Saturday, 31 January 2009
Friday, 30 January 2009
Peter Girling CEO Girlings Retirement Options, Taunton, UK"
We all know that the government is offering 'bail-outs' to all and sundry, but to expect the government to do a company's marketing for them is, I think, a step too far. Listen Mr. Girling, you want to promote your company then do it by means of the normal commercial process and, please, do not get on the 'bandwagon' of those trying to tell people how they should live their lives.
By what right do you describe those over 50 as 'empty-nesters'? Those still wishing to live in their family home, in which they may well have reared their children and of which they have fond memories which they wish to continue enjoying for as long as possible, do so by choice - their choice.
Remember the word choice, Mr. Girling? It is something which you wish prospective clients to exercise in order that your company's profits increase. I would suggest you let them exercise that right and not expect the government to 'encourage' them to make a choice they do not yet wish to.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
European Parliament: “Most laws enacted in your country are a transposition of European acts voted by MEPs”
On his FT Brussels blog Tony Barber looks at the upcoming European Parliament elections due to be held in June. He notes that the Parliament’s website has a section setting out “10 good reasons to vote” and that reason number six “spells out the reality of lawmaking in today’s EU” as it states: “Many, probably most, laws enacted in your country are a transposition of European acts voted by MEPs.”
The website referred to is basically an attempt to boost voter participation in the forthcoming EU elections taking place in June this year. The 10 reasons given for voting are both laughable and patronising in content.
What it does not mention is that, to take the UK as an example, if we returned 72 Eurosceptic MEPs it would in no way benefit the UK as they would only number 10% of the total MEPs, and would have no chance of affecting EU policy, which is the reason they are putting forward for voting. The website then has the temerity to suggest that if you don't vote, don't complain!
Another point it also fails to mention is that Europe comprises, generally, socialist democracies whilst the UK is more of a libertarian democracy (or it was until this Labour government decided to quietly change it!), so any libertarian views of democracy will never get a majority in the toy parliament.
Whilst we may be governed by simplistic fools, aka Euroidiots, I do wish the EU would not assume that the UK electorate are simplistic fools.
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
- European Ombudsman: failure to establish proper register is "maladministration"
- European Parliament: calls on Commission to act on Ombudsman's Decision
- European Commission - the custodian of EU law - refuses to comply
- European Commission reacts by trying to change the definition of a "document"
- Indications the Commission is creating new system to "vet" documents before they are placed on its public register
Tony Bunyan, Statewatch Editor, comments:
"We welcome the decision of the European Ombudsman and the support of the European Parliament in our bid to get the European Commission to fulfil its obligations under EU law to maintain a proper register of its documents.
Access to documents is the life-blood of a democracy. It allows citizens, civil society and parliaments to find out what is being proposed so that they have an informed debate and make their views known before measures are adopted or implemented.
Throughout the 26 months of correspondence the Commission has been utterly intransigent. It says it does not agree with the definition of a "document" as set out in EU law and does not agree that is is obliged to list all documents on its public register as set out in EU law. The European Ombudsman and the European Parliament have called on the Commission to act on its obligations under EU law yet it refuses to do so.
This refusal is compounded by the fact that the Commission is charged under the Treaties with enforcing the implementation of EU law, especially EU Regulations. If the Commission, the custodian of EU law, can simply ignore the law why should not other institutions and agencies covered by the Regulation do the same? The Commission's refusal to act is simply unlawful, they have to be called to account."
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Lord Smith, the Chairman of the UK's Environment Agency, has expressed concern in an interview with the FT that the Government is in danger of missing European Union renewable energy targets unless action is taken to promote investment in the renewable energy sector. It comes following recent announcements that energy companies are reconsidering plans for offshore wind farms. Lord Smith said, "You have to look at the subsidy system to see it if is working properly. If it is deterring companies from investing, then you need to make changes."
A leader in the FT argues that support for renewable energy should come in the form of a "broad carbon tax". It goes on to say that committing to such a tax now would "provide the certainty required for companies to increase investment in renewables."
Is it any wonder that energy companies are reconsidering plans for offshore wind farms when, as Christopher Booker pointed out in his article on 26th October 2008 in the Sunday Telegraph, (a) there is only one vessel capable of handling such work in the whole world and (b) were we to start today there is not the remotest chance we could build sufficient wind turbines to meet the percentage targets set for production of electricity by such means; and also that it would mean construction of two wind turbines each day when it takes weeks to complete one.
Christopher Booker continues to point out, in the same article, that construction costs alone, on current figures, would cost £100billion - the price of 37 nuclear power stations; while subsidies alone would add £6billion a year more, or 25%, to our electricity bills.
And the estimate for this Severn Tidal Barrier is £22billion - £22billion???
It would seem the old principle, that if you wish to spend money it needs to be earned, has been forgotten.
Oh, silly me, I forgot too - the source of all this money will be the dwindling section of our economy - the taxpayer!
Update: Just spotted this story - so how much is this environmental exercise going to cost us - if it ever sees the light of day, which it probably will being environmental?