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?

Is chocolate the answer for both?

It's been a long day, but at least I get a laugh as the time draws nearer to the cocktail hour.

I am reading a report which calls on the Commission not only to look into why women are oveweight (I thought the basics of that was generally understood, but clearly I am wrong) but that further communications from the Commission should take into account the problems of PMT.

Is this what our money is being spent on? Sadly, yes....

Pass me my smelling salts

For I just agreed with something someone from the EU has written.

Four EU ministers have said that outdated protectionist methods of international trade will harm EU businesses, and so the EU must ease curbs on Chinese clothing imports or risk job loses. Personally, I don't see why the EU should have anything to do with it, surely it's up to individual countries to decide what passes over their borders, but if they insist on giving away their sovereignty then they must understand that they can no longer make decisions based on the best interests of their country.

It's interesting to note which countries these ministers come from: Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Notably not countries which spend each night frantically beating over the idea of a European Social model, in which their socialist ideals of inefficiency, no innovation, high rates of taxation and powerful unions reign supreme, and whose ears are deaf to the sounds of belly-laughs from countries who can understand that their politics will make the european union ship sink.

Even Sweden - a country where they tax fun have better ideas than only allowing people to work a maximum of 35 hours a week, for example. How can anyone start up a business when they are only allowed to work 4.8% of the week.

Each time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea

Thank-you, Mr Churchill. I think I'll conventional ignore your views on women and their role in society for a short period so I can focus on your quiet excellent comment. Unfortunately at the moment, we have puerile, ignorant people running our country, and the Labour government aren't much cop, so Britain is still choosing the holiday landmass as political Mecca. Mind you, there are some people here who chose Mecca as, well, Mecca and I think I prefer people allowing crazy laws to happen, rather than liberal-lefties allowing people inciting racial hatred to stay in the country and paying them, indeed.

I digress. We were talking about Churchill, and his comment that Britain is an Island, not part of the mainland, and we shouldn't forget that. Now we even have a Frenchman saying that. Maurice Druon has said that Britain's aversion to full integration means it should not be a full member of the EU, and let others get on with it. I like his sentiments. It's true - Britain does not want to hand over power of its economy to another supranational organisation (and quite why anyone would baffles me. Perhaps I should ask the Italians?), doesn't like fraud, has a former empire to trade with, and relations with America, rather than preferring to trade in a bloc and kill people in LDCs with subsidies, and is not as keen as other European countries on draconian laws and regulations set out to shoot SMEs in the head and make sure that we can never compete on the world stage without market interference. I say Britain doesn't like that. Clearly, our tin pot government does....

However, I have another point to say to M Druon. Yes, if you look at the recent YouGov poll, 62% of people asked wanted a referendum and 50% of those wanted to replace the EU nonsense with a free trade agreement, with 17% not sure so in Britain you can say we are taking a realistic attitude to the political union. However, M Druon, there was an important referendum in your back yard not so long ago, where, if I recall correctly, the majority of people in France made it perfectly clear that they did not like the way the EU was going by rejecting the European Constitution. The Constitution makes the EU responsible not just for 70% of domestic legislation anymore, but about 90% and is the furthest integration in Europe ever suggested. But the French and the Dutch say 'no'...Maybe they want to chose the open sea every now and again?