Water, Water everywhere - and to be regulated?

On 23 October 2000, the "Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy" or, in short, the EU Water Framework Directive (or even shorter the WFD) was finally adopted - a Directive that set out the basic aims of water conservation and best use thereof.

True to form, the EU does not rest for long without further strengthening its powers over member states where environmental matters are concerned - allowed in Article 4.2(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) - and as reported in EUActiv there are plans for measures to rein (or should that be 'rain'?) in water use, with a particular focus on savings in agriculture, buildings and industrial processes.

"Ideas put forward included improving land-use planning to take account of water issues, introducing more widespread use of pricing and metering technologies – in households and agriculture – as well as promoting water efficient devices. Education and communication campaigns are also in the works to help raise citizens' awareness about water..........The policy paper will focus on increasing water savings in all areas, with a particular emphasis on agriculture and improving water retention by making changes to land use and management. Other areas where efficiency gains are expected include water supply infrastructures and buildings. This will be done by ensuring "demand management" of water – including pricing policies – in a bid to secure enough water for all essential uses."

One further extract from the EUActiv report is worth repeating:

"A Commission communication on water scarcity, published in 2007, laid down a hierarchy under which "water demand management should come first, and alternative supply options should be considered only once the potential for water savings and efficiency has been exhausted."

It is worth noting some important phrases in the foregoing quotes:

"..introducing more widespread use of pricing and metering technologies.....making changes to land use and management........ensuring "demand management" of water.........water demand management should come first.." As with Smart Meters for electricity, which have the capability to be controlled by the supplier thus 'regulating' when electricity is available - so, no doubt, technology will be able to 'regulate' when water is made available.

Reverting to the shenanigans over the EU Budget, readers will recall, as part of the trade-off to keep the budget increase to 2.91%, it was decided that an 'own resources' tax would be levied. This may take the form on a tax on financial deals, an 'energy' tax, or possibly an increase in VAT rates. What price a water tax in the years to come, once this 'water regulation use' directive is finalised? Needless to say, as can be seen from the EUActiv article, all those involved in water provision etc, are all enthusiastically 'on-board' - so no surprises there then.

For those readers what got taught geography as it was - and should still be - you will recall that islands get more rainfall than do continents. This is borne out by the stats table here - from which will be seen the average rainfall for the following countries: Average annual precipitation in mm: Netherlands 778.3 England 1219.8 Germany 699.9 Belgium 847.4 France 866.7 - which, in 'our language', equates to 30.64"; 48.02"; 27.56"; 33.36" and 34.12". The figure for the UK must be higher on the basis that presumably Scotland and Wales get more rainfall then England (it is always raining when I am in Wales!). It is not known yet, obviously, how this tax (assuming it is brought in) may be computed, but if on rainfall and the infrastructure required to cope with that - then the UK, as with budget contributions, could well end up 'subsidising' the continent.

Lends a whole new meaning to the old adage (in its most polite form) of "extracting the water"!

Sacrifices

In time of war this nation of ours has paid many sacrifices, none more so than during the years 1939-1945. From the words of the film maker of the time:

"Destiny gave her the torch of liberty to hold and she has not dropped it yet......Today England stands unbeaten, unconquered and unafraid."

The people of our nation - not just those in the armed forces, but also those left at home - during the years 1939-1945 fought so hard to preserve their way of life, their liberty and their nation. History shows that they were then sold out, years later, by a procession of incompetent, unlistening, self-serving politicians.

Fast forward to the present day and thanks to those incompetent, unlistening and self-serving politicians, England - together with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - has dropped the torch of liberty and stands beaten, conquered and, to those of us who can be bothered to be interested in matters EU, very, very afraid.

At the risk of being classified as a kill-joy at this time of family celebration, I wonder how many of us paused to consider the sacrifices of those who lost their lives, the sacrifices of those who survived - and are now being forgotten and ignored in their hour of need by this government? How many of us, I wonder, paused to consider the freedoms, even allowing for war restrictions, that the people then had - and which politicians have, over the years, usurped so that, in comparison, we now live in a far more restrictive society?

The youth of today, through no fault of their own, know nothing of our nation's past and of the sacrifices made - but I also wonder whether, had they been taught our nation's history, our youth would be so dismissive of matters such as, for example, pride in one's country, courtesy and tradition - all aspects which go into building the character of an individual - and that of a nation.

H/T: Fraser Nelson for the video.

Christmas 2010

I am presently working up a post which will appear after Boxing Day on a subject about which we will have an awful lot, once this snow melts.

In the meantime, rather than post a carol, I thought the following would be of interest, in that it is sufficient to make a grown man cry - as does a great deal of Mozart's music. This particular version features Emma Kirkby with the Academy of Ancient Music and the Winchester Cathedral Choir.

May I wish all readers a most enjoyable Christmas and I hope the New Year brings everyone that which they wish for themselves and their families.

God Bless.

So I lied - So?

Having said that there would be no posts tonight, pretending to be an aspiring politician it behoves me to break my word!

There's nowt on telly, so be entertained (with a 'tip of the hat' to Dick Puddlecote from whom I 'nicked' it):

An interview with Nigel Farage - How free-market is UKIP? from Institute of Economic Affairs on Vimeo.

Thursday 23rd December 2010

Apologies, but no posts today. To paraphrase nourishing obscurity: "matters in-house".

Will post on something tomorrow - promise!

A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves

Ex-judge Andrew Napolitano, a pro-life libertarian, now works for Fox News (enough said, I hear the cries), however the video below is worth viewing even though it is US-based. The central points that he makes are also applicable to our nation.

"When we pliantly accept violations of our natural rights, we embolden the government to violate them even more. The more sheep-like the people are, the more wolf-like the government becomes....When you believe the government, that it can keep you safe by invading your natural rights, you end up with neither - not liberty nor safety. Who will keep us safe from the goveernment?"

In this country, Napolitano's Constitution Offenders comprise: Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major, Blair, Brown and, more recently, Cameron. With each (Major just 'scrapes' in) blame can also be laid at the door of our elected representatives, as the more sheep-like the MPs behaved (putting party before country), the more wolf-like the respective governments became.

Making government interoperable

Following my post yesterday "Making government services interoperable", an article in Euractiv 'brought home' something which seems to have escaped the notice of the vast majority, most noticeably our media - hence the slight alteration between the titles of that post and this.

"Despite opposition behind the scenes, plans to let Europeans seek medical treatment in other countries in the 27-country bloc surged forward Tuesday (21 December) when EU countries gave their stamp of approval. The deal, reached at ambassador level (Coreper), paves the way for a vote in Parliament on 19 January and increases the chances the cross-border healthcare directive could be in force as early as 2013."

(For the uninitiated, Coreper is the Committee of Permanent Representatives (whom some would say) are the most powerful body within the European Union.

Such a move as that reported in Euractiv is the forerunner to total control of healthcare passing to Brussels and, in effect, assuming the status of a competence - resulting in yet another loss of power. Not that should come as a surprise, if one considers Articles 4 and 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

"Article 4
1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6.

2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common saafely concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.


Article 6
The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:
(a) protection and improvement of human health;
(b) industry;
(c) culture;
(d) tourism;
(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport;
(f) civil protection;
(g) administrative cooperation."

The give-away - and the most worrying, when considering losses of power - is that word 'coordinate', which the Concise OED defines as:

"v tr: bring (various parts, movements, etc) into a proper or required relation to ensure harmony or effective operation etc" (my emphasis)

 At some time in the future, when the European Union has completed coordinating each member states' healthcare system, industry, culture, education system and civil protection (law & order), has exhausted their shared competence in the matters detailed in Article 4 - and added that lot to the exclusive competences it has under Article 3, the joke that presently passes as our national parliament will most definitely become redundant, other than as an administration centre answerable to Brussels. 

Of course, the comment about Westminster presently being no more than an administration centre, with the continual ceding of power, has been made previously - notably by Richard North, EU Referendum - and after careful thought it will be agreed that the present situation of our national parliament is but part of their training programme for when the EU assumes total control over every aspect of our governance.

It really is time for us to leave this madhouse - we have the chance of trading, unencumbered, with the rest of the world - which is far bigger than the European Union. A choice which, echoing the words of Vince Cable, could be summarised as a 'new clear' option?

Repeating a 'Cri de Coeur'

Courtesy of Autonomous Mind and his '5 Star Blogging', my attention is drawn to this post from the Adam Smith Institute in an article highlighting the continuing problem about who governs our nation:

"Stranger still, the media are silent. Surely who governs Britain is a newsworthy topic? Cameron talks tough but actually goes along with whatever Merkel and Sarkozy agree, e.g. the EU budget and the transfer of Financial Services lawmaking to Brussels. He definitely does not want the gap between his EU bluster and his achievements exposed in the media. The Lib Dems, naturally, favour closer integration within the EU legal system with no questions asked. Andy Coulson is doing for Cameron what Alastair Campbell did for Blair. Mark Thomson has admitted that the BBC is soft on the EU and this can be interpreted as deliberately keeping the sovereignty issue out of the headlights. If someone does not wake up the media, this will not be our country any more."

I can do no more to reinforce the ASI's plea in respect of waking up the media, than to draw reader's attention to this post and this from November this year. It has been shown that the blogosphere does drive the media content - witness the many instances where the media have written about subjects that have been commented upon by bloggers days previously, or where bloggers have shown that what the media has written is either totally incorrect, or biased.

At present we no more have a free and informative press than did the USSR or the Third Reich. Our 'so-called' journalists are dependent on their income for access to government ministers and MPs, therefore they are faced with the situation whereby should they write or broadcast anything detrimental to that minister's or MP's good name or actions, their income will abruptly be halted - hardly conducive to a free and informative media.

We, the public, are fed 'pap' by our media - invariably 'cut & pasted from government statements - aided and abetted by surveys which now appear almost weekly showing Labour leading the Coalition where public voting intentions are concerned. FFS, we are 7 months into what is supposed to be a 5 year parliamentary term! Is it any wonder that a party, whose mismanagement of our economy during the last 13 years, is considered the better alternative when that public are not properly informed of the previous government's past record? It cannot be purely due to the public's memory only having an attention span of 6 months - can it?

Following the Cable 'affair', this evening we get the following appearing on Twitter:

"HouseofTwits House Of Twits

RT @Nadine_MP There isn't an MP in Parliament who will trust or speak with any openess to anyone they don't know well ever again."

In effect what Dorries is stating is that, like the media with their public, she will not be 'transparent' with any of her constituents with whom she is not previously acquainted. Is Dorries not supposed to be 'open and honest' with those she has been elected to represent?

In one respect the ASI is slightly 'behind the times' - when our media is 'muzzled', or just plain incompetent; when our elected representatives do not feel able to be open and honest with those who pay their salaries; when our Prime Minister admits in Parliament that he is powerless to stop any future UK participation in bail-outs until 2013 and that 'snippet' is not reported in the media; when the immigrant and criminal population appear to have more 'rights' than those of the indigenous population - then this most definitely is not our country any more!

Making government services interoperable

IanPJ on Politics posts today on two very important reports - and in this post I wish to concentrate on the first of those reports, namely the release by the European Commission of the Commission’s European Interoperability Strategy (EIS) and the European Interoperability Framework (EIF).

As both IanPJ and I are aware, readers are a tad averse to ploughing through EU documents, so I will just extract what I believe to be relevant sections, for consideration.

The introduction to the EIS states:

".....The EIS aims to provide guidance and to prioritise the actions needed to improve interaction, exchange and cooperation among European public administrations across borders and across sectors for the delivery of European public service......"

The definition of a European public service is:

"a cross-border public sector service supplied by public administrations, either to one another or to European businesses and citizens"

Note point 5:

"Without a comprehensive approach to interoperability, there is a risk that Member States might opt for mutually incompatible solutions that, rather than boosting efficiency and savings, will only build new barriers to the delivery of European public services in the internal market."

Note also point 7:

"Once fully adopted, the EIS will become the key driving force for the EU’s new ISA programme from 2010 to 2015 and possibly other EU initiatives. The EIS will also have an impact on interoperability activities undertaken by the Member States."

Note: the ISA programme is the Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations which came into force on 29th October 2009.

The EIF contains 25 'recommendations' in order to facilitate the 'interoperability' between member states because, as the EIF document states:

"...European public administrations must be ready to work together to deliver European public services to meet the needs of businesses and citizens."

Continuing, the EIF also states:

"It is important that interoperability frameworks used by public administrations, both national (NIFs) and European (EIF), are aligned as regards how to achieve interoperability so that Member States can agree on the concrete implementation of the EIF recommendations when establishing European public services. By their nature, NIFs are, in general, more detailed and often prescriptive than the EIF, which operates at a higher level of abstraction, as a ‘meta framework’ and, in line with the subsidiarity principle, does not impose specific choices or obligations on the Member States."

A footnote to the above states:

"The principle of subsidiarity applies not just to the EU vis-à-vis Member States, but in some cases within Member States themselves, at federal/national level or at other levels (e.g. regional, provincial, county and municipality)."

What all the above is leading up to is this, dear reader. Public Services will become an EU competence, no doubt with an EU Commissioner. Such a move will strengthen the control Brussels has on member states - and via the regionalisation programme (NUTS) - this control will reach right down the chain to District and County Councils, nay even Parish Councils.

And no doubt the government of the day will still insist that they govern our nation - although accepting that the EIS/EIF will take years to fully implement, hopefully by then the UK will have cast anchor and sailed off into the sunset!

Addendum: In the course of surfing the net I came across this 'tome', which whilst published in 2003, is basically a discourse on nationhood - and the perceptions of same - versus citizenship of the EU. Running to 333 pages, understandably readers will definitely not wish to read the entire document, however I would point you to pages 30/54 on the relationship of the UK with the EEC/EU, authored by Dr. Atsuko Ichijo (good British name) which may be of interest. Needless to say, in view of the fact it was published in 2003, some of the views are 'out of date' - but it is worth reading, just the same.

The section by Dr. Achijo highlights one aspect - and the aspect that I believe will be the downfall of the European Union. In this country we have a sense of nationhood, of heritage - as do the French, Germans, Dutch, Czechs etc - and that 'sense of nationhood' will never be obliterated from the peoples of the individual member states, however much Brussels tries.

Your MP is elected to speak for you

In the seat of government - and thereby able to represent your interests in the House of Commons - regardless of your political affiliation, so we are told.

Unless of course your constituency lies in the path of the HS2 and that MP is a Minister in the Government:

"But the odd thing is they're all ministers, and not allowed to speak up against the government," points out Steve Rodrick, chief officer of the Chilterns Conservation Board. "So no one is representing our interests in the house."

In effect the constituents living in areas affected by HS2 have been 'disenfranchised', where relevant, by the elevation of their MP to the status of Minister, or Secretary, of State. Because of this situation, those constituents do not have the privilege of having their case brought to the public attention of the Minister in question. In instances such as HS2, national policy will always take preference over any local problem caused as a result of a national policy, a fact confirmed to me by David Cameron at a 'surgery' I attended at the beginning of October this year - which means that Cameron's 72,000 constituents are also, in effect, disenfranchised. Leaving aside any accusations of NIMBYism, whether or not that NIMBYism is unfounded or otherwise, any member of the electorate is entitled to have their elected representative raise any matter of concern in the House of Commons.

Do not forget the EU Trans-European Network - Transport (TEN-T) being in the 'mix', somewhere. Where I know not and I am still seeking that 'link' - which will prove the 'connection' - and which will eventually surface. In the link just notated, a quotation is used from the TEN-T website:

"Most of these transport infrastructures have been developed under national policy premises........"

One only has to look at the map on the TEN-T website to see that the line from London to Birmingham then branches into a 'Y', one going to the Northwest and the other to the Northeast, the configuration being that which the Government have selected. It would be intriguing were one of the MPs in whose constituency the path of HS2 lay to actually ask whether there is any connection with the policy to 'build' HS2 with, as yet, unpublished policy of TEN-T - and then to watch as Philip Hammond exhibits obfuscation, straight denial or confirmation.

Oh, and don't forget that Scottish MPs - albeit few in number and therefore probably having no effect on the outcome, unless the result is 'tight' - will no doubt file through the voting lobbies on a matter which is none of their concern.

Just saying.................

Big Society? Nope, Get ready for the Big Revolution!

Cross-posted from IanPJ on Politics:

"Back in 2008 a group of activist websites and ISPs made the following announcement.

Statement on Data Retention 2008
We want to stop Data Retention of the type that is being imposed on us by the E.U. Directive 2006/24/EC because it is a pre-emptive surveillance of communication structures:
Imagine the postal services kept a record of everyone who sent a mail to you. When. Who. How. Where. This is exactly what is happening now with your email, your phone calls and other electronic communications.
We as providers are forced to store YOUR communication metadata. This is forcing us to work as outsourced police forces. We do not want this. We will pour as much sand into this machine of suspicion as we possibly can. And we encourage everyone else to do the same! Do not support this attack on privacy!
We will continue to fight against Data Retention in any way possible and we will support each other in our different efforts to fight it.
Signed:
aktivix.org
all2all.be
alterezo.be
blacksec.org
blogxpopuli.org
boum.org
cassiopea.org
crackedwillow.net
domainepublic.net
effraie.org
espace4you.org
free.de
globenet.org
hacklab.dk
herbesfolles.org
immerda.ch
koumbit.org
lautre.net
linefeed.org
manitu.de
marsupi.mine.nu
moviments.net
mutins.net
nadir.org
no-log.org
nodo50.org
open-web.fr
poivron.org
puscii.nl
rezo.net
riseup.net
samizdat.net
sindominio.net
so36.net
squat.net
systemausfall.org
systemli.org
tachanka.org
toile-libre.org

Even as we speak, the government (in the person of Ed Vaizey) is trying to introduce even more draconian legislation to censor what we can see on the internet. As we approach 2011, the blood of the English is beginning to boil, the whole of the UK is reaching a breaking point that will spark a new revolution in British politics as we reject the rule of the elite, break away from Brussels and begin to take responsibility for ourselves and our own nation.

This is not going to be the Big Society that Cameron has been selling, this is going to be the Big Revolution. The Government knows this and is already taking reactive action, but when the time comes, you will need all the skills necessary to outwit and hold at bay those useful idiots who will try to justify and protect the corrupt regime.

Revolution is coming. Its just a case of when and where it begins, so be prepared. Protest is not just for Students & Unions, this revolution is going to be for everyone, especially the voters and taxpayers. And it can be done without violence or destruction, it just needs the will, the people on the streets and a determination to say no more.

Feel free to download and keep safe this guide on how to stay on the net and communicate:

 Hacktionlab guide laid out

p.s. An activist is anyone who actively works for or takes part in political activity. Yup, even David Cameron is an activist, so don’t let the police and media fool you into believing that its only morons who smash things up who are activists."

Provenance regarding ED Vaizey's proposals can be found here. Note that this idea was orginally presented as 'saving the children', yet once again the excuse of 'saving the children' is but a smokescreen. If 'governement' are allowed to interfere in a matter which is one of personal choice - and is one on which parents should have the ultimate decision - where does it stop? Will they next want to block political output and comment that they find 'unacceptable'?

IanPJ writes, as I have done, about the coming revolution. Let the political elite know one thing - and know it now. Whether the revolution is peaceful or bloody is entirely their choice! They do not have long in which to make that choice.

Reason for Referendum?

"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation."
James A. Garfield

The legislation establishing the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) came into force on 16th December 2010. From the European Central Bank's website we learn:

"The ESRB is an independent EU body responsible for the macro-prudential oversight of the financial system within the Union. It shall contribute to the prevention or mitigation of systemic risks to financial stability in the Union that arise from developments within the financial system."

It is noted that Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, was elected today as first Vice-Chair of the ESRB by the members of the General Council of the ECB, which raises the question of a potential conflict of interest where Mr. King is concerned.

More importantly, it should be noted that the ESRB is responsible for oversight of the financial system in the Union - note the word 'Union' and not 'Euro'. Slowly, but surely, the United Kingdom is being enmeshed in 'matters euro' and as John Redwood writes, it was ECB worries about the amount they were lending to Irish banks that led to the Irish loan.

"The UK was engaged not in saving Ireland but in helping refinance risks the ECB had entered into."

which slightly contradicts what Cameron and Osborne were telling us, that it was part of a loan being made by other member states to support Ireland.

From John Redwood we also learn:

"On 17th December the Bank of England granted a temporary liquidity facility to the European Central Bank . The Bank of England may provide £10 billion in exchange for Euros to the ECB."

Presumably that £10billion, like the 'additional' £7billion lent to Ireland, will be borrowed?

When a nation is no longer able to manage its financial policies and is subject to control from another, then that nation is no longer a self-governing nation. When a nation loses what is the final vestige of self-government, which is the control of its money, then that surely is the last nail in a nation's coffin.

Is it not finally time that the people of this country were asked about this entire 'EU madness'? It surely must be time to decide 'In or Out'.

Cameron's disgraceful behaviour

There have been reports previously, but Melissa Kite, Daily Telegraph, also writes that David Cameron has, in effect, 'ditched' his own party candidate in the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election campaign in order to allow the Coalition LibDem candidate a better opportunity against that of the Labour Party. To quote Nigel Farage, it is necessary to ask David Cameron: Just who the hell do you think you are?

This decision of Cameron's, if true, is nothing but gerrymandering - pure and simple. Such an act is illegal within our electoral laws, so the next question is: When will Plod be knocking on the door of No 10? Just who gave Cameron the authority to interfere with due electoral process? To interfere with the electoral process is a punishable offence under the Representation of the People's Act, an Act that all Parties, Candidates and Party Officials are bound to observe.

A further question is whether the local constituency association were consulted or whether this decision by Cameron is just a further example of the dictatorial hold he has on his party. If Cameron can act in such a cavalier fashion where matters of his party are concerned, the question also has to be asked whether he acts in the same manner where our country is concerned.

And what of the views of Conservative Party Members in the constituency of Oldham East & Saddleworth? Were they consulted? It would serve Cameron right were the entire, potential, Conservative vote then transferred to UKIP, in protest at his dictatorial manner - because what Cameron has done is effectively disenfranchised supporters of his own party.

This decision, if as I said previously is true, means that Cameron has done the greatest disservice not only to himself, his party and his Office, but to democracy in this country!

Cameron - Federalist

No 10 Downing Street have released the letter, signed by Cameron and four other Heads of State, to Barroso calling for a curb in the annual growth of European payment appropriations.

If anything exhibits Cameron's disregard for his own country and his belief in the federalist ambitions of the European Union, it is where he writes:

"It is possible to implement ambitious European policies for our citizens if we have a stable volume of spending."

In fact if Cameron really did believe there was a "better use of available funds", he would not continue to pay £48million each and every day to Brussels, at worst negating - and at best diminishing- the level of cuts which are being made to national and local services.

I am reminded of the words spoken by Nigel Farage on 24th November 2010, addressing van Rompuy in the European Parliament (available on youtube), when he said:

"Just who the hell do you think you people are? You are very, very dangerous people..........Because if you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of their democracy, then all they are left with is nationalism and violence...."

Those words of Nigel Farage could just have well been addressed to David Cameron, because if he continues with his 'EU dream' that he has, he will indeed have robbed us of our identity and our democracy and he will suffer the violence that is sure to result. As Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other egomaniacs have been condemned for their attempts at 'social engineering', so will Cameron and the rest of the political class.

It is appreciated that I now paraphrase, but Cameron needs to understand one simple fact: We the British have not spoken yet, but when we do he and his ilk will live (well maybe not) to regret that day!

Sovereignty

It can, I hope, be agreed that one of the definitions of sovereignty when related to a nation state is the ability of that nation state to set its own laws; to decide its own level of taxation; to decide the formation of its society; that sovereignty is not vested in Parliament but in the people themselves and that Parliament is merely a passing parade of delegates elected by the people to carry out their wishes and, probably more importantly, be able to hold to account those that carry out 'government'. It is today, questionable just who actually does all the above when looking at the United Kingdom. William Hague famously stated, during the European Union Bill debate in the House of Commons, that our national parliament is 'sovereign' - yet this is palpably not so.

If this were so, we would not, for example, have:

1. The situation whereby laws originating in another place being 'copied and pasted' onto the statute book and which our national parliament is unable to question or amend in any way whatsoever. What pray is the point of making ministers conduct reviews of EU legislation every five years when it is impossible to revoke any of that legislation?


2. The situation whereby the national government of the United Kingdom is unable to limit immigration from outside the European Union, especially when the European Union agrees to grant visas to certain countries, thereby removing the nationals of those countries from the category of 'outside the European Union'?


3. The ironic situation whereby our national government is held to be unlawful in implementing an immigration cap because it did not consult parliament. The word 'ironic' is used because how our national government can be accused of acting unlawfully because it did not consult parliament is illogical when considering that laws are enacted everyday from Brussels, who do not 'consult our parliament'.


3. The situation whereby the United Kingdom can be forced to provide a sum of money to bail-out another EU Member State. Cameron may well laud the fact that from 2013 a new mechanism will be in place whereby the United Kingdom will not be so liable, but the question has to be asked: And until then, what if any other country should need assistance? It is all very well for Cameron to praise himself that he has agreement with Germany and France that Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) will not be used for future bail-outs and in confirmation of that, that "heads of state and government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes", unfortunately some of us have noted that the words 'should not' have been used instead of 'will not' - thus rendering that statement of political intent, as with most statements of political intent - totally meaningless.


4. The situation whereby public money is being spent for the purpose of a political party's benefit. Witness IPSA's rules on hotel reimbursement costs:

"An MP would need to explain in the notes attached their claim the basis on which they thought the House would sit late. This could mean, for example, noting that the Whips advised him or her that there may be votes after 10 pm which he or she was required to attend."

That 'required to attend' finally confirms that MPs are not representatives of their constituents but are purely in parliament to represent their party.


5. The situation whereby a treaty, signed on behalf of the British people and on which they were not consulted, is changed without their permission. A treaty is akin to a contract and a contract cannot be amended but with the agreement of both parties to that contract, yet once again the British people are denied a voice to this 'change'. This relates to point 3 and begs the questions: (a), if this 'change' does not alter the powers of the EU, then why is it needed; and (b), if it is needed, then the legality of using Clause 122 to bail-out another member state has to be called into question.


6. The situation whereby  - as Charles Moore states - we are:

"a nation ruled by a large, subsidised, semi-permanent political, financial and bureaucratic class that seems impervious to voter's wishes."

as a result of the political elite having usurped powers from the people, who in turn have acquiesced to that usurpation. This has led to the situation that freedom of thought, word and deed are now only those that we are 'allowed' to have; that with the compliance of the media the political elite ensure that only the three 'main' parities - and no other party - may partake in the democratic process on a level playing field; and that only 'they' may decide who is 'acceptable' as the leader of a minority party.


7. The situation whereby our present crop of politicians continue their mantra of 'devolving power', as in a true self-governing democracy there would be no need to devolve power. In any self-governing nation, as I have previously maintained, any national parliament would only be involved in matters of defense, foreign affairs, immigration etc - which would mean not many days spent 'sitting', fewer MPs and less cost - including expenses. All other matters would be dealt with by local authorities and their people - with use of binding referendums.

There have been comments on this and other blogs in which it is proposed that a mass uprising amongst the population of our country will be the only means by which we can rid our nation of the corrupt political and bureaucratic disease from which it now suffers.

Perhaps we need to organise a 'dry-run'?

Do our politicians really understand this democracy thingy?

Andrew Duff, Liberal Democrat MEP and president of the Union of European Federalists, writing in European Voice:

"........At home, referenda will unleash the forces of populist nationalism......."

to which the comment by Idris Francis is most apt:

"Andrew Duff MEP seems not to understand that in Britain sovereignty is not vested in Parliament but in the people themselves. Parliament is merely a passing parade of delegates [supposedly] elected by the people to carry out their wishes......"

although I do believe Idris Francis omitted that most important word: 'supposedly', which I have inserted.

I would also refer readers to the comment by Lidington, to which I referred in my previous post, as another example whereby our politicians do not understand this democracy thingy.

Unfortunately it is a fact that what our politicians can 'get away with' is dependant on what the electorate allow. As in the 1930s Britons failed to listen to what Hitler was telling them, likewise in 1975 at the time of the last referendum when they failed to listen to what the EEC [as then was] was telling them, so insufficient Britons are failing to listen to what the EU is telling them.

It has been shown that many Conservative Party members and constituencies - even some MPs - are 'unhappy' with Cameron and his stance on the European Union - and one has to ask: Why? Cameron is the same person he was prior to 6th May this year. Not one of his faults, imperfections or failings, not one of his virtues, abilities or capabilities has changed. Did the eyes of Conservative Party members only open once they saw the direction in which he was heading? To those MPs, the same accusation can be made and the same question asked: Why? In respect of Conservative MPs the answer is simply one of their seats - whilst the possibility of being elected as a Member of Parliament was available, the current crop of Conservative MPs adopted the attitude of: "Yes, David; No, David; Whatever you say, David" and for that they only deserve the electorate's contempt

Many words have been written about the corruption of our elected representatives, centred on the what is perceived to be misuse of public money when claiming expenses. Yet corruption is not just practised in the financial field, it is practised in the democratic field also. To ensure furtherance of their political careers, MPs who did not believe in membership of the EU have behaved like all scoundrels and fraudsters down the ages - they have sold their public for personal gain. We have, in effect, reached the point where democracy, per se, is dead because the electorate's cynicism is such that it no longer expects any correlation between belief and behaviour, nor words and actions, on the part of its elected representatives.

When, dear reader, the electorate finally accept that the cynicism they presently feel is, in fact, reality; that is when the revolution - and resultant recriminations - will begin, at which time once again the people of this nation will be fighting for their heritage.

Ah, but the facts are somewhat different.......

At 19:27 yesterday evening Paul Waugh 'tweeted': "Cameron gets EU deal to protect UK from future bailouts.", the tweet including this link which leads to a report on Politics Home. Mark Wadsworth posts on this story and links to a report in the Evening Standard and the BBC.

What all three reports are doing is confusing and conflating two entirely different aspects. First, the reason the UK had to provide £7billion, via the EU, to help bail-out Ireland was that that particular bail-out was carried out under Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This clause was intended to provide a fund to assist a member state in the event of natural disaster or exceptional circumstances beyond its control. In its entirety Clause 122 states:

"1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measure appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.


2. Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties cause by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken."

What the Politics Home report does not state is that whilst Cameron may have got agreement that Article 122 should no longer be used for bail-out purposes, what it does not tell readers is that because Article 122 cannot be altered, this 'agreement' is not legally binding. One should note that the phrase used in the Politics Home report is "need not and should not" and is therefore just a political commitment - and we all know that political commitments, like cast-iron guarantees, can be broken at will.

In this report from the BBC Cameron may laud the fact that the 2.9% increase in the EU budget was maintained, but he does not mention that in June next year the EU Commission is to introduce proposals for a tax to be levied - one which the Commission call "own resources", for which the UK will be liable - 5.1 in this document. The introduction of an "own resources" tax is no more than a compromise with the EU Parliament in order that the budget can be 'topped-up'.

Incidentally, David Lidington, Europe Minister, has a letter in the Times(£) in which he writes:

"While no Parliament can bind its successor, I question why any future Government would want to take away the people’s right to have their say"

to which the question Lidington - and Cameron - should answer is: why does the present Government wish to take away the people's right to have their say, today, on membership of the European Union? This yet again demonstrates that it is not what politicians say, but what politicians do not say - and in this particular case, Lidington's statement may well come back to haunt him and his government.

On this subject - and in relation to the European Union in general - it is worth quoting Ron Paul, who on 25th March 2004 said:

"We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost.....Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies and programmes funded by the budget should exist at all." 

But hey, this would mean a cost/benefit analysis and a discussion on sovereignty - neither of which our Europhile political elite want.

Don't crow too soon Cameron, the real chicken is coming home to roost - Patience!

As we who follow 'matters EU' have known for a few days, the infamous budget has been agreed in Brussels, it being 'pegged' to 2.9%. No doubt Kim Jong-Il III will shortly be flooding the airwaves, all 'Cockle Doodle' [and] Doo[ing] our ears no good with his incessant mantra of how Britain has shaped EU policy, that Britain's voice is now being heard.

What our Con[servative]Artist will not be telling us is that (a) agreement still has to be reached between the Heads of State and the EU Parliament on the question of a contingency fund to deal with 'emergencies'; and (b) that in return for agreement to the budget rise being pegged at 2.9%, the EU Commission have agreed to publish, mid-2011, a proposal on 'own resources' - both measures which will result in the United Kingdom paying yet more money to the EU.

One day - when I know not, but hopefully soon - this puppet of Brussels will become entangled in the strings that control him. Unfortunately for him, those doing the 'entangling' will be the people of this country and they will make sure that the entanglement is tied tight - preferably round his neck!

Resistance is futile

Is a phrase used in the Star Trek series by the Borg - and it appears to have been adopted by the EU, who choose to use a different form of words. Switzerland is the latest country to be 'threatened' by the mighty EU when a statement was agreed at a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels. From the EUobserver report:

"Stressing that they still respected Switzerland's sovereignty ..........In essence, they suggested that it is time for Switzerland to decide whether it wants closer integration with the bloc or to be cast out into the market-access wilderness..........Without "efficient arrangements" to ensure Switzerland adopts EU law, including case law set down by European Court of Justice rulings, and enforcement of this law, the European single market, which Switzerland has access to, lacks the "necessary homogeneity," said the ministers."

If the EU really respected Switzerland's sovereignty it would not issue what is, in effect, an ultimatum - but hey, when has the EU let a little matter about sovereignty interfere with its stated aim. One only has to look at how the EU attempts to subvert a country's legislation, when it applies for membership, by the offer of funding to assist integration. 

My Oxford Concise Dictionary defines 'homogeneity' as 'uniformity' - therefore what the EU is stating, through the foreign ministers statement, is that every country must comply with their 'thinking'. Yet that is to deny the basic freedom to be able to think, to question an opposing view, to believe in an alternative system - and to quash that freedom is the mark of totalitarian rule. Unbelievably, we in the United Kingdom have lived under such totalitarian rule in that we have been denied, by our political elite, to question our nations membership of the EU - they, the political elite, have refused to discuss the issue in depth, to produce a cost/benefit analysis, or to allow the people to voice an opinion on an organisation that is not what the people were led to believe it would be. In effect what the EU - and our political elite - do not wish to allow is for the result of the basic freedom to think, to be actioned - and that is totalitarianism.

When considering the European Union and the political elite of this nation versus the views held by Eurosceptics I am reminded of the film "Inherit the Wind", which dealt with the prosecution of a teacher for instructing his class in Darwinism. I have always believed that the problem - as it's presented in the film - and as we see it loud and clear today, is that freedom of thought and the subsequent expression of thought is incompatible with the absolutism of those who believe there is only one Truth, therefore anyone who questions that "Truth" is 'mis-informed, wrong and xenophobic. Reason, as the film shows, is almost powerless against this kind of thinking - consequently those of us that do not believe in the 'Gospel according to Brussels' do indeed have a fight on our hands.

I for one intend participating in that fight utilising thought, word and deed - and if the latter involves physical activity, then so be it.

Anyone with me?

The rape of our nation

My attention was caught by this news item published on the BBC wesbite. Personally I have no objection to payment of money, sourced from the taxpayer, when it is used to care for those disabled, elderly and vulnerable members of our society. Digressing slightly, I do question the necessity of paying the wages of these people to 'administer' the payment of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) - scroll through the entire 5 pages.

What I do object to even more is having public money wasted on schemes to implement the by-products of an unproven science. Witness:

1. £18billion a year - and every year until 2050 - as a result of the Climate Change Act.

2. Use of taxpayer's money to fund the buying choice of people who, it would appear, either have no brains or simply wish to be different. If they wish to become noticeable through their idiocy then that is their choice - and they can fund their choice in its entirety!

3. A government minister, sitting in his diesel powered Jaguar, prattling on about the benefits of cars with limited distance use, long recharging and therefore of limited use.

4. The scrapping of a scheme (ILF) which equates to just 8 days payments to the European Union, the membership of which we are denied a voice, leaving our own people denied the basic necessities which they need in order to have even the resemblance of a normal life.

I am likewise incandescent about the rape of our constitution and the blatant lying of our political masters. I have posted previously about the fact that, at the May 2010 election, the electorate were informed that a recall system of MPs would be available to constituents only to find that the House of Commons will decide whether that can take place. Now we find that whilst we were also promised the ability to hold local referendums, it is stated, under clause 52 (8) of the Localism Bill, that the result of any referendum does not have to be honoured:

"If the partner authority decides to take no steps to give effect to the result of the referendum, it must publish that decision in such manner as it thinks appropriate together with the reasons for that decision."

The important clauses of this bill, covering local referendums, are clauses 39-52 and it also transpires that if you live within a District Council, then that District Council cannot hold the referendum and that it must be passed to the County Council to action. In deciding that local authorities can disregard the wishes of the people in a referendum, they have obviously taken a leaf out of their master's book, who disregarded referendum results in France, Holland and Ireland!

I am also a tad annoyed that after having visited the surgery of my local Member of Parliament (who presently bestrides the nation pretending to be Kim Jong-Il III) two months later I am still waiting a satisfactory response to my queries.

The present political elite appear extremely concerned about the student riots - as well they should be. It is often said that adults can teach children a lesson - and by God, when we adults do eventually take to the streets the students children will indeed be able to sit back and watch in shock and awe!