I fail to see the point of Julie Girling

She has come to my attention through this story about Seahorses in Poole Harbour. Now seahorses are indeed cute in a cold, wet spiky way. But this is ridiculous, remember this woman is supposed to be a Tory.

“It is entirely unacceptable that species are being endangered by an entirely avoidable threat. I want to know if the commission intends to conduct any future studies specifically regarding the loss of seagrass habitats, and also what action they will take to ensure the protection and conservation of seagrass habitats and species.”

Just parsing this statement brings me out in chivers. What she is calling for her is for the EU to spend a whole bunch of money paying for EU studies of Poole Harbour and Studland Bay. She is also calling for the EU to set up some sort of rule/body/regieme that controls those rather splendid parts of Dorset.

What planet is she on?

Well to be fair I sort of know what is going on. The Seahorse trust is a nice touchy feely organisation in the South West. At some point after Ms Girling was elected they got in touch and asked her to write a PQ on their behalf. She was happy to do so, (my guess is that at this point they offered her a patron position on the charity) .
Here is her question,

Preservation of Seagrass Meadows and Seagrass Habitats
Seagrasses form important costal habitats for a variety of marine life and organisms. In the UK, the principle seagrass species predominant in sub-littoral areas as oppose to intertidal areas is Zostera Marina which is protected / conserved under the Habitats Directive 92/43/ECC. Internationally there has been a declining trend in the density of seagrass meadows since the 1970’s; part of this decline could be attributed to human induced disturbance. Two species of Seahorse associated with sea grass habitats are found in the British Isles, Hippocampus hippocampus (Short Snouted) and Hippocampus guttalatus (Spiny). H.Hippocampus is on the OSPAR priority list of endangered species.

- Does the Commission intend to conduct any future studies specifically regarding the loss of seagrass habitats?
- What action will the Commission take to ensure the protection and conservation of seagrass habitats and species?
- Can the Commission confirm why Seahorses throughout Europe are not being protected in equal measure? For example, the UKs Wildlife and Coutryside
Act are designed to protect in English waters but not in Welsh, Scottish or Irish waters. It is acknowledged responsibility should be with the member states for enforcement but where enforcement by has failed, what will the Commission do to enforce the Habitats Directive thereby ensuring species conservation?

Please note what is going on here. This so called Tory is calling for a number of things. Firstly she is calling for the Commission to spend money on research. Next she is calling for specific action on the part of the EU. Looking at her press release and the activity of the Seahorse trust she is calling for some restrictions be made on the design/position of moorings.

Next she is calling on the EU to put pressure on the UK to force the devolved authorities to harmonise their regulations with English regulations.

You can imagine the Commission licking its lips at this invitation to interfere in UK matters, micro managing pleasure craft moorings and so on. I repeat this is a question from a Tory.

In order to look fluffy, in order to be nice to her chosen Charity she is opening a door to even greater activism on the behalf of the EU. If she really wants to do these things, maybe, just maybe, given she is a Tory after all, she should not be demanding action from the EU, but maybe, just maybe she should be asking her own party and government to do something to help, here. In the UK.

Lord Carlisle wishes upon a star - or reform of the ECHR

Talking to Civitas today, Lord Carlisle QC has said, in reference to the European Court of Human Rights,

 "I don't think that the European Convention and this whole approach to human rights will endure in this country if we do not tackle the systemic problems we face.

"My first choice would be, at least as part of it, to say 'Let's reform the convention.

"Let's say to all the countries involved, this is not working any better for you than it is for us.'

"We can have a quality-assured system which is returned home to the member countries.

He went on to attack the quality of judges at the ECHR,

"not only have next to no judicial experience, but do not have the experience, even if they have judicial experience, that befits them to be in the superior appellate court".

Interestingly he didn't go on to say what his second choice would be, given that his first choice, the UK goes and gets all 42 countries to agree to reform isn't going to happen in the next millenium. So what will it be Lord Carlisle, just go along with it, shrugging your shoulders saying "Well at least we tried"?

Or will you advocate withdrawal?

Brok keeps immunity

Elmar Brok has recieved the support of his colleagues, and will not face prosecution for his 'tax mistake'.

Mr Brok maintains it was a one-off and he has already paid the €2,300 due six years ago.
"Our committee members voted unanimously, across the board, against lifting the immunity of Mr Brok," Klaus-Heiner Lehne, the chairman of the legal affairs committee told this website after the meeting which took place behind closed doors.

Interesting.

Mr Lehne said the case was "ridiculous" as it was a one-off blunder, not some kind of intentional tax evasion scheme. "I suspect they [the prosecutors] only did this because he is a public figure," Mr Lehne said in defence of his party colleague,

It rather sounds like the Burlesconi defence.
They claim that it is political. Hmm. Tax evasion? Political eh?

Well trying to find what Parliamentary immunity covers I find this, Protocol 36 in the Lisbon Treaty,

Article 9

Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.

I cannot believe that Mr Brok was dodging tax, whether accidentally or not, in the performance of his political duties. Looks like the Parliament is defending one of its own, a true believer, from the full force of the law.

Hierachy of rights

It seems according to this snippet today from the Johns case that we do indeed have a hierachy of group rights.

But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

So gentles, which group should be at the top of the rights tree, and why? Is my group grievance more important than your group grievance?

And, forgive my ignorance, where in our constitutional law is this stated? And who set it up? And why?

Update
I note this at the end of PA report

The judges also ruled Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights only provided a "qualified right" to manifest religious belief.

Looking at Article 9

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I guess the judges feel that this couple threaten the 'rights and freedoms of others'

Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65, from Oakwood, Derby, went to court after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a "homosexual lifestyle" was acceptable.

Dangerous stuff, up their with death threats and so forth.

Why not claim the Dambusters

I see that the EU is attempting to claim Oscar glory through its distribution support fotr the King's Speech,

Commissioner Vassiliou, who is responsible for education and culture, said, “What a great night for the European film industry and the MEDIA programme. Europe loves cinema and the world loves our films! My congratulations to Tom Hooper and Susanne Bier, who showed that you don’t need a massive budget to make world-beating films. This shows that the European film industry can compete with the best.”

Maybe they also claimed that the Dambusters was an EU project because the Lancasters flew over Germany, and the Italian Job, because it was filmed in Italy.

Boris adds a little more pressure on Cameron

In today's Telegraph Boris uses his normal mixture of hyperbole and whimsy to link Gaddafi and Gordon. He is trying to stick it to the AV referendum.

But he leaves a final barb at the end for iDave.

By all means let us have a referendum – the one we were promised, on the Lisbon EU Treaty. Have you noticed the EU policy on North Africa? Have you heard much from Baroness Ashton? Shouldn't we have a vote on all that?

Of course Mr Johnson shows his customary 'away with the faeries' aspects here. He calls for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, a game that has been over for months. The troops have moved on, jeepers even Labour has moved on from the Lisbon Treaty. Today the call is for an In-Out Referendum, rather than on the minutiae of the Lisbon Treaty, welcome though that would have been at the time goven that all promised some such.

That being said it all increase pressure on IDave, particularly when he has stated on Al-Jazeera his considered opinion was that,

'I don't believe an In/Out referendum is right, because I don't believe that leaving the European Union would be in Britain's interests'

As Dan Hannan points out,

Just for a moment, though, forget about forecasting the outcome. Instead, stand back and ask yourself whether it is right in principle to consult the country. As this blog never tires of arguing, it is hard to think of a clearer textbook example of where a referendum is proper. The European question divides the parties internally; it’s a matter of major constitutional importance; there is public demand for a vote; there is a disjuncture between Parliament and people; and, not least, the three parties keep promising to hold such a ballot.

There is something faintly surreal about holding a referendum which no one asked for on a voting system which neither of the two Coalition parties supported, while refusing to hold one which the country does demand, and which both Coalition parties were recently pledging. What is the point of consulting people on how to elect their MPs, but not on whether those MPs should run the country?

Millions more in EU propaganda

There is a short piece in the Sunday Times (paywall)

Ashton’s £8m PR bonanza
The EU’s foreign policy chief, Baroness Ashton, 54, is to spend £8.5m on outside public relations consultants to try to raise the public profile of her new Brussels diplomatic service.
Her office has issued a tender for agencies to provide media handling and organise VIP trips, dinners and cocktail receptions.
Critics of Ashton, whose pay package is worth £328,000 a year, question why she needs an outside agency when the European commission, of which she is vice-president, employs 1,400 communications staff. 

Which deserves a little more explanation. Here is the tender.

If you look at the tender document itself there a number of points that have been highlighted. Now I have no idea why they are highlighted (because they are important? Because they needed editing? Who knows)
They include,

networking (EUVP) including support to networking activities and the
preparation of communication tools tailored for stakeholders,

the EUVP is the visitors program. A system by which third parties are invited to gawp at the wonders of the EU.

The European Union Visitors Programme (EUVP) invites young, promising leaders from countries outside the European Union on an individually tailored visit to Europe to gain a first-hand appreciation of the EU's goals, policies and people. It also serves to increase mutual understanding between professionals from non-EU countries and their EU counterparts. The unique tailoring of each programme to the participants' individual requests makes it a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not to be missed.
The EUVP is jointly- sponsored and administered by the European Parliament and the European Commission. An EUVP visit consists of an individual 5- to 8-day programme of meetings with EU officials at the EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg and/or Luxembourg. The programme of meetings is arranged on the basis of the areas of interest expressed by the visitor so that it can be of maximum benefit. All individually tailored programmes are coordinated and arranged by the EUVP Secretariat. Travel and per diem costs are covered by the EUVP.

You get the idea.
Here's another highlight,

8. The contractor may be required to draft, edit, correct and/or translate and
disseminate texts for media relations purposes such as press releases, Opeds,
interviews, by-lines etc.

OpEds eh? The EU needs to get external expertise to write OpEds? They have over a thousand 'communications' staff as it is. Then you have the thousands of subject experts, and yet they need to buy in OpEd writing skills. Cripes, things must be tough in the Justus Lupsis.

But that is only the highlighted section, this is what is required in general,

In particular, the contractor will be required to provide the following services :
1. Assistance to the conceptualization and preparation of press material;
2. Assistance to the preparation and coverage of press events and specific media
actions
3. Assistance to the conceptualisation and implementation of media strategies
4. Assistance to the promotion, dissemination, monitoring and evaluation of media
activities, tools, actions and press information material
5. Organising, press trips and briefings on specific subjects or projects aimed at the
generalist and specialised press plus audiovisual media; in particular:
a. organization of press visits to the EU institutions for journalists from third
countries;
b. organization of information briefings in Brussels or any other EU member
state targeting EU based journalists focusing on specific subjects of
relevance in the field of external relations;
c. organization of information briefings for EU based journalists comprising
both a visit to Brussels and a field trip to a third country ;
d. organization of press trips to enhance the visibility of EU’s external action
in a particular mission (i.e.: Afghanistan, Somalia,) providing a better
understanding of the EU’s position in a given country/region.
For press trips and briefings described above, the services covered would include in
particular:

o Advice on a media programme,
o Advice on theme / programme preparation
o Selection of course leader
o Contact/selection of invited participants
o Invitations/follow-up of invitations
o Travel and accommodation
o General administrative support (logistics)
o On-site assistance
o Assist smooth running / trouble-shooting
o Preparation and production of seminar documents
o Follow-up / evaluation / report
o Interpretation
6. The creation, compilation and management of a pool of media contacts by areas
of interest (national, topical etc)

Another section highlighted is this,

3. Production of audiovisual material and/or b-roll on short notice to cover special
events, Delegation’s activities and /or high senior official activities in the subject
field of this invitation to tender to meet specific demands for news, sound and
images;

Which in my language is fire fighting. It's in the filed of media response to,
"Oh shit we've screwed up... Help"

What is astonishing to me is that this is being done openly and publically and nobody bats an eyelid. Going back to that quote from the Sunday Times. "Critics of Ashton". Do you want to know who they are?

Marta Andreasen and me.

Should Eurocrats become Kipling's men

We all know the poem, blu-tacked to a thousand adolescent doors, hung in a million kitchens and downstairs loos and regularly voted the Nation's favourite poem. Kipling posits the impossible and suggests that such a paragon is the definition of man. (Though I always felt I could attain this bit ' And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise')

It is like a Christian requirement that all adherents become Christlike rather than aspire to it.

Now it is the Eurcrats turn to partake in a similar game. The European Ombudsman has launched a public consultation into what 'Ecce Eurocrat' should be,

Draft for public consultation Public service principles that should guide EU civil servants Commitment to the European Union and its citizens

Civil servants should be conscious that the Union’s institutions exist in order to serve the interests of the Union and of its citizens.

They should make recommendations and decisions only to serve these interests, not for any other purpose.

Civil servants should carry out their functions to the best of their abilities and aim to set a good example to others.

Integrity

Civil servants should conduct themselves at all times in a manner that would bear the closest public scrutiny. This obligation is not fully discharged merely by acting within the law.

Civil servants should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation that might influence them in the performance of their functions. They should declare any private interests relating to their functions.

Civil servants should take steps to avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of such conflicts. This obligation continues after leaving office. In claiming expenses and allowances, civil servants should be guided by a sense of propriety, rather than seeking to maximise their benefits.

Passivity

Civil servants should be able to take intransigence and rudeness from the general public, and not mutter 'utter ignorant wankers' under their breaths. They should put up with outrageous slurs on their character and expected sexual performance without phoning in sick.

Objectivity

Civil servants should be open-minded, guided by evidence, and willing to hear different viewpoints. They should be ready to acknowledge and correct mistakes.

In procedures involving comparative evaluations, civil servants should base recommendations and decisions only on merit and any other factors expressly prescribed by law. Civil servants should not allow the fact that they like, or dislike, a particular person to influence their professional conduct.

Respect for others

Civil servants should act respectfully to each other and to citizens. They should be polite, helpful, and co-operative.

Transparency

Civil servants should be willing to explain their activities and to give reasons for their actions. They should welcome public scrutiny of their conduct, including their compliance with public service principles.

One of the above is my own.

The point is, as my grandmother would say, good intentions butter no parsnips. We all know what a decent civil servant, indeed a decent professional in any field should be like. It is holding them to this that is the problem, and what to do about it, effectively if/when they fail.

It is about managing reasonable expectations about the men and women who inhabit the institutions, it is understanding that they are human and thus flawed, and whilst holding them up to a fine pattern, not denouncing them entirely for all failures.

I fear that this excercise is mere spin. We know what people should be like already, and tythis consultation will merely confirm this. But we don't know what to do about failure. What we are left with is a crowd sourced Eurocrat mission statement.

Nico asks for your comments to be sent here

Blesssed are the tax inspectors

In an incohate expression of impotence the general secretary the EU's uber UNISON, the EPSU, Carola Fischbach-Pyttel has demanded that the EU bring back red blooded socialism, and if necessary impose it on national governments.

She is echoed by the increasingly irrellevant John Monks with this very odd comment,

"the current economic governance is not leading to more political governance".

Eh? John, What's that supposed to mean?

But the EPSU brought forward a range of people who they feel will have traction in public sympathy. You know, those dedicated public servants who work all hours in blood, sweat, ash and tears,

"Our fears are that the single-minded focus on competiveness is going to be achieved by cutting public sector jobs and wages and those that were not responsible for the crisis will have to share a burden which they were not responsible of."


"Nurses, firefighters, tax inspectors are being asked by European institutions and national governments to tighten their belts as bankers go back to their pre-crisis level of profits."

Evincing sympathy for tax inspectors! Now that is definately a tack I haven't seen before.

So who believes in Father Christmas?

Ok, not so much Father Christmas, more AGW. Watts up With That are linking to a fascinating study by Colorado College which takes a look at the matrices of belief in action to combat climate change, whichparty people support and which news channel they watch. The results, whilst relating to some of the Western States in the US bear noting.

Overall it seems that there is a broad disagreement with the way forward, but given that the world of politics is happily enconced in the first section which amounts to 24% it is instructive. Now when it comes to the matrices things become even more interesting.

I wonder what the results would be in the UK? These strongly suggest a very powerfull correlation with hard left politics and a belief that the Government should save us from  the disastors they are most keen on predicting.

Bulgaria to enshrine satrapy

Euractive are flagging up (thanks vihargg) a turning point for Bulgaria as a nation.

EU newcomer Bulgaria became the first country to try to adopt internally a series of measures emulating the EU 'Competitiveness Pact' proposed by France and Germany, including adding to the country's constitution a 'debt alert mechanism'.

Essentialy what they are planning to do is to accept that they are no longer a self determioned nation, but a province of Europe.

What would Hristo Botev have to say?

A patriot be - for knowledge, freedom,
The soul's too small a price to pay!
Mind you, not his soul, my brothers,
The nation's soul he'll give away!
And he's kind to everybody,
But you see - for any pelf,
It's only human, he can't help it,
He will sell his soul and self.

We are all going to drown

I love certainty in science. Absolute conviction of the truth. Here is some.

How Rising Sea Levels Will Affect the US Coastline

Scientific projections call for sea levels to rise by one meter by then, and this area is particularly flat and low-lying, much like the Netherlands.
For all the ensuing centuries, sea level will rise another meter for each century at the current rate of global warming. "According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that's where we're heading," said lead researcher Jeremy L. Weiss, a senior research specialist in the UA's department of geosciences. "Impacts from sea-level rise could be erosion, temporary flooding and permanent inundation."

Worried, I am

If sea level rise was to continue up to six meters, about one third of the land area in all US coastal cities would be affected.

In 600 years, by gad.

Lets think back. You are standing at the field of the battle of Tannenberg, in five years Henry V would kybosh the French at Agincourt. In Geography towns like Shipden still proudly existed on the coast of Norfolk.

See what I mean, the idea of being certain of something (Will) is absurd. Looking at the abstract of the work that evinces this absurdity one can see that though their is a little more reticence, note the use of the word, "Plausible",

recently published work estimates that global sea level rise (SLR) approaching or exceeding 1 m by 2100 is plausible,

the bonkersness remains.

emissions over the 21st century will not only influence SLR in the next ~90 years, but will also commit Earth to several meters of additional SLR over subsequent centuries. In this context of worsening prospects for substantial SLR, we apply a new geospatial dataset to calculate low-elevation areas in coastal cities of the conterminous U.S.A. potentially impacted by SLR in this and following centuries. In total, 20 municipalities with populations greater than 300,000 and 160 municipalities with populations between 50,000 and 300,000 have land area with elevations at or below 6 m and connectivity to the sea, as based on the 1 arc-second National Elevation Dataset.

They are talking about town's populations in 600 years time!!

Not learning from History.

Mr Huhne, Your feet are getting wet

Perhaps the most famous moment in Anglo Danish history was when King Canute went down to Bosham

with his court and proved that he could not instruct the tide to fall. Nature was greater than he.

he grew tired of flattery by the locals. "You are the greatest man that ever lived," one would say. "O king, there can never be another as mighty as you," another would say. "Great Canute, you are the monarch of all, nothing in this world would dare to disobey you." When one such flatterer said the king could command the obedience of the sea, the King proved him wrong by practical demonstration on the foreshore.

"Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey".

So spoke the King, seated on his throne with the waves lapping around his feet. "Go back, sea!" he commanded time and again, but the tide continued as expected.

And he was pretty great.

Today we have the example of modern day Anglo Danish relations,

Joint statement by Chris Huhne, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and Dr. Lykke Friis, Danish Minister for Climate and Energy,

Of course unlike the self aware Canute, these two actually think that they can control the climate, and in the furtherence of their beliefs they have decided to demand that the,

EU Commission’s forthcoming 2050 roadmap must kick-start the debate in Europe by offering a cost-effective, credible and ambitious pathway that enables member states to take the decisions that will stimulate low-carbon investment and take Europe beyond the cul-de-sac that’s the current 20% cut target.

Yup that's right. At a time when instability in the oil producing part of the world is brutally apparent, when the Gas monster of Russia is playing games, and while our conventional power stations are running to the end of their lives, these prize pair of idiots are sitting on the Bosham foreshore screaming at the waves to go away.

If they have their way, and I pray that somebody realises the devastating impact their plans would have on growth, jobs, power prices, pensioners all of us, then will Mr Huhne be the one who switches of the bar in the grate?

Putin wary of democracy shocker

Tass are reporting him as saying,

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has warned Moscow's partners in the West against attempts at whipping up democratic processes in other countries in connection with the ongoing events in North Africa. He was speaking at a joint news conference with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, devoted to the results of the full-scale meeting of the Russian government and the EU Commission.

But frankly I suspect he is rather over emphasising the impact if the EU. Not sure that it does 'whipping up', more gentle stroking, or patting.

Spain busted for over fishing

Spain exceeded mackerel quota, so we are told by Agra,

exceeding its catch quota for mackerel in the Bay of Biscay (Cantabrian Sea) by 20 000 tonnes, or 80% of the total quota, in 2010

And that is only what investigators discovered in the Bay of Biscay. A conservative guess would put them at exceeding their quota by more than 100%.

And we let these blighters fish in the North Sea!

Eurocrats subsidised morality

Just a few days ago I was sounding off about the attempt by Barroso to portray EU civil servants as the victims of monstrous attacks in the press,

"The European civil service is often attacked for its apparent 'privileges' when this is not the case and I am always defending this."

Saying he "cannot accept populism against the European civil service" he paid tribute to EU civil servants, describing them as a "great asset to Europe"

So imagine my surprise when I looked at the internal newsletter of the parliament to discover this,

The European Parliament is dedicated to reducing its carbon footprint and is seeking, as part of its Mobility Plan, to encourage its staff to use public transport.
In the case of European Parliament staff members based in Brussels, this measure will be carried out by means of a ‘third-party payment system’ contract signed by Parliament and the Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles (STIB), under which Parliament will contribute 50% of the cost of individual season tickets taken out by its staff members.

I checked on STIB that will be 203 GBP per head. Now with an estimate of 5000 staff based in Brussels, that is at or near a million quid.

And why is that the Parliament is spending your money this way? Because it wants to feel morally superior to those that pay it.

Put it this way, when I worked in Brussels, I walked, or took public transport. And you know what I paid for it out of my wages. Weird that, just like the poor benighted Belgian taxpayer.

How dare the EU institutions lecture me about "No Car Day" or boast about turning their lights out at 6 pm on a Friday when everybody has left for their (heavily subsidised) trips home.

Who the hell do they think they are, taking taxpayers money, and coming all holier than thou? Mr Barroso, do you think that this public subsidy of European civil servants counts as privilege? If not what would you call it?

Slow revolt in Hartlepool

Remarkable stuff going on in Hartlepool

Some local councillors (Labour please note) are railing against EU excess and the impact of EU costs on local budgets.

COUNCILLORS have tabled a motion slamming a rise in the European Union’s budget at a time when councils across the country are facing severe budget cuts

Angry they are,

The motion, which is being put to the full council at a meeting tomorrow, reads: “The council notes, with indignation, that while Hartlepool is facing a massive 25 per cent reduction in its financial settlement over the next two years, the UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an incredible 60 per cent over two years.

“This council believes that the EU should be treated the same as the other tiers of Government and in these austere times should share responsibility, along with central and local government, for public spending reductions.

“Sharing the burden would result in less severe cuts for local authorities, and give more assistance to councils to protect front line services.”

The motion urges Hartlepool MP Iain Wright, Easington MP Grahame Morris and MPs across the Tees Valley not to support increases in the EU budget.

It has been signed by Labour councillors Chris Simmons, Marjorie James, Robbie Payne, Trish Lawton and Sarah Maness.

So is this the harbinger of a grwoing euroscepticism in Labour ranks? I really don't know, but it is heartening all the same.

Cheapskate skunk

John Hirst axe murderer, he of the Prisoner votes and assorted carry on has scraped the barrel now. I would love him to say this to Lawrence Dellaglio.

Is that the police? Daddy is smoking in the study. Can you arrest him?

Thanks to Mark Wadsworth for bringing this to my attention,

The last refuge is vanishing for besieged smokers — at least in Honduras. A new law that took effect Monday says family members can call in the police on people who smoke at home.
...
A clause, however, expressly says relatives or visitors can summon police to deal with smokers at home: "Families or individuals may complain to law enforcement authorities when smokers expose them to secondhand smoke in private places and family homes."

Which be an interesting law to implement.

Rony Portillo, director of the Institute to Prevent Alcoholism and Drug Addiction, said those who violate the law will first receive a verbal warning and after the second offense could be arrested. To be released they would have to pay a $311 fine, the equivalent of a monthly minimum wage salary in Honduras.

"The law is clear and we will comply with it," Portillo said. "Authorities will intervene (at a home) when someone makes a complaint."

Tis is just geting silly. The level of state interference is beyond compare. What is instructive is the pressure that will be put on the police. As Mark underlines,

That police-to-public ratio of 1:667 is impressive, that's about half European levels.

And they are not busy enough already without rounding up locals who smoke in their own houses. After all as the US state department puts it,

Crime is endemic in Honduras and requires a high degree of caution by U.S. visitors and residents alike. U.S. citizens have been the victims of a wide range of crimes, including murder, kidnapping, rape, assault, and property crimes. Eighty-five U.S. citizens have been reported murdered in Honduras since 1995; only twenty-four cases have been resolved. Sixteen U.S. citizens were reported murdered in Honduras in 2009, nine in 2008, four in 2007 six in 2006, and ten in 2005. Kidnappings of U.S. citizens have also occurred in Honduras. Five U.S. citizens were reported kidnapped in 2009, four in 2008, and two in 2007. Poverty, gangs, and low apprehension and conviction rates of criminals contribute to a critical crime rate, including acts of mass murder. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported 4,473 murders in Honduras in 2008 giving Honduras, with a population of approximately 7.3 million people, one of the world’s highest per capita murder rates.

The UNDP report can be found here. I guess harrasing people in their own homes is easier than sorting out the real problems.

Nazis in Cairo?

We have all seen Indiana Jones fighting the Nazis in Egypt, but I wasn't aware that Rommel broke through the defensive lines at El Alemein and took Cairo and Alexandria. So I was a little perplexed by this statement in the Mail (and repeated elsewhere but offline in the Telegraph),

Miss Williams, whose parents fled to Britain from Egypt to escape the Nazis,

If her family did come from Egypt during the war, and I am sure they did, then what were they running away from? The journey must have been fraught with danger, and I cannot believe that they were given passge on a troop ship through the death alley that was the Medditereanean.

I mean nothing by this, I am just perplexed as to how such a trip could be made.

If they can do it, why can't Eurocrats?

A friendly voice from within the system writes to me with this link  and asks the obvious question,

Monkeys manage it apparently, why not Eurocrats?

For Pasty to be a pasty it must have an EU logo!

Since 2002 the fine burghers (it has been pointed out that Cornwall, being a rural county - and indeed being a formally Celtic nation was not host to Saxon burghs - therefore it would be host to Burghers. So instead I should say Jurates) of Cornwall have been trying to get protected status for their pasties. Matters came to a head a while back when a Devonian won the pasty makers crown, and there is the complicated issue of when a swede is not a swede, (when it is a turnip).

So today is a remarkable day, today is the day of recognition. From this time henceforth unless your pasty has been concieved and baked on the other side of the Tamar it cannot be decribed as Cornish.

OK.

So how do we prove that this is so. How do we prove that that pie is a pasty - by it having an EU logo.

So let me get this staright, if a Cornish pasty wishes to prove it is cornish, it must state that it is european. Why not have a cross of St Pirran with the CPA logo and be done with it?

Do we really need an EU logo to localise?

Farage enters the Mumsnet bearpit

It used to be that the Oxford Union was the quickening ground for politicians. Today it is a cosy little webschat at Mumsnet Towers.

Gordon Brown came out far worse for wear when he refused to answer which biscuit he preferred (I always thought it was Bourbon biscuits - thoughts of 1789 caused him to stumble). David Cameron had techy issues that caused consternation.

Thursday is Nigel Farage's turn.

So tune in at 1pm, on the 24th. Could be fun.

When Acronyms are apt: COST

Sometimes an acronym is wholy fit for purpose. In defence of my claim I bring you this little known EU Committee.

European cooperation in Science and Technology Committee of Senior Officials

Which is known by its acronym,

the COST Committee of Senior Officials

Who have had their 181st meeting.
This opening para is a prize specimen of Eurocratese.

It was recalled that both CSO and ESF Governing Council have confirmed that the ESF would continue as the COST implementing agent until the end of the FP7. As proposed by the COST-ESF High Level Group, the Committee agreed to set up a joint Working Group to establish a “roadmap” to guarantee a smooth continuation of COST activities beyond FP7.

Flag on the Reichstag: Things Change

How things change, here are three pictures.

May 2nd 1945

3rd December 2010

22 February 2011

That last nicked from the Facebook page of Alexander Alvaro MEP, a (very decent) FDP chap in the European Parliament.

He titles it thusly,

Kaum in Berlin schon weht die Europaflagge über dem Reichstag :-)

or in my translation.

And in Berlin, the European Flag already blows :-)

I find this astonishing, can you imagine a time when a British politicain would be so apparantly proud of an EU flag flying over Westminster?

Do they allow humans into Barosso's bubble?

I only ask because of this ,

European commission president José Manuel Barroso has hit out against "false information" about pay and conditions for EU civil servants.

The former Portuguese prime minister has hit back at media attacks on the "comfortable" lifestyles enjoyed by the small army of officials working for the commission and other EU institutions.

No of course Jose, Eurocrats don't have comfortable lifestyles at all. That is why they can feel hard done by when they only get 6 extra days leave instead of 8 to travel to Greece and back.

The European civil service is often attacked for its apparent 'privileges' when this is not the case and I am always defending this."
Saying he "cannot accept populism against the European civil service" he paid tribute to EU civil servants, describing them as a "great asset to Europe".

So tell me Mr Barroso what normal employer has little, err privileges like this one,

Any official with a child over the age of 26 who has begun studying and is continuing his or her studies past the age of 26 may apply for a tax abatement.

This abatement may be granted up to the age of 30.

Exceptionally, the tax abatement may be granted for a child over the age of 18 who is dependent on the official and lives under his or her roof.

This tax abatement will cease as soon as the child begins a gainful activity.

Of course if the child of an official is studying before the age of 26 then,

Allowance A: EUR 91.02 a month (as of 1 July 2010).
Allowance B: officials may be reimbursed for any registration fees and transport costs they incur, up to a maximum monthly amount of EUR 252.81 (as of 1 July 2010).
For children attending an establishment of higher education, the official may receive a flat-rate allowance equivalent to the maximum limit of the education allowance, i.e. EUR 252.81 per month (as of 1 July 2010).
For children attending an establishment of higher education in a country other than that in which the official is employed, the official may receive twice the maximum amount of the education allowance, i.e. EUR 505.62 per month (as of 1 July 2010).

That doesn't include the subsidised holidays to the slopes, the household allowances. Oh don't get me started.

Look, I have an interest in this as I am an official, but Mr Barosso's cloud-cuckoo land statement cannot be allowed to stand unopposed.

Put it this way, there are issues with the trade unions as I pointed out last week. He is talking to an internal newsheet (my guess is Commission en Direct) in order to tamp down on industrial unrest amongst the Eurocrats. But he obviously has no idea of what people in the real world have to live and survive. He has no knowledge and it appears from this, no care.

European Carbon Trading takes another knock

Reuters are reporting on the growing chaos that is the EU's carbon trading scheme.

Britain will opt out of the EU's common carbon permit auctioning platform from 2013 and set up its own national platform, the department of energy and climate change said.


The UK informed the EU Commission of its decision late on Friday.

All EU member states had to tell the Commission by February 19 whether they will participate in a centralised auctioning platform from 2013 under the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

Poland and Germany will also opt out, the Commission confirmed on its website on Monday.

The Commission said that despite the three opt-outs, around 60 per cent of the nearly 1 billion allowances to be auctioned annually from 2013 will enter the market via the common platform.

"The Commission's preparations for the procurement of both the common auction platform that will be used by all other member states and the single auction monitor that will monitor auctions on all auction platforms are ongoing," it added.

This of course follows hot on the heals of these reports in the Guardian,

The European Union faces legal and political challenges over its handling of the carbon markets which remain in chaos after a cyber attack forced partial closure of the Emissions Trading Scheme.


EU officials are due in a Belgian court on Monday to answer a request to name companies in possession of stolen allowances after a legal challenge by an Italian company affected by the fraud.

Which just goes to show the the EU's high profile project is in deep, deep trouble.

What has Brok been up to?

In an odd little piece in the European Voice we learn that there is an ongoing attempt to lift veteran EPP and CDU player Elmar Brok's immunity.

The European Parliament's legal affairs committee has been asked to lift the parliamentary immunity of Elmar Brok, a German centre-right MEP.

A spokeswoman for the committee said the MEP had been asked to attend a behind-closed-doors hearing next Monday (28 February) to discuss the request. There is no information on why a request to lift Brok's immunity has been filed or who filed it.

Brok's office in Brussels said the MEP would issue a statement later today.

I shall watch this space with great interest.

Night Boat to Cairo

Two important international figures are going to Cairo.

One is our esteemed Prime Minister, who said,

 "he would tell the military to “make sure this is a genuine transition from military rule to civilian rule.”

The other as Cramner reports is ShiekYusuf al-Qaradawi. Now let's think. Who will have more impact on Arab Street?

What can it be

Great headline from the TPA today,

South Somerset outrage

Sadly the story, though worthy, doesn't live up that headline's promise. Suggestions for what would have been a better story in comments

Debate and poll on Britain's relationship with the ECHR

This debate has gone live this morning,

The poll questions are,

1) In your opinion, should the European Court of Human Rights be dictating law in Britain?


2) A future Bill of British Rights could block any intervention from the European Court of Human Rights, in principal would you be supportive of this?


3)What's your stance - Should sex offenders have the right to appeal their inclusion on the sex register?

So go on then, get voting.
 
This is my contribution,

Argument against


says Gawain Towler

When was the last time you heard somebody say ‘It’s a free country’ or maybe ‘There should be a law against it’?

Both were ever-present in people’s mouths as I grew up, but now seem jaded, dated, indeed redundant. Why?

Because it isn’t, and their probably is.

And this situation, where an old man can be arrested for fulminating against thugs throwing rocks at ducks, has arisen when we are told that we are living through a Human rights culture. CCTV cameras scan the sky and the roads, children are fingerprinted in school without parental permission, the government’s habit of restricting legal behavior, its hectoring of any who fail to enthusiastically support the new culture of so called tolerance. Something has gone awry in the way we are governed, and the laws which regulate our behaviour.

The last few weeks have seen the first shots in what looks like a long drawn out war between Britain and Europe on this. That these skirmishes are with the European Court of Human Rights rather than the European Union is of little import in the public debate, and within a year or so will be of little import overall as under Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty will come into force making the European Court art of the institutional structure of the European Union.

The bottom line on the whole issue is who creates the law under which we in the UK are governed by?

UKIP believes and we believe that we are at one with the vast majority of the British people, that we as a nation should be the ones that set the legal parameters by which we are governed.

Ironically of course The European Convention and by extension the European Court of Human Rights were largely British creations. Forged in the vacuum left by the Second World War. To help a shattered continent and the peoples of the nations of Europe have the confidence necessary to build new democratic nations.

The original Convention guarantees uncontroversial things such as the right to a fair trial, not to suffer torture, against slavery, religion, expression, association and so on.

As the Law Lord, Lord Hoffman, former Director Amnesty International has put it recently,

“The brief list of human rights in the 1950 Convention… is, in general terms admirable. Who could object to the government having to respect the rights of its people not to be tortured or inhumanly treated, not to have their privacy invaded, to have a fair trial, or to be free to speak their minds and practice their religions. These freedoms are badge of a civilized society”

What is noticeable is that all of these rights are rights that the lucky British had already. We through didn’t of luck, geography and traditions not succumbed to a dictatorship during the thirties, and therefore did not feel that the Convention was much to do with them Indeed it was felt that what was going on was to bring the continent up to our level.

Scroll forward to 2011 and in a few short months we have seen a series of rulings that rebel against the very gut of the British people. The instruction to give convicted prisoners the vote, the removal of the right of vulnerable victims of crime to give written evidence, the right of appeal for sex offenders to remove themselves from the sex offenders register and most recently the right of the longstanding criminally insane to receive income support and pensions.

And this is just now, with every year the European Court, a Court where judges from such paragons as Russia and Moldova, through its inherent political activism appropriates power over our country.

And here is the nub, as Lord Hoffmann goes on,

“Since the Convention Rights were incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK courts have followed in the wake of Strasbourg, loyally giving effect to its rulings and the principles (where discernable) laid down in its jurisprudence. The result has been that UK judges have reached decisions, sometimes with regret and sometimes with enthusiasm which would have astonished those who agreed to our accession to the Convention in 1950”.

The only way to untangle ourselves from this production line of judgments that fail to chime with the people of the country is to leave the ECHR and to create, or maybe recreate our own system of liberties.

Now as I have suggested neither I nor anybody else is suggesting that many of these liberties we hold should or would be thrown out with our membership of the Convention. Nobody is suggesting that the people of our country would be bereft of protection from the agents of the state.

I do not believe that we can defend our own liberties without leaving the convention, as they are constantly under threat. We must create a system of our own Liberties, perhaps in recasting of the Bill of Rights that since 1689 has guaranteed many of the rights we saw earlier.

It cannot be beyond the wit of this country to come up with a system of rights and liberties far superior than those offered by our continental friends. Rights and Liberties that will set out simply the limits of the state, and the realm in which the individual citizen may continue in his or her life unmolested by its agents.

Has somebody nobbled Singleton

In a strangely effusive piece this morning Alex Singleton heaps praise on the boy Dave,

Just as many Tories were becoming fed up with Cameron, our PM has done three things that should put smiles on their faces.

Alex tells us that the three things he has done, is show some balls on the Prisoner Votes issue by alowing a free vote. (Odd that allowing others to show backbone in a symbolic way is a sign of backbone in yourself - its all a bit "go on chaps, over the top. Me I will sit here with a nice cup of char").

Then he claims that changes to the DFID targetting is meaningfull and finally that the proposals top open up the tender book of the state to private competiton. These together says Alex,,

Assuming this policy is not watered down, Cameron won’t – as is widely predicted – go down in history as a wet. He’ll be the man who advanced the Thatcher revolution. Quite a turnaround, don’t you think?

No, not really. Lets take each on its own.

Firstly the whole issue of Britain's relationship with the ECHR is complex, but to suggest that allowing a free vote is anything other then a sticking plaster on a sucking chest wound. Alex suggests that,

This, I can tell you, threw Ukip off-balance, as that party had been trying to argue to that it was impossible for Britain to reject the court’s rulings without leaving the EU. Ukip’s message failed to resonate and, whatever the legal ramifications of the vote, the vote has made the Conservatives seem genuinely Eurosceptic for the first time in years.

There is something in this, in that we, against all experience hoped that the media would spot the dishonesty of the position. The legal advice given to Clegg that suggests that there are no legal and finacial implications in ignoring the ECHR decision is somewhat cute. It is correct, today. Come 2012 when Article 6 of the Treaty comes into force then it ceases to be correct, and, under our Treaty obligations we will ahve to comply, with both legal and finacial impluicatuions if we ignore their decisions.

I note Alex talks about "whatever the legal ramifications of the vote" as if the law was incidental. It isn't, and though UKIP are surprised at the free vote, we are de lighted, as it is providing the basis for a fundamental look at the decisons of the Strasbourg Court. No decision they make, or plan to make will take place within the media Omerta any longer. As trhe story that broke in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday and followed up today everywhere else shows, the ECHR and its judgements are npow a live political issue. Worse still for the Government, by allowing the free vote they have now put themselves in a position that to comply with EU law in the future they will be fighting against the express will of the House. Cameron a Eurosceptic? - The key word is appears to be "seem".

Point 2 is the one about DFID and the UK's aid budget. Now stopping funding China would I agree bne a good thing and targetting any money we do spend on those who need it most is a sensibvle idea, and one which most would agree with. But Alex rather shoots himself, or his arguement in the foot by stating as he does,

The Government’s policy to increase the aid budget is still wrong, but cutting the most wasteful spending will help to appease the Right.

The budget is still increasing at a time of retrenchment at home. We are still chucking a billion pounds to a country, India, with nuclear powered aircraft carriers and a space program. So no, I don't think this amounts to a row of beans.
And on the third point, though Cameron's article is welcome, something about it sticks against the sides. Oh yes that's it, could this be merely him complying with EU Tendering law and maybe just extending its scope? Don't get me wrong, I am all for it, but swallows and the summer come to mind.

Slight typo?

The Czech Republic has also warned against speaking out in favour of human rights in Libya.

EU Observer are reporting the EU response to the Libya crisis,

Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg said the EU should not "get involved too much" and that high-minded EU appeals would only serve to "prove our own importance".

"If Gaddafi falls, then there will be bigger catastrophes in the world," he told journalists in the EU capital on Sunday. "It's no use for anyone if we intervene there loudly, just to prove our own importance."

Surely he meant "impotence"?

Should Ireland join the Sterling zone?

That is the thought of aviation entrepreneur, Ulick McEvaddy, in the Irish Independent. I have to note that Mr McEvaddy was formerly part of the No campaign, so his opposition to the EU and its doings is nothing new, but his suggestions to any new EU negotiating team coming out of the next Irish government has some sense.

"I don't think we're in a powerless position. I think our European partners have to treat us with the respect we deserve. We have alternatives. If we look across the water to our biggest trading partner, Britain, and talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he might welcome us back into the sterling zone if they [the EU] screw around with us too much," Mr McEvaddy said.

Giving his own view on what the incoming government's negotiating team should tell our partners in Brussels, he said: "The option [in relation to the EU] is 'look guys, we're not happy with the way you're treating us. We're going to leave the eurozone'. Ok, it's going to be a bit of a mess for a while, but the Chancellor of the [British] Exchequer would write the cheque for us in the morning because we're actually his largest trading partner.

If nothing else it would be a decent negotiating position. After all at this point what has Ireland got to play with, what can the negotiators have in their briefcase other than hoping for goodwill. Goodwill that is in precious little evidence when one looks at the French approach to the Irish level of corporation tax.

Would Britain help out in these circumstances. I would think so. After all, George hasn't seemed to have any problems writing out large checks to the Irish PM in recent months. And British banks would be delighted as they, more than anyone are exposed to the Irish debt crisis.

Voting systems: all things to everybody

Or no things for anybody.

According to William Hague,

AV is unfair. With First Past the Post, everybody gets one vote. But under AV, supporters of extreme parties like the BNP would get their vote counted many times, while other people's vote would only be counted once.

So lets get this straight. According to the No campaign, AV is good for the BNP (boo hiss vote NO). So what about the Yes2AV campaign?

Well according to Yes2AV partisans FPTP is good for the BNP,

4. Shutting down Extremism
Extremists can get in by the back door under FPTP. We‟ve already seen BNP candidates elected to our town halls. And in each case, they have scraped in with minority support. AV doesn't let candidates slip in with just a minority of the votes. Winners need the goodwill of the majority. For extremists AV is a brick wall.

This of course leaves me a little confused. Because what goes for the BNP must go for the Greens, UKIP and any other of the smaller parties.

If as supporters of both sides claim, their own system is the better system for our democracy, how can both sides boast how their systems will keep out the smaller parties?

Saudi begins to play the Climate Game

I suppose it had to happen but Saudi Arabia is making pitiful faces in the light of the the $100 billion UN Climate Fund,

Saudi Arabia said that it would need help to develop solar power and financial aid to diversify, as it was "among the most vulnerable economies", dependent on oil exports whose use may be curbed under a climate deal.

"Impacts are expected to be massive and deep," it said of countries dependent on fossil fuels, noting that oil makes up half Saudi Arabia's gross domestic product and 90 percent of its export earnings.

Oh for pities sake. Surely Saudi Arabia is in the position to set up Solar Power without recourse to this humongous tax. Indeed, given that the Kingdom isn't famous for its cloud cover one might have thought that they would have already started doing just that.

Upset for rent seeking solar freeloaders

How sad was I to read this story in the Lincolnshire Echo,

FRUSTRATED eco-developers aiming to build the UK's biggest solar farm say they face a race against time to save the £8.5 million project.
Stow firm FreeWatt has submitted plans for a 14,544-panel solar field at its Danes Farm headquarters.
If approved, 80 per cent of the income when operating would be expected to come from Government subsidies under the feed-in tariffs scheme.

It is instructive to note the name of this scam, F(r)eeWatt (complete with that oh so old fashioned cap in the midst of the word). Free for whom precisely.

Free in the sense that everybody who pays for electricity has to pay more to give these people almost their entire costs and furnishes them with false profits.

The fact that there has been a review of this project, it is merely to stop monster freeloaders and wannabe fat envirocrats like this. The amount of money leached of the taxpayer to fund this Government's mad obsession with climate change will not be reduced at all.

Labour taking the option?

Following up my post of yesterday the noise about a possible Labour in/out referendum which has been swirling around Labour blogs. No it seems as if the Labour party heirachy are taking the suggestions seriously to the as this article in the Independent.

Sunder Katwala, general secretary of the Labour-affiliated society, said: "There is unlikely to be a referendum on British membership before 2015. But there must be a good chance of a referendum by the time of the 50th anniversary of the last referendum to stay in, in 1975, in order to settle the question of British membership."

He admitted that a plebiscite could create economic uncertainty, but said that the risks of losing the vote were not a good argument against holding one.

Wayne David, the shadow minister for Europe, said: "The Labour Party is having a fundamental policy review and this is one of the things that will be considered." He was "still to be convinced," he said, but some Labour figures believed a referendum would "lance the boil" of Euroscepticism.

Of course this is only a few straws in the wind, but in the absence of policy which is where Labour is at when it comes to Europe, and great glowing stick of dynamite is a wonderful thing to chuck under the cabinet table

Prisons musn't be thought of as punitive

Prisoners are not prisoners, cells are not cells. Segregation isn't segregation, punishment isn't punitive.

Iain Dale on his Radio show last night talking to Charlie a prison officer. How the world goes mad.

Via the ultimate witterer.

Another Powell moment for the Tories? And whither UKIP?

Let's say that Labour offer an In/Out referendum as is being suggested in a few well informed places. Joe Litobarski write in CiF today from a pro-European Perspective as well.

What happens next. The election is probably a long way away. The boy Dave can look and see what it does to Labour's polling rating.

Or they wait until 2013 to offer it. That would be European Election year.

Now cast your mind back a few years. The Tories offered a referendum on the EU Constitution. The European Elections took place. The Tories won the election handsomely, but the UKIP vote more than doubled, going from 3 seats to 12.

Labour, realsied that the Eurosceptic position on Europe was popular, that people wanted a referendum. Indeed it was the only area where the Tories were consistently ahead of Labour in the polls. Combined with a remarkable showing for UKIP, Britain had voted overwhelmingly for Eurosceptisism of the soft or hard kind.

Thus, realising that in a Westminster election most of the 2 million plus votes that went to UKIP would go to the Tories and needing to kybosh the Tories strongest card at the next general elections, Labour announced that it too would be holding a referendum on the European Constitution in the Queens speech of that year.

This was despite the implacable opposition of the colleagues across the channel. Chirac was fuming, and the Commission muttered darkly.

This move by Blair was ultimately the reason why public opinion in France forced Chirac to offer a referendum in that country. The French population demanded that they too had a say. This public pressure spilled northwards into Holland. The Constitution ultimately died because of the votes in Britain's Euro elections.

That it would resurface again as the Lisbon Treaty was no real surprise but the ambitions of Europe had taken a knock, a knock that it has yet to fully recover from. In Britain at least the shenanigans over forcing through the Lisbon Treaty, the sight of all three major UK parties wriggling and reneging on their promises has pushed a hard Euroscepticism up the agenda.

So what happens next now.

If History be our guide then I would suggest that if Labour offer an In/Out referendum, and it is perceived to be popular, then the Tories will be forced to offer the same.

If they did not they would face the prospect of hundreds of thousands of their own MPs' voters and members doing an Enoch Powell and lending their vote to Labour in order to get that referendum. Countless activists could not campaign against it in al conscience. Cameron in order to have credibility with his own people, in order to stop the Labour Party outflanking him on what he perceives to be his own territory would have offer it.


He by then will have had years of frustration dealing with the dead hand of European influence on policy.

Issues such as prisoner votes will bedevill his premiership between now and then and his patience with the Brussels elite will be getting stronger month by month.

And therefore we can ask what of UKIP? It will slowly be consolidating its position over this time. The sympathy of the general public will be moving its way as the same issues that harass the Tories push more and more in its direction.

It's vote share in Westminster polling will increase, up from last year's 3% to this year's 5%. Upwards of 7-8% where its support will cause psephological havoc in marginals.

The Lib Dems will no doubt be in a quandary, but many of them, like the Labour Party will see the bleak decision of in and out as their only chance of lancing the Eurosceptic boil pustulating across the land. They too will offer a referendum on our membership, as they did last time.

The net result will be that al parties will go into the next election offering a referendum on our membership of the EU. The UKIP campaign will be as much based on its small state localist agenda, on choice in education, in civil liberties on fairer, simpler flatter taxes, on a serious approach to crime and criminality, on all those areas where the mainstream has left the population behind.

And the country will finally have a chance to set itself free.

Bring it on.

Now the Dutch begin to grow some

Being reported in the Dutch English language press is a heartening sign that rebellion against further integration is growing across the continent.

Dutch news puts it this way,

MPs on Thursday night backed a motion calling on prime minister Mark Rutte to distance himself from any moves towards further unification in Europe, the Volkskrant reports on Friday.

Radio Netherlands puts it like this,

Parliament has adopted a motion which calls on the cabinet to "emphatically reject" any move towards greater European political union. The Netherlands is to retain control over issues such as pensions, taxes and wages.

The motion came after Germany and France recently submitted proposals aimed at giving the European Union more control over the economic policies of its member states.

The parliamentary parties fear that the two countries are using increased coordination of European economic policies as a pretext for achieving greater political union.

Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager had advised parliament against adopting the motion as it limits the cabinet's room for manoeuvre.

Sadly my Dutch is not up to translating the detail, but for what it is worth here it is.

"Why bother too much with the House of Commons?"

So asks that paper of record, Tribune.

The thing is, whilst shielding your eyes from the glare of vehement anti-capitalism Ben Fox in this week's cover story,

Brussel and Westminster under a malign influence

is substantively correct,

Large-scale lobbying of the European Parliament is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until 1997, with its legislative powers severely restricted, lobbyists would direct their attention to the European Commission rather than Parliament. However, as the responsibilities of the Parliament have grown, particularly with the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997, so the Brussels lobbying industry been drawn to it.

He goes on to point out an obvious truth that has and will continue to have a growing impact on the way that governance and influence works. In particular here in the UK as an unintended consequence of the shift in power from Westminster to Brussels.

representatives of the financial sector have stationed themselves in Brussels on a permanent basis.
For them, this makes sense. Major financial legislation is not decided in Westminster any more. If most regulation of the City and the financial sector in general is done by the European Parliament, why bother too much with the House of Commons? As a result, financial lobbyists have laid virtual siege to the European Commission, European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

One practical result of this undeniable fact is that lobbying in the Westminster village will become more and more about pork barrelling than aboyut legislating. It will be about where money goes, rather than whether money goes.
While the Brussels Lobby scene is becoming more and more important, their colleagues here in SW1 will have to content themselves with securing contracts not legislation.

Why I need an extra 8 days on my annual leave

There is currently a bit of a spat going on in the European Parliament about some MEPs temerity to ask questions as to the holiday allowances and so on of some officials.

This is the defence from one of the leading EP Union officials, Mr Georges Marcopoulos, Chairman of the FFPE.

Dear colleagues,

My place of origin is the small but very beautiful island of Leros in the Dodecanese, in Greece which I warmly suggest you to visit. This island is at a distance of 3212 KM from Luxembourg.

When I take my annual leave in summer here is how I reach my island:

Monday I leave by car at 9.00 o'clock from Luxembourg to catch a ferry from Ancona or Venice to Patras on Tuesday afternoon.
My itinerary is the following:
Arriving at Strasbourg at 11.30.
Lunch from 12.00 to 14.00
Arriving at Basel at 16.00
Arriving at Lugano at 19.00
Dinner from 19.00 to 21.00 and
Spending the night in a hotel.
Tuesday
Departing at 9.00
Stopping at a petrol station for lunch..
Arriving at Ancona 15.00
Departing by ferry to Patras at 18.00
Wednesday at sea.
Arriving at Patras on Thursday morning at 7.00.
Driving to Piraeus. Arriving at 11.00
Having lunch from 11.00 to 13.00
Departing by ferry to Leros between 15.00 and 19.00 ;
Arriving at Leros between 2 and 6 o'clock of Friday.

Thus I need 4 days to arrive to my place of origin and another 4 to come back to Luxembourg which makes a total of 8 days. Instead I am credited with only 6 days.

Even colleagues who have Athens as their place of origin need 3.5 days to get there and 3.5 days to come back.

What Mrs GRAESSLEis simply INACCURATE. She tries to apply what Brits call "ONE SIZE FITS ALL".
Does she realize that we have to fly frequently back and forth to our place of origin because our family is still there, because our old parents need our presence and because of many other family reasons?
Does Mrs GRAESSLE know how much is the price of an airplane ticket in case one needs to fly urgently from Luxembourg to his place of origin?

If the scope of Mrs GRAESSLE is to man the EU Institutions solely by nationals of member states being in a close range of the EU institutions seats she has to put that publicly.

George Marcopoulos

If you need to travel urgently then driving for 4 days doesn't seem to do it, and the flight price is £143 for a flight tomorrow, considerably less than the petrol.

The law of unintended consequences - Article 577 (Smoking Ban)

I spotted this corker in the Richmond Times last night,

Richmond College smoking ban criticised for sending puffing students into streets

You must read it, it is priceless, but my favourite two lines are,

Mr Rowles added: “The only solution as we see it is to lift the smoking ban in the college grounds.”

and,

Mr Ansell said he was keen to meet with residents and confirmed the smoking ban would be reviewed.

He said: “The college’s security manager has personally visited a number of residents to listen to their concerns and we will be reviewing our smoking policy.

An idiotic policy, that does nobody any favours.

Dan hits out at personalised pork

Dan Hannan has egotubed his latest speech in the Strasbourg Parliament. In it he points out that though the European Police College sits in the South East of England and is there part of his consituency, it is dodgy and should be closed down. Bravo Dan. I quite agree with you, and not solely; over the money and its dodgy accounts.

The very premis of the Bramshill College is dodgy. Why do we need a European Police College at all? Anyway it is good to see Dan following where others lead.

Others such as the UKIP MEP and former Commission Chief Accountant who 5 months ago, called for the college to be scraped, and yes it is in her constiteuncy too,

Andreasen, a former European commission chief accountant, said, "Nearly two years ago the Euro cops were given a final warning on getting their own house in order. They haven't done so", she said. "Now we must cut off their funding for good."

Or maybe back in 2009, when the then UKIP MEP on the Budgetary Control Committee Jeffrey Titford highlighted the problem,

"Yet another EU funded institution is found to have no proper accounting system and public money has been washing through it with abandon as the staff appear to have run the college like a holiday camp."

Update,

As has been pointed out elsewhere Dan has had his eye on the College for a long time, so the above is not entirely fair.

The idiocy of 'Justice'

Roger Smith, director of legal campaign group Justice has popped up to talk about the case of the crook being placarded down the street and smacked his head straight into Godwin's law.

"The photographs of this man wearing the placard bought to mind some unpleasant images - of people in Iran and China and, much as I dislike saying it, of Jews in Nazi Germany."

Now come on Rodger. The difference is that you are talking about the actions of a state. Whereas the case was about an individual who acted as an, understandably, pissed off citizen.

The collapse of shame as a tool in ensuring a civil society has been almost complete, and yet it is, and should be part of how a society, yes a big society that acts as individuals not just requiring the actions of the state to enforce its norms.

Justice does no favours to its cause of defending civil liberties when it attacks the individual, instead it should be vocal in its defence of the individuals against the actions of the state

The woman on the packed tube, grasping the hand of what the Indians call an 'eve botherer' and calling out loudly, "
Whose hand is this?"
thus bringing the perpetrator into public contempt will be a far more effective method of stopping the casual rush hour perv than an attempt to get of the train, call a station master and try to identify them with all the associated hassle for everybody else and the slim chance of catching them.

Remind me what schools are for