement!´

The Times have another excellent article today, about the absence of Europe in Cameron's speech. As they point out:

Any policy without a European element is only half a policy, if that.

The reason? Westminster just 'rubber stamps' the Brussels work, and very little original legislation actually comes from MPs. Mr Cameron, trying to appease his eurosceptic supporters said that the Tories would oppose ID cards and regionalisation. Yet both of these come from Europe. A major area he chose to talk about was the environment, now a competence of the EU, and the Court of Justice has precedence to take countries to court if they do not obey EU envirnoment legislation.

As my friend and Tory councillor put to me 'is he a socialist plant?' because Blue Labout is going a pretty good job of being more unrealistic, more incomeptent and more left wing than new Labour!

Wet behind the ears? What gives you that impression?

Oh Mr Cameron, what have you done? You can't go around accusing your political opponents of being 'racist' because you are bitter they have parked their tanks on your lawns.

We know that you have completely abandoned your traditional spot on the centre right, and are no longer the party of low tax, choice and independence but accusing UKIP of a criminal charge isn't really the right way to react now, is it.

Isn't it somewhat telling that you could not get a single elected official to follow the party line on newsnight last night, which is why you had to wheel out Dr Alan Sked to lead the attack? A bit odd, though, basing your opinion on the words of the man who, when he was leader of UKIP, brought a BNP activist in to be head of research, and was subsequently expelled?

I am sure there are people of dubious opinion in all political parties - indeed the above mentioned Mr Sked is a member of none other than the Conservative Party - but the elected officials and senior officials in UKIP are not racist, nor have they been, and an apology must be forthcoming. Or is Mr Cameron too scared to admit that he is a young, naïve politician who is only used to dealing with a positive image?

It must have been hard for him, I guess, when his plans to only tell the Electoral Commission the names of people who had been funding 'Blue Labour', fell through after UKIP reminded him that the Electoral Commission is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Did he not know that? Odd, considering he voted for it...

The trouble for him is that UKIP read legislation. We were the party who found the clause in the Treaty Establishing a Consitution for Europe which said that if 20 countries ratified, then the Super State Scheme could press ahead without the others. That was, of course, ridiculed at the time and, as you could have heard on Radio 4 the other week, is now stated as fact.

Politics is becoming such a dire game: the expectations people put on politicians that they are whiter than white (although in the context of this, maybe that phrase will not be allowed?), have no past history, don't do anything wrong, never experimented when they were younger surely rules out in the future any politicians having gone to university? And who wants the governing elite (I use that losely, we all know that about 80% of our laws are made in Brussels) who are tediously dull with no life experience? That is the way I see the new faces of New Labour and Blue Labour going. To quote a friend who text me last night:

'To suggest that I am in touch with the modern Tory party would be missing the point'. And I met him through the Tory Party....

Burning cars and waving placards

I am not surprised that a few months ago large numbers of the French immigrant population were rioting in the streets. Unemployment amongst this area of society is currently 49%. Youth unemployment averages in France 23%, and total unemployment is desperately struggling to get down below 9%. This, in a Western European economy. It's no wonder economic growth for 2005 was only 1.9%.

Over half GDP in France comes from the public sector - private businesses are in the minority, and why? Because it's almost illegal to fire someone so there is no incentive for businesses to expand and new jobs to be created. With all the risks that come with starting up a new business, having the additional fear that you will be lumbered with wages for people who aren't making money for you isn't going to encourage you.

Unfortunately, this is an example of the European Social Model being thrust upon the unfortunate members of the European Union: A Union so blinded by its desire for a single state, it fails to see how chronically ill so many economies are, and how it's prescription will cause the vibrant economies to stutter to a halt in time.

Here is a little summary from the Guardian today about welfare systems and employment in some EU countries:

FRANCE: Job protections include generous vacation, pensions and maternity leave,
and subsidized meals and transport. It is extremely difficult to fire anyone
with a permanent contract, and layoffs can be blocked by courts. High youth
unemployment prompted a new law that would make it easier to fire young workers
to try to encourage hiring. The law has prompted protests and strikes.

BRITAIN: Most benefits are decided by the employer, not the state. Layoffs for
economic reasons are common. Mass protests are rare, though anger over a pension
dispute prompted public sector workers to stage a one-day strike Tuesday.

GERMANY: Workers enjoy several weeks of vacation and generous pensions, and most
work weeks run less than 40 hours. The two ruling parties agreed last year to
ease the regulation of the labor market to encourage firms to hire more staff,
but the move has met wide opposition.

ITALY: Job security is playing a key role in the campaign for April 9-10
elections. The government introduced temporary work contracts in 2002 after
protests forced them to water down deeper reforms. Like France, Italy has
generous protections and high youth unemployment.

NORWAY: With a booming oil economy, Norway has just 3 percent unemployment.
Norwegians have strong rights in the workplace, good unemployment and sick leave
benefits, legislated time off, holidays and working hours. Employers often
include a contract clause of a six-month trial period for new employees.

BALTIC STATES: Labour laws in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia favour employers, who
have few restrictions in hiring and firing. With many young people having moved
to Britain, Ireland and Sweden since 2004, employers are offering health plans
and career training to entice workers. Estonia's laws protect workers with
children younger than 3 and make it nearly impossible for employers to fire
pregnant women.

POLAND: The EU's highest jobless rate at 18 percent. Its rigid labor laws - in
part a legacy of the strong social safety net once guaranteed by communism -
make firings difficult.

SWEDEN: Strong worker protections and generous welfare benefits are hallmarks of
Sweden's cherished social model. To fire a worker, an employer must show it is
absolutely necessary because of cutbacks or the worker has severely failed to
live up to expectations. Offers a minimum of five weeks paid vacation or the
right to up to 480 days of paid parental leave.

I prefer cats myself

Whilst trying to book a hotel for the boss in Brussels, which turned out to be nigh-on impossible due to the world and his wife descending on Brussels, I stumled across a rather pretentious hotel.

Comfort Art Hotel Siru - Brussels - 3*

A showcase of Contemporary Belgian Art, between 1989 and 1990, the Comfort Art Hotel Siru gave free rein to the imagination of 130 painters, sculptors and comic-strip draughtsmen to turn its 101 rooms into as many paintings and in the process turn this property into the first "museum-hotel" in the world. The imaginative and individual decor of each room makes for an enjoyable and refreshing visit.

I wondered if Todd might like a trip at some point, so I checked their pets policy:

Pets policy

Children welcome

ooh, that's a shame. If cats were allowed I might have paid them a visit, but children - no thanks!

The truth about the Labour Party

The truth about the Labour Party

Our author takes no prisoners! A very interesting read.

It's easier to do it this way

My computer at 'work' doesn't let me attach pictures but some clever person has managed to do it for me!

http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/2006/01/something-i-meant-to-do-long-time-ago.html

In the spirit of solidarity I put these on my blog! I am not constrained by their religous laws, and until they start treating women a bit better, I'm not that bothered about them jumping up and down about their 'rights' and 'respecting them'.

Eastern Europe gets rubbish from EU

Literally, and not just via stupid, ill-thought-out regulations! Well, I'm afraid they can't have it all their way:
Reuters
Czechs fear EU garbage plan could worsen dumping
08 Mar 2006 17:19:46 GMT
Source: Reuters

PRAGUE, March 8 (Reuters) - EU plans to relax rules on refuse disposal could see
poorer members swamped with rubbish from their richer neighbours, the Czech
Republic said on Wednesday.

Prague, worried by how much German rubbish has come into the country where
disposal is cheaper, has barred foreign waste for dumping and burning, allowing
it in only for recycling.

But under a proposed European Union directive, to be discussed by ministers in
Brussels on Thursday, a member state could no longer refuse to import waste for
burning.

Czech Environment Minister Libor Ambrozek said he would protest against the
proposal.

"The directive does not reflect the difference in the economic conditions in the
new EU member states," he said in a statement.

"The different price levels in the waste treatment area create preconditions for
an undesirable cross-border transfer of waste ... to new member states, for
eco-dumping."

The Czech Republic, which borders much richer and larger Germany, has
experienced a rise in cases of often illegal waste imports -- "eco-dumping" --
as companies try to cut costs.

It fears the new plan could cause a massive rise in shipments, including illegal
ones.

There are about 20,000 tonnes of illegally dumped German waste in the country, a
ministry spokeswoman said.

Customs officials have tightened up border controls and have caught six trucks
this month trying to enter Czech territory with undeclared illegal waste, the
news agency CTK reported.

The Environment Ministry said Prague would try to widen opposition to the
planned directive, and discuss this with nearby Slovakia, Hungary and Poland.

They have received huge amounts of money from the EU budget - and if I recall then the UK paid £7bn into the slush fund, which was going out to the underground system in Warsaw and the sewers in Budapest: both of which represent huge, sensible investments to the British tax payer who wants to save for their pension or their childrens' university fees.

The comment about the different economic situations also angers me somewhat. We know here in the west that there are different economic situations: this is why we have had about 300,000 economic migrants from eastern europe since 2004. They can't have their cake and eat it, I'm afraid. Whilst the EU may seem to them a way to be a player on the international stage, a way of getting free money from hard working tax payers in other countries and new working destinations it's also about the eradication of laws based on what is best for individual countries and the erosions of national borders and customs until we are one fat, sinking, economically retarded federal state. Just ask Richard Corbett. Or the Communists.

Let's celebrate womens day

By talking about the rape laws in pakistan and the abortion laws in South Dakota.

Let's start wíth the rape first:

In 2002 six men were sentenced to death for the gang rape of a woman. Gang rape is hideous enough, but what makes this case even more so is that it was actually ordered as a punishment by a council. Mukhtar Mai was raped by four men on the instruction of tribal elders after she refused to marry a member of a clan whose relative buggered her 12 year old brother. What I cannot understand is how these people can think so little of women - that she is just a pawn and a bargaining tool so men can get what they want. She wanted justice for the crime committed on her brother and instead gets brutally raped, degraded and humiliated by people who are supposed to be the leaders of the village. Can someone explain that to me? Maybe when they do, can they also explain what is honourable about murdering a female member of your family for having an independent spirit and not wanting to live their lives for others? Why women jump on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands, so they aren't a 'burden' to anyone? Why are there so many people in this world who seem to think that women are inferior to men? Without women the human race would not exist. Without men, the human race would not exist. Surely it's logical that both sexes are equal and that such attitudes are just a way of control and power?

On that happy note, let's go to the South Dakota abortion laws. A marmalade-dropping moment if ever I heard, although I don't eat marmalade. From July it will be a crime in South Dakota to perform any abortion unless a pregnant woman's life was in danger.That means that pregnancy from rape or incest is not included! Danger from whom? Danger from what? From herself? From trying to self abort through sheer desperation, because when you make abortion illegal, the number of abortions do not fall, but the number of women who die rises. If you ban abortion, you end up with some very seriously injured women: back street abortions end up with severe bleeding, internal damage and hysterectomies. But presumably the "pro-lifers" (whose life, may I ask? Certainly not that of the pregnant woman - her wishes for her life are not even taken into consideration)consider this to be some kind of punishment for having the audacity to end an unwanted pregnancy.

A woman cannot be free until she has the right over her own body and her own future. This means access to contraception, to abortions, to education, healthcare, the same wage for the same job as men, to public positions and to legal personality. Not being able to decide what happens to your own body is an abuse of human rights. And no, I do not think that a foetus has the same rights as a human, because rights come with responsibilities. A foetus at ten weeks might look like a baby when magnified and stuck on the front cover of the Daily Outrage, but considering it's about the size of a walnut I can't see it surviving. And until it can survive outside the womb, the wishes of the pregnant woman must come first.

Happy Womens Day: I'm going shopping.

If Kinnock thinks it's good, it must be bad

So we need to change all our road signs from miles to kilometers do we? And why is that? We hear again today that the Commission say that the UK will not reduce it's budget deficit to under the 3% target before the end of the year so what a good thing to spend yet more money we don't have on changing road signs just for the sake of harmonisation.

Alastair Darling MP last night on question time said that he didn't think it was necessary but when Nigel Farage MEP said that the EU Directive due to come into force by 2010 was going to ban imperial weights and measures he called him 'nasty' and 'anti European'. Darling, please try come up with something convincing as an argument and try not be hypocritical.

Whilst we have our heads in the sand...

Yet more proof that this idea for a Single European State will press ahead regardless of what people in Europe really want. The French and Dutch said "no", the Commission went "la la la, we're not listening". The majority of people do not want Turkey to join, so negotiations opened. The Parliament repeatedly reject the Port Services Directive (for different reasons, because countries are not the same, Mr Barrot)the COmmission keeps on trying to get it passed.

EUobserver.com
Verheugen predicts political union in 20 years
20.02.2006 - 09:53 CET | By Mark Beunderman

EU industry commissioner Gunter Verheugen has predicted that some EU states will
in 20 years form a political union.

In in an interview with German daily Die Welt, the commissioner was asked how he
sees the EU in 20 years' time.

He responded by saying "I believe… we will have a political union, but maybe not
with all states that now form part of the EU."

"Certain European states will agree to have common competencies in foreign,
economic and financial policy as well as in judicial policy," he explained about
his long-term vision.

The remarks point to the possible creation of a "core" Europe of EU states
further integrating policies, with other states opting out.

This vision emerged in the 1990s in German conservative political circles, and
has since won supporters mainly in France and Belgium, with the Belgian prime
minister Guy Verhofstadt recently suggesting closer co-operation between the
eurozone states.

The commissioner also appeared to predict predicted a further enlarged EU
encompassing the western Balkans, Turkey, Switzerland and Norway - but excluding
states like Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Russia.

"In 20 years all European states will be members of the EU, except the
post-Soviet states that do not yet form part of the EU now," he said.

Mr Verheugen served as the EU's enlargement commissioner in the previous Prodi
commission from 1999-2004, succesfully managing the bloc's 2004 expansion while
championing further enlargement, including with Turkey.

© EUobserver.com 2006
Printed from EUobserver.com 20.02.2006

Unless we actually do something solid about it, and elect people to power who aren't bribed with nice positions in a new central government, we will no longer have national identities. But the people of Britain appear not to care - they act as though if they ignore it, it will go away. And slowly, they accept the creeping changes until they are used to seeing the EU pirate flag hanging from buildings in Brussels, and being waved at the last night of the Proms (an event which is full of patriotism and national pride - I bet the BBC paid someone to wave it about). It won't go away, we can't ignore it so hello media, can we have some coverage on what is going on over here. Hello people, stop saying you hate the EU and don't want Britain to be a part of it, and do something about it!

slimey creatures

Fish are. scaley and odd colours. Still, as much as I don't particularly like them, they aren't anywhere near as slimey as Tory politicians! I grant you, many of the other denominations are bad - but their hypocracy never fails to astound me.

The reason I mentioned fish was because this new gut wrenching tory comment is about fish, fishing, the Common Fisheries Policy and a stable. At least, that's what the Shetland box sounds like.

The Tories, in particular Struan Stevenson, have been slagging off UKIP MEPs for voting against the preservation of this Shetland box because they say that we should be happy that we are allowed 40% of fish stocks as long as the Germans, Norwegians and some others could come along and fish too. They don't seem to understand that according to UNCLOS III, that area is part of the British Exclusive Economic Zone and selling our fishing rights away has not only caused havoc for fish stocks but also cost British fishermen and their communities greatly. The EU allowed Spain to sue each and every fishing village under the CFP because they were fishing in British waters and they weren't allowed to!

We should have 100% not 40%. So Mr Stevenson, you are part of a party which has already lied about the CFP when you said the Tories would renegotate, and now you lie about this being a good deal. Tories jumping into bed with Labour - continual evidence for this centerist politics we have now. The Commission themselves, when they were asked by Nigel Farage years ago, and by Catherine Stihler a few weeks ago have said that if you withdraw from the CFP, you leave the EU. And the Tories don't have the backbone to come up with a sensible policy such as withdrawing from this hideous, economically retarded dictatorship.

I am enjoying this

Over the last two six nations championships, England haven't really done that well - because they had lost key players from injury and resignation after the 2003 World Cup win. I had a plastic Taff boyfriend some time ago, and last year, even though we had split up (his fault) I still had to endure his triump of Wales over the 'hated Saes'. Hated, I think, because the English were successful in the Empire. I noticed yesterday when Chelsea were beated 3-0 to Middlesborough? that people wanted to see success brought down: it was these people who were happy that Chelsea lost who were also supporting Italy against England, even though they were not Italian.

But, ha ha, we won. AGAIN. Maybe not with such pizazz as we would have liked, but we did. And I sincerely hope that Scotland beat Wales today, because to see the table lead with England and follow with Scotland, and have Wales at the bottom would make me supremely happy.

What's wrong with selection?

Am just listening to a programme on the education proposals and yet again I wonder where this country is going to. Well, that country, since I am not there at the moment.

Ma main gripe is that political correctness has gone mad, and when it affects how well children are educated, this really, really bothers me.

Only yesterday someone told me that in AS level economics text books they are promoting the euro and in exam papers, they ask for one sided opinions on why the euro is good. This is not acceptable.

But why are schools not allowed to select their pupils? I went to a school where I had to pass an exam to get into and we had streaming in certain subjects. And guess what, the results were excellent. Higher with the internal streaming than without because the school was open in admitting that some children are more clever than others, and some children were good at things that other children weren't.

Why can't schools be allowed to select pupils? Why should really bright children be held back by children who need a different teaching method? Why should parents who encourage their children do their homework, and read and learn more have their efforts thwarted by people who don't care how their children behave and feel that someone else should do it for them?

I am simply not intelligent enough to be a brain surgeon, and I hate the sight of blood too. I accept that, it's fair enough - and those who are clever enough and dedicated enough: I applaud them. If you refuse to allow children to be taught in ability groups and in different methods then you will increase the illiteracy rates to higher than they are now (and now, they are higher than in Victorian times) and you will polar the system as parents who can and care enough to, send their children to private school.

How far will Richard Corbett go?

He first incurred my wrath when he accused me of lying about being attacked in the European Parliament: I was protesting peacefully about the EU Constitution (his baby -literally) when I was pounced on by 4 security guards and then in the forthcoming investigation, they failed to interview the one member of staff who was acutally involved in it (me). Corbett in his deepest, wildest fantasies came out and accuse me of being a liar, without ever having met me, asked me about what happened and not evenbeing a spectator to the incident.

He seems to spend his time following everything to do with Godfrey Bloom; one can only guess he is in the pursuit of a personality. He has now decided to openly accuse UKIP of being racist.

Now, the OED (it's produced in England, Richard, not Belgium so you probably won't have read it) describes racist as:

discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

When you google UKIP, and actually bother to research anything about, it rather than get in a small hyperactive fit about a party saying that the forcing together of nations who want to be individual is anything other than a good thing, you will find that UKIP is a non racist party. Yes, honey. Wanting control over your own borders doesn't mean you hate people from other countries. Saying that the embracing of cultures that are different doesn't make you racist. Saying you want trade, rather than aid (in the spirit of education I point you in the direction of any book containing the 'lost decade of development') doesn't mean you are a racist. Quite the contrary. In fact, saying someone or a party is racist without actually checking any facts is actually an offense.

May I suggest, angel of the north - or wherever you live - that you spend a little less time exerting your considerable energies over your obesession with UKIP, and more time trying to so something useful. I would not be so bold as to suggest what that could involve.

Todd, come in! It's past your bedtime

Pets will now have 5 freedoms enshrined by law. Well, that sounds lovely and fluffy, just like tummy of a kitten, but shall we think about this.

Firstly, the RSPCA haven't called for such legislation - there are already animal cruelty legislations in UK law. Secondly, when I studied law we were taught that rights come with responsibilities. That is why parents undertake many actions for children and are responsible for them, and under 18 year olds don't vote in elections.

The practicalities of this do seem rather anti-pet, too. My cat has a right to have a cordened off area to do a poo, but I have to make sure he comes in at night. My cat, Todd, is rather more bright than most. Firstly, he does no work and gets looked after like a king. He also had a vote in this years Conservative party leadership elections. (he voted for David Cameron). When he wants a poo he tends to go outside as that is rather more private than most. Okay, the neighbours may not like that extra large truffle on their rhubarb, but that's cats for you. He's nocternal and a hunter - he sleeps during the day and goes out at night and he doesn't want to be locked up because the Labour party thinks that he should have to. Mind you, maybe it's not too long until he's not allowed to hunt....

Shouldn't the government be concentrating on the abysmal state of the NHS or the worryingly high levels of adult illiteracy rather than trying to make household pets the subject of costly legislation which can't be inforced and doesn't need to be in place?

Are the cast of Watership down going to be knocking on my front door to inspect health and safety standards around the food bowls? Will Lassie be monitoring my phone conversations to make sure I am not planning on letting Todd out after nine in the evening? Is David Blunkett's dog going to become a cabinet minister?

first bras, now shoes...what's a girl to do?

Well, Peter Mandelson isn't going to be the one to answer that, is he. Not sure how varied his knowledge of all things female is.

A glance the other day in my copy of 'forthcoming items of legislation' and my eager eyes spotted the words 'shoes' followed by imports. A day or two later, and Eliab sends me this from the European Foundation's Newsround:

Now It’s Shoe Wars

By Svetlana Subbotina

Shoe-producing EU members are lobbying for anti-dumping duties on shoe imports from China, which now take up about a quarter of the EU shoe market. The EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, is resisting demands from domestic producers worried about their profits. Imports from China went up by 322 per cent during the first nine months of 2005 after quotas were lifted on January 1 2005. EU officials observed that dumping — exporting goods to another country and selling them at prices lower than one charges at home — is not linked to the volume of imports.

A separate source suggested that the price of Chinese shoes plummeted from €13.8 to €7.7 per unit which could mean shoes are being sold at prices below the cost of production. China called these figures “flawed” and threatened to refer the EU to the WTO if tariffs for Chinese goods are introduced. European shoe retailers also said that action against Beijing would threaten some 600,000 European jobs. Sales would also go down leaving price rises of up to €20 per unit.

Well, if they are charging below the cost of production then the WTO need to get involved. However, had price ever really been the issue when it come to shoes. Potatoes, yes: normal goods with quantity inversely related to price. Shoes aren't quite the same, though. Many people like the fact that their shoes cost lots of wonga - they are status goods and, rather like with Chanel handbags (not LV, though) the more expensive they are, the more they are demanded. I don't think that just counts for ladies shoes either - I cold get a Gina pair and some Jimmy's for the price of one pair of mens shoes (and they are no where near as pretty).

I think that most of these queries from China are more to do with the protectionist attitude of the EU and their failure to grasp free trade.

Let's face it, when it comes to reality, the EU institutions either have their heads in the sand, or stuck somewhere else where the views of the people of Europe can't reach them.

More on that tomorrow.

Bob Geldof

Is a good chap who genuinely cares about poverty, in my opinion. Don't know him but that' how he comes across, and actions speak louder than words.

I am also glad that, in spite of joining policy forums for the Conservatives on policy, he is going to remain non-partisan, Why?

I saw a clip on tv about him questioning Margaret Thatcher regarding the VAT on the Bandaid single. The reason VAT can't be removed on products is because of the EU - it is currently one of the few ways the EU can collect its own revenue, until the proposed EU tax comes into play.

If Bob Geldof wants to combat poverty, he is looking in the right direction with trade. I wonder what he made of the WTO talks with Mandelson holding back progress with every minute he was there representing the French. The way to development is through trade - it increases parity. Everyone can become better off through efficiency and the sharing of knowledge. Ricado came up with this in the nineteeth century, so why so we have a common external tariff? Why are we driving ourselves into economic obscurity with this regulation, and then raising tariffs to make sure that we don't become uncompetitive in our own markets?

Our former colonies who chose to stay with the Commonwealth can decide their own trade policy, but we can't. The British, who spread trade and liberal democracy throughout the world, and who now are being tied down with some kind of 'middle class guilt' about being a global power, are being governed by people who are not accountable to anyone but themselves. You want a good example, there's a former leader of the opposition and his family doing very well for himself....

Mr Geldof - you want to help make poverty history, then help the 3rd largest trading nation in the world leave the EU.

mental bureaucrats

ARGH!

Am just listening to the fat portuguese 'president' of the Commission, and it is making me very angry.

He says that this has been a good year for European development - HELLO? Are they just completely deaf to the cries of the people who have to pay for this ridiclous circus and who rejected the Constitution? Why are they boasting about aid to developing nations when these countries used to get more aid when it wasn't centralised by the EU? Well Done Glynnis Kinnock. Why are they spouting this shit when Commissioner Mandelson, apparently speaking on behalf of 25 countries (who can he when they all have different trade needs - eh, eh?) but who looks suspiciously like he is twice sacked from the British Government and is now working for the French - will not lead by example. Why do they give aid to these countries when they don't trade with them, which is a long term solution to their poverty. Why do they continue with these fisheries deals which ransack the fishstocks of african nations and then come back and sit in the sterile environment of the council or the Parliament and talk about how well they are doing?

And most bizarre of all - why do people believe them? Why do people vote for them? Bliar yesterday completely ignored David Cameron's comment about why Ireland was receiving more per capita from the EU budget than these eastern european countries who Blair said our taxes are going to help.

And that's another thing - I thought charity started at home? I hope that the charity 'Shelter' this year doesn't have any homeless people to help because our tax money first of all went to help British people? They should be helped by our government, not ignored because people are used to the problem of poverty in the UK, and it is no longer a vote winner.

Rebate fiasco

I'm to copy a little summary from today's 'SUN' newpaper, as I'm not feeling very well (not just because I'm physaically sickened by the 'deal' Bliar decided upon today...Deal - I think steal I is more appropriate') and also because it summed up in very few words how I feel:

Saturday, December 17, 2005
A lost chance

A BILLION here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about realmoney. Last night Tony Blair caved in to the French and handed over another billion ayear to keep the shambolic EU in business.

The fiendishly complex gravy train defies rational explanation. But we know itis wasteful and corrupt.Each Pound shrinks by 20p just by passing through the bureaucratic EU wringer. Vast sums are sprayed around the world in inefficient aid.

Much of the rest sticks to grubby fingers as its passes along the line. Some actually ends up in new roads and bridges, but in the most expensive wayimaginable. Year after year, EU auditors refuse to sign off the accounts.

Tony Blair had a chance to put a bomb under this scandal last night.He could have vetoed plans to spend even more and force a shake-up of the wholeshambles. Instead, to Gordon Brown’s fury, the PM signed up to an extra £7BILLION overseven years. That’s money the Chancellor must find in higher taxes to pay for a spending splurge which is running out of steam.

Odd that the Sun still insists on supporting Labour, mind. These are the comments that UKIP have been making for ten years...

facilities

Am looking for a hotel in Edinburgh for Hogmanay. Have absolutely wanted to go for years and am very excited! May have to buy some shoes, or possibly some warm boots for the occastion.

Anyway, I digress. When I pick a hotel I want
1) a bed
2) washing facilities I don't have to share with the wierd people who make the banging noises in the middle of the night (am I jealous that isn't me...maybe)
3) that I don't go bankrupt paying for it.

What I am not particularly bothered about, yet hotels use as a means of alluring you

1) tea and coffee making facilities. eugh
2) Biscuits. Did your granny make them? No? Then I don't care!
3) Windows that open. Honestly, that was on a hotel website.

AM also looking forward whilst I am up there of seeing the Scottish Parliament. Am hoping that I can take a bit home in a kind of tax rebate way, since it was so bloody expensive. And am also hoping to hear people talking in that famous language, 'Scots'. Thought it was a dialect myself...are we going to have cockney rhyming slang translated in Westminster next?

England Expects

England Expects

Great blog, in a similar but less frivilous vein to this.

I've been wondering: If Turkey join the EU, what happens if a Turkish MEP gets speaking time during their prayers?

A little bit of humour on a cold and frosty day

ELEVATION OF SECURITY LEVELS

As many are aware, the French government recently announced it was to
raise its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The normal level is
"General Arrogance", and the only two higher levels in France are
"Surrender" and "Collaborate". The rise was precipitated by a recent
fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralysing
the country's military capability.

It's not only the French that are on a heightened level of alert: Italy
has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to
"Elaborate military posturing". Two more levels remain, "Ineffective
combat operations" and "Change sides".

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdain" to "Dress in
uniform and sing marching songs". They have two higher levels: "Invade a
neighbour" and "Lose".

Seeing this reaction in continental Europe the Americans have gone from
"Isolationism" to "Find another oil-rich nation for regime change".
Their remaining higher alert states are "Attack random countries
(ideally those without any credible military)" and "Beg the British for
help".

The British are also feeling the pinch in relation to recent bombings
and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved". Soon
though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even
"A Bit Cross". Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the Blitz in
1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been
re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "Bloody Nuisance". The last time the
British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the Great
Fire of 1666.

An excellent article from the Independent newspaper

Monaco's Prince Albert gets EU farm subsidy of £200,000
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
Published: 07 November 2005

Prince Albert, the billionaire ruler of Monaco, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of European farm subsidies, it was reported on the eve of a meeting on reform of EU spending.

Oxfam claims that Prince Albert, who is worth an estimated £1.35bn, received €287,000 (£194,000) in payments under the Common Agricultural Policy last year.

The subsidy was for a cereal farm of around 700 hectares. Monaco, only slightly larger than Hyde Park in London, is overwhelmingly urban and Prince Albert's farming interests are believed to be over the border in France.

The charity also said that the two biggest French recipients took €1.7m a year between them. Meanwhile, 70 per cent of small farmers received only 17 per cent of the subsidies.

"France's argument that the CAP is used primarily to support its small farmers rings hollow," said Jo Leadbeater of Oxfam. "Europe's regime of farm subsidies goes to the wealthiest landowners and destroys the livelihoods of poor farmers."

The revelations came as Britain softened its demands for cuts in European farm subsidies. The Government relaunches talks today on EU finance and the future of the UK's budget rebate from Brussels.

EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels to discuss a paper circulated by the UK, which holds the presidency of the EU and which describes the need to modernise the budget as a "long-term aspiration".

But many EU states see the UK rebate as the main stumbling block to a deal, and several ambassadors criticised the British position paper last week. One diplomat said that the document had been "destroyed" in discussions.

Britain helped block a deal in June on the EU's budget for 2007-13, saying that it would only compromise over the UK's annual €4-5bn rebate if there were agreement on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

The rebate was negotiated by former prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984 to compensate Britain for receiving relatively little from the CAP, which still accounts for around 40 per cent of EU spending.

The description of budget reform as a "long-term aspiration" comes in a three-page letter designed to restart discussions on a budget for the 25-nation bloc. The aim is to get a deal in December at a two-day summit of heads of government in Brussels.

Speaking to the European Parliament in June, Tony Blair said: "We cannot agree a new financial perspective that does not at least set out a process that leads to a more rational budget." But the language from the Government has been less precise since then, and the new document from the British presidency strikes a measured tone ahead of talks due to take place among foreign ministers today.

It says that, before putting forward detailed plans on how to solve the budget impasse, the British want broad agreement on plans outlined by the European Commission to "help the EU adjust more rapidly to the challenges of globalisation".

The measures include earmarking specific funds for research and development and creating a fund to deal with the impact of job losses.

It also highlights the need for a review clause under which member states would agree to re-examine all EU spending, including farm subsidies, during the period 2007-13.

And, in an oblique reference to the UK rebate, it says that it wants to "make proposals in line with the generally shared principle of fair treatment" as "part of an overall package covering the revenue and expenditure sides".

If Britain gets enough backing for its approach, it is expected to put forward ideas for the first two headings this month, but probably leave proposals on the most thorny issues - including the rebate - until December.

The Oxfam revelations will increase pressure for reform of the CAP, though Britain's critics point out that the country opposes measures intended to put a ceiling on payments to individual farmers.

Britain is one of relatively few countries to make payments made under the CAP public.

Prince Albert, the billionaire ruler of Monaco, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of European farm subsidies, it was reported on the eve of a meeting on reform of EU spending.

Oxfam claims that Prince Albert, who is worth an estimated £1.35bn, received €287,000 (£194,000) in payments under the Common Agricultural Policy last year.

The subsidy was for a cereal farm of around 700 hectares. Monaco, only slightly larger than Hyde Park in London, is overwhelmingly urban and Prince Albert's farming interests are believed to be over the border in France.

The charity also said that the two biggest French recipients took €1.7m a year between them. Meanwhile, 70 per cent of small farmers received only 17 per cent of the subsidies.

"France's argument that the CAP is used primarily to support its small farmers rings hollow," said Jo Leadbeater of Oxfam. "Europe's regime of farm subsidies goes to the wealthiest landowners and destroys the livelihoods of poor farmers."

The revelations came as Britain softened its demands for cuts in European farm subsidies. The Government relaunches talks today on EU finance and the future of the UK's budget rebate from Brussels.

EU foreign ministers meet in Brussels to discuss a paper circulated by the UK, which holds the presidency of the EU and which describes the need to modernise the budget as a "long-term aspiration".

But many EU states see the UK rebate as the main stumbling block to a deal, and several ambassadors criticised the British position paper last week. One diplomat said that the document had been "destroyed" in discussions.

Britain helped block a deal in June on the EU's budget for 2007-13, saying that it would only compromise over the UK's annual €4-5bn rebate if there were agreement on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

The rebate was negotiated by former prime minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984 to compensate Britain for receiving relatively little from the CAP, which still accounts for around 40 per cent of EU spending.
The description of budget reform as a "long-term aspiration" comes in a three-page letter designed to restart discussions on a budget for the 25-nation bloc. The aim is to get a deal in December at a two-day summit of heads of government in Brussels.

Speaking to the European Parliament in June, Tony Blair said: "We cannot agree a new financial perspective that does not at least set out a process that leads to a more rational budget." But the language from the Government has been less precise since then, and the new document from the British presidency strikes a measured tone ahead of talks due to take place among foreign ministers today.

It says that, before putting forward detailed plans on how to solve the budget impasse, the British want broad agreement on plans outlined by the European Commission to "help the EU adjust more rapidly to the challenges of globalisation".

The measures include earmarking specific funds for research and development and creating a fund to deal with the impact of job losses.

It also highlights the need for a review clause under which member states would agree to re-examine all EU spending, including farm subsidies, during the period 2007-13.

And, in an oblique reference to the UK rebate, it says that it wants to "make proposals in line with the generally shared principle of fair treatment" as "part of an overall package covering the revenue and expenditure sides".

If Britain gets enough backing for its approach, it is expected to put forward ideas for the first two headings this month, but probably leave proposals on the most thorny issues - including the rebate - until December.

The Oxfam revelations will increase pressure for reform of the CAP, though Britain's critics point out that the country opposes measures intended to put a ceiling on payments to individual farmers.

Britain is one of relatively few countries to make payments made under the CAP public.

------

This is one of my main gripes about the EU. On one hand, I have a report here which is talking about tackling poverty in developing countries, which are primarily primary product producers, and in rural areas of the EU. On the other hand, we have a report from Oxfam which once again states that the main beneficiaries of the CAP aren't small farmers. The Duke of Devonshire was in a report last year when it was stated that the rich in the UK are being subsidised by the CAP.

Please don't think I am anti-farmer. I think we have so much to owe to the industry, especially since they keep the countryside looking beautiful. Give me farms over housing estates anyday. However, we shouldn't be having protectionism on such levels. It doesn't benefit the farming industry in the UK, judging from letters we have received here in the Parliament. Telling people how much they can and cannot grow without reference to break even points and economic efficiency? The propaganda ministry in the EU love to promote how great the EU is for development, but how can it be with such a policy?

Tony Blair, do not weaken your resolve.

David Cameron getting his knickers in a twist

Over the Tories pulling out of the EPP. I grant you, it would be a step in the right direction but will it really make any difference? If they leave, they move away from being run by a centerist (they may be right wing in Euroland, but they're certainly not compared to the UK) federalist pro constitution, pro euro German who thinks that the Commission are the new religion, but they are still a massivly split party.

Say what you will about the Lib Dems (and isn't their plenty to say) at least they are honest about their view towards the EU. They might not publicise it that loudly for fear of losing most of their voters, but they don't say the complete opposite. Labour confuse me on this issue. Their old Labour supporters hate the EU on the grounds that it wastes money and takes power away from the nation (yet they like trade unions...hmmm...) but President Blair can't give away enough of our right to govern ourselves!

The Tories, though. 1999 was a bad year for them as they had to come up with a policy on Europe. 2004 was less of a bother since they ran with a line which translated: 'we're shit, but not as shit as they are.' Now they are trying to hide the fact that most of their MEPs have gone native and are loving the cushy number over there. They keep bleeting on about trying to return power from Brussels, in Europe but not run by Europe and then they vote for regulation after regulation which gives MORE power to them! It irritates me beyond belief.

And on irritating subjects: that bitch who wants to ban fun. The Health Secretary banning smoking anywhere that dares to allow people to breath fire and brimstone whilst enjoying a pint. I have much to say on that matter, but first I'm going to have a quick ciggie...

Off with their heads!

Have cleverly thought up a title which encompasses both subjects I wish to get off my chest.

1) People who don't use the stairs. I will explain. I work on the 11th floor of the parliament, and I have to use lifts generally to get to and from the doors / restaurants / hemicycle to my office. This I can cope with, because I have a beautiful view from this floor.

However, what does irritate (and confuse me) is the 'logic' which makes someone stand around and wait for a tediously slow lift when they are only travelling a few floors. There are plenty of staircases one can use and not wait for, so why, WHY take the lift down one floor and slow everyone else who has to use the lift up?

2) Informal summit at Hampton Court: (you see, you see?)

There they all are, traitors to the UK standing in such a beautiful royal palace, owned of course by the first English (before the union, don't forget) eurosceptic. How Blair can let them in there, how Blair can be in there when they wish to rub out our history and culture, and make us ashamed of our past is astounding. They want a political union where great and mighty England would be a couple of regions in the United States of Europe.

What is there to discuss, I ask? They mustn't talk about the budget. The rebate, therefore, cannot be sorted out. The Constitution is legally dead - even though they try to implement it through the back door.

What they could discuss is the frightful state of the European Economies: EU25 unemployment is at 8.7%. The predicted growth rates for 2006 have been cut again, from an already pitiful 1.6% to a teeny weeny 1.3%. I can run faster than that. In my heels. Combine that growth rate with inflation of 2.6% and you have a dire situation of stagflation, where growth is going backwards and prices that are rising. But what are they going to do about it? Cut back regulation? Let countries have their own currencies which can float on the global markets? Have countries control their own interest rates? Stop restricting small businesses and allow people to work what they want to work?

No. We will have to stick to a socialist model of high tax and regulation, a 35-hour working week and endless bureaucracy and regulation which stifle development and innovation. Europe isn't working. We know you want a political union, but at any price?

3)ukipwatch. Nuff said.

When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail

You may remember a few months back that Farage instigated a Motion of Censure on 'President' Barrosso, to try make him answer a few simple questions. Well, he did come to the Parliament as enough signatures were collected, but the story which emerged from it was regarding Roger Helmer and the direction of the Tories in the EP.

Let's not forget that in the UK, Conservatives get votes from the Eurosceptic population: people who say they believe in what parties such as the UKIP stand for, but who still think the only way out of the EU is through the Tories. Can this truly be the case when they are members of the federalist EPP, who vote for the Consitution and the EMU (I will note here that the Conservatives did vote no to the Constitution although they funded the YES campaign through their secretarial allowances) and their leader, Timothy Kirkhope, removes the whip from MEPs who stand up for transparency and accountability?

Below is a link to the website of the esteemed Roger Helmer - the Tory who, despite being bullied to remove his name from the motion of censure, held strong.

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/reviewmeeting.asp

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/tjkletter.asp

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/tjkreply.asp

Happy reading, and well done Roger!

Look what Godfrey found behind his fridge!

UKIP MEP, Godfrey Bloom. You may remember him as the chap who made headlines last year, for saying - on joining the EU's Equal Opportunities Committee - that modern women "don't clean behind the fridge enough". Yesterday, he brandished a copy of Busty Beauties at a meeting of the same committee. He'd earlier purchased it from the parliament's own newsagent. "I don't think I've sat through an equal opportunities meeting, ever, without them spending an hour talking about the exploitation of women," Bloom tells me. "They drone on and on about it, and sneer because I'm a man. And then their own shop is selling this ... It's the hypocrisy I can't stand. This is another example of the double standards that pervade at the EU."
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article319512.ece

And he's right. This place talks so much shite, and then does exactly the opposite. Like Brüner, the guy in charge of the anti-fraud office on the EU who has in 5 years, never investigated and charged a single EU official for fraud. Even the Eurostat case - the EU equivalent of the great train robbery - was brushed under the carpet. The EU is in charge of a budget of €90 bn, and huge amounts of this budget go missing each year. This is an institution where the accounts have not been signed off for 10 years, and if an auditor does his job properly, and whistle-blows on cases of fraud and embezzelment, he is sacked.

This is a place where our ears are bent until they bleed about helping out LDCs - and yet it is a customs union which refuses to trade and help these countries, and instead gives them aid. Anyone who remembers or has studied the 'lost decade of development' in Latin America particularly will be able to recall that this was brought about through a complete disincentive effect due to such 'aid'. Their hurry to help these people is, unfortunately, not matched by their desperate aim to show people that the EU is a good idea: that becoming a 'United States of Europe' (and that's what the plan is, chaps, and it's a case of in or out) is the only way for the new world order of equality ensured by regulation.

Count me out. I'd rather live in a world where the truth is prevelent, and where arse-licking, banal and deliberately misleading press releases don't get published. A place where propaganda is something children learn about when they study dictatorial regimes such as Communist Russia, Nazi Germany and the European Union, rather than an every day situation where we are told what to think, in order to keep the dream of the super state alive. And I'd certainly not live in a world where people look like Liz Lyn or RIchard Corbett, and where Peter Mandelson is i charge of anything other than keeping shoe-boxes in a neat line.

So much to say

So little time to say it. Or write it.

Haven't been posting for a while for a few reasons

1) Have a job. Not a new phenomenon for me, but recently there has been lots and lots of lovely things to do and see. Like committees, for example, where I sit there, probably more qualified to make decisions than those who can and do, and listen to MEPs talking flannel. The most common thing I hear is 'may I congratulate the previous speaker, with whom I agree with. I don't want to repeat what they have said, or speak for a long time, but...' which is followed by 10 minutes of useless drivel where they then repeat exactly what the person before has said.

Why? It was a pile of shit the first time round: please, please don't make me listen to it again! Maybe they think the more they say it, the more credible it will sound. Possibly, outside of the European Parliament, but since what they frequently talk about is trying to make the EU more competitive by following the 'Lisbon Strategy' - a strategy which, as far as I can tell, is about strangling people with red tape and them fining them for being unemployed - we can safely assume that it will only be credible inside a meeting of 'Old Labour recovering LSD users'.

2) I went away for conference, which was rather exciting. Only one heckler, though. Our glorious leader made a very good speech, which included a quick summary of why voting Tory will never lead to Britain coming out of the EU - in short, that they are spineless and a divided party.

However, Shipley MP Philip Davies has come out and said that the UK must withdraw from the EU. So he agrees with me, then, and UKIP that 'in Europe and not run by Europe' is about as likely to happen as Kilroy leaving home without his bottle of San Tropez tanning lotion. How can you be in a customs union which wants to become a federalist superstate, and not relinquish power to their pretendy government? You think they will really let one country get away with not following their damaging rules and pointless pieces of legisation but still be in their club? DOn't be stupid. They want to absorb your country, and they are doing so more and more each day either through their institutional mechanisms, or through the back door. Brussels has published over 2000 pieces of legislation since the summer, and they aren't going to stop because some divided quasi-eurosceptic party over the water can't make its mind up.

What annoyed me the most was the banal statement of Denis MacShane, saying that withdrawing from the EU would be disastrous for Britain. WHy? because we would only have the Labour government to blame for the low growth, increasing unemployment and falling standards? You're right it will affect our balance of payments. We can start trading freely with the rest of the world instead of being bound by this antiquated customs union. Our average weekly shopping bill on food alone will drop by £20 per week and we will be helping those in Less Developed Countries, instead of patronising them with aid packages which only help their military dictators. YOu're right it will affect the economy - maybe we will be able to move away from this economic downturn, with growth for the Q4 projected at 1.5%. That's practivally backwards. We used to have a thriving economy, but now we are tied to the Brussels Titanic, the only way is down.

I suppose there will be some unemployment if we leave the EU. 84 MEPs each costing the tax payer about £1m a year will have to find somethjing productive to do with their time, as will their assistants. Peter Mandelson will have to be found another job in Government - fourth time lucky? The same, of course will have to happen for Denis MacShane - although I am sure that's not a reason for his statement on why withdrawal is a bad thing...

Bad shoe day

I was in London yesterday, and visited my shoe Mecca at Gina. There I was, all geared up to try on and buy beautiful shoes when they told me that not only did they not have them in my size, but they never have had them.

I was so sad I almost cried.

Are traffic wardens that bad?

I have always stood by the statement that if I were ever to succumb to having children (which I won't, but it's more interesting if I say it is a possibility) then I would rather they be a porn star than a traffic warden. Being a porn star is using ones initiatives and strengths, compared to making people pay for visiting their friends who live in London, or for popping into Gina for a quick peruse. But even more than that, I have discovered
I would rather they be a porn star (including the ol' chocolate starfish) than a European Commissioner.

Ladies and Gentlemen, and Richard Corbett, may I present Margot Wallstrom.

http://weblog.jrc.cec.eu.int/page/wallstrom

Can you imagine the horror of producing something that not only seeks to eek out every last penny from a sinking european ship by promoting the hopelessly ineffective European Super State, but one that also makes banal comments such as 'yes, I do know how to milk a cow'. Please. Who doesn't. Certainly most of the onanists in this place do, it being somewhat similar....

And I even chose to ignore the comments she made about the current US administration being racsit because black people suffered in New Orleans. Forgive me, but when I studied music, we learnt that New Orleans had a high percentage of black people living there, due to the effects of slavery. When slavery was finally abolished they then settled there and that's why New Orleans is famous for the jazz clubs etc. Can I combine my music and my mathmatics and say that maybe it is not racist that black people suffered, but more to do with statistics and demographics, Ms Wallstrom?

Let the people decide

Go on, click on it! There's pictures of women being gagged on there!

Although they are possibly not exactly the same images which came to mind when you first read that. It's a link to the webpage for the online petition for a referendum of the EU. We haven't had one for 45 years, and back then, those who voted yes did so in the belief that they were voting for a free trade bloc, not the political union they have ended up with.

Anyone who wants our country to be run from Westminster should sign up, as even today, more and more power is slipping away to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. The Constitution, which was rejected by two of the founding countries . France and the Netherlands, is being implemented through the back door. Immigration policy, case law of the ECJ taking precedence over the UK Constitution (yes, we do have one), tax policy, propaganda campaigns funded by you to persuade you that these tango men out here should be controlling your lives.

Even if you like the EU - which, by the way, means you are in favour of third world povery, inefficiency and political correctness taking precédence over common sense, surely you can't object to people being given the choice? Isn't that what democracy is all about?