Right back at you Ronny... :-)

Ronny  Patz over at Polscieu has taken issue with my previous post about the gulf between the public and the publically funded as evidenced by the report  on the consultation over new tobacco restrictions being proposed by the European Commision. Here is my ripost.

Whilst it is undoubtedly true that 57% of the private citizen came from a couple of lobbying campaigns, and of that 30,000 came from the Italian tobacconists (got to admire their pluck though, don't you think, wish ours were as pro-active) that doesn't actually negate my point at all.


If you recall that on top of the full contributions there was a further 18,650 signatures on petitions, those signatures, though collected by institutions such as retailers etc count as bona fide citizens? Or do we write off petitions entirely (which would screw up the citizen's initiative for a start).

In addition, the Commission also received 10 petitions from citizens, retailers, traders, wholesalers, gas station owners and trade unions. In total these petitions counted for around 18 650 signatures. Four of the petitions collected more than 1000 signatures each.

If you take out the duplicates spotted by the Commission we are left with the tiny figure of 36,325 individual contributions. Including my own.

Anyhow, taking out all the form and Italian tobacconist responses (though I would suggest that they have a legitimate interest and should be counted in some way) we are left with 3396 organisational responses (Govt, NGO, Industry etc) and 36,325.

So individual citizen responses outnumber official responses by a factor of 1:10.

An interesting comment in the report is the difference between the responses and the Eurobarometer survey with the Commission pointing out that the Eurobarometer survey is far more in line with the Governmental/NGO position than the balance of this report.
To which my rejoinder would be twofold.

1) Well Eurobarometer always tells the Commission what it wants to hear. I recall that the Eurobarometer from the Netherlands informing us a week before the No vote in the Constitution referendum that a significant (65% if I remember rightly) majority of the Dutch were in favour of the Constitution. I have never seen Eurobarometer report that doesn't support the chosen policy prescription of the Commission.. Have you?

2) This suggests that the vast majority of people really don't care either way, but of those that do care, would prefer less legislation.

As far as I can work out talking to people and conducting my own deeply unscientific research on the issue you can split the population into three bands on the smoking issue, vis-a-vis restrictions.

There is a vocal minority that opposes, strongly, bans (about 20% mostly smokers and freedom enthusiasts)

There is a very vocal minority (that have captured the funds and the political class about 5%) who hate smoking and would ban it entirely but in the meantime make do with the sort of stuff proposed by this legislation because they now they would cause revolt.

And then there is the vast majority of generally non smokers who don't particularly like smoking but really don't care, and are happy for people to smoke if they want to. (about 75%)

Going back to your post however, the facts about the survey you highlight are correct, but I don't think change my argument one iota.

The political elite and the publicly funded (Para) -NGO's like ASH and the Smoke Free Partnership, allied with big Pharma who can make a mint out of smoking cessation products are on one side of this argument, and the broad mass of the people are actively opposed to them or at worst indifferent.

Citizen versus NGOs

A very revealing report has been published by the European Commission. In it we see, highlighted the wide divide between the powers that be, the hangers on and the public citizen.

It is an interim report into the latest plans to dehumanise the smoker, or otherwise known as,

Report on the public consultation on the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC)

The question is shall we make the laws against smoking in public more onerous, shall we create more restrictions on tobacco products, shall we make health warnings bigger, shall we point out that smokers eat babies and are often seen strangling fluffy kittens etc etc etc.
Here are a small collection of the responses
From
Governmental Representatives

A significant majority of Member States who submitted contributions to the public consultation were either in favour of extending the scope of the Directive or did not refer to the question in a detailed manner.

or

The majority of Member States were in favour of banning all types of smokeless tobacco products, which was also the position of the two EFTA countries responding to the consultation.

or

While most Member States were in favour of all proposed policy options for improving consumer information, plain packaging proved to be the most controversial. Almost half of respondents supported the introduction of plain packaging alongside the other recommended changes, but several indicated that the solutions to these problems should be more carefully analysed. A small number of Member States were in favour of maintaining the existing regulations, noting a strong reservation against plain packaging.

or

Member States were in favour of establishing a common compulsory reporting format for communicating ingredients information.

or

Almost all Member States supported some form of increased tobacco control across the range of options, though the specific breakdown of options was quite varied. Most Member States supported a ban on internet sales or a ban on vending machines.

Non-Governmental Organisations

Now there are two forms of NGOs in this list, those funded by Governments, and those supporting smokers rights which are not. I shall concentrate on the publicly funded Para Governmental organisations - here called 'Public Health Organisations'

Public health organisations universally supported regulating tobacco and nicotine products, on the grounds of the potential health dangers of these products. Many argued for the strict limitation of novel forms of nicotine delivery systems, whereby these nicotine systems should only be sold as smoking cessation aids, subject to the regulatory framework on pharmaceutical products. They also argued for the inclusion of herbal cigarettes into this framework, citing that the most harm from these products has to do with the combustion and inhalation of smoke, which is identical to cigarette usage.

or

Public health organisations emphatically maintained the ‘high priority’ status of the current ban on snus within the EU. According to these respondents, there is no legitimate reason to introduce a dangerous product onto the market, because it is impossible to predict how snus would be perceived or used in other countries.

or

Arguments were presented to increase the size of the pictorial warnings to 80% of the pack, to regularly rotate warning messages to maintain the ‘freshness’ of each statement, and to include information on the packaging about a 'quit line' to help stop smoking.

Additionally, public health organisations opted for plain packaging on the grounds that branding tactics used today can give the consumer a false sense that one pack may be safer than another.

or,

Almost all respondents pushed for the need to establish a common compulsory reporting format and to introduce fees and sanctions to cover the costs of data collection and analysis work on ingredients.

or

Public health organisations were universally in favour of banning all possible categories in this question. Banning sales of tobacco via the internet was argued to be a logical extension of the ban on cross-border advertising and promotion of tobacco products within the EU.

Banning vending machine access was justified by public health organisations on the grounds that most Member States already have bans or restrictions in place, which have been shown to reduce youth smoking rates. Finally, restricting display and promotion of tobacco products at the point of sale was claimed to be justified because it is or will soon be mandatory in some Member States. Proponents argued that restricting display of tobacco products also helps limit youth smoking and could help deter tobacco purchases by adults.

You get the idea, bans, restrictions, more legislation, harsher controls and so on from both Governments and their paid paramilitaries.

Now lets see what the citizen responses were, could they differ from those that govern them. Could they disagree with those that know so much more than them... Maybe
Citizens

A significant majority of respondents were against extending the scope of the Directive. While many presented that the problem definition was incorrect, vague, or unclear, the group as a whole demanded more scientific inquiry about the relative safety of novel forms of tobacco and other nicotine products. These respondents also argued about the consumer's freedom of choice, so long as they are properly informed with the risks involved, and they criticised the tendency to over-regulate and prohibit products in this area.

or

A vast majority of respondents not only disagreed with the problem definition but were in favour of lifting the ban on snus. With the problem definition, several respondents were concerned that the Commission’s approach was too simplistic and overstated – referring to the complex nature and health effects of a diverse smokeless tobacco products market. Those in favour of lifting the ban on snus argued that scientific evidence showed that smokeless products were much healthier alternatives to tobacco smoking. Several respondents pushed for smokeless tobacco products to be priced cheaper than combustible products, in order to reduce the demand for cigarettes. Others were concerned about their freedom of choice as consumers, with several arguing that those over 18 years old should be free to decide for themselves. Still others felt that the EU already had too many regulations in place to begin creating more.

or

Largely in favour of maintaining the status quo, most respondents suggested that little, if any, scientific evidence exists to show that many of these options are effective ways to reduce smoking rates, or reduce youth uptake. They also argued that the EU did not need to establish more restrictions; smokers were already facing too much regulation to use a product they are legally entitled to consume. Education, they suggest, should not only be limited to the tobacco packaging, but should also be increased in schools and public campaigns. Finally, some respondents were worried that the use of plain packaging not only prevented free competition between manufacturers, but also increased the likelihood of counterfeit products entering the market.

or

Respondents were generally in favour of establishing a common compulsory reporting format, insomuch as the format was based on appropriate scientific criteria, and not based on concepts such as attractiveness. They, like many of the organisations and governments above, argued that the current ingredients reporting situation is fragmented, making it difficult for authorities to compare and analyse ingredients data. Manufacturers and importers, they reasoned, should be subject to the same reporting standards. Other respondents furthered this point by demanding that consumers have a right to know what is inside the products they use....

However, on the whole, not all respondents were in favour of changes to the status quo. Many advocated no restrictions, no further bans, and no changes, resulting in more freedom for tobacco products and their users. Others utilised this section to insert more general commentary on the EU’s role in standardising product regulation.

or

A significant majority of respondents disagreed with the regulation of ingredients at the EU level. The majority of respondents referred to the lack of scientific evidence for such regulation on reducing tobacco consumption or youth uptake. Additionally, they criticised the term 'attractiveness' as a justification for the EU to arbitrarily decide which ingredients will be allowed and which not. The other arguments referred to a consumer's freedom of choice and a generally critical response to the EU's tendency to over-regulate.

or

A significant majority of respondents opposed limiting access to tobacco products. The most commonly discussed issue was the display ban, where citizen arguments were similar to those used by industry representatives. The limitation of the legitimate use of the trademarks and branding displays, the lack of the possibility for customers to be fully informed about the accessibility, the price and characteristic of products and potential increase of the illicit trade were the most often used arguments. Some of the responses referred to the lack of scientific evidence that bans on the point of sale display of tobacco would impact smoking behaviour.This argument also referred to a lack of research regarding both vending machines and internet sales. The significant majority of respondents perceived these restrictions as an excessive intervention in a consumer's right to decide. Rather, these respondents opted for more effective controls, such as age verification, in these channels of tobacco products.

Here we see it writ large. Those with cash and power want increasing control, those without it don't. Those with cash and power want action before evidence, those without want to see evidence before action. Those with power and cash want legislation restrictions and bans, those without complain that there are too many controls already.

Now when the recommendations arrive in a few months, who so we think the EU will listen to?

The tasty tipping point

When things change they change fast, is the message of the famous book by Malcolm Gladwell . He points out that big events are often caused small things.

So I bring to you a small thing that could have the capcity to presage a big event. In this local difficulty we can see the great mchines of France and German y's differing cultures, and the problems that always occur when law and systems are homogenised,

French Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire has threatened to boycott this year's Anuga trade show after a decision to stop foie gras producers from exhibiting at the event.


The move has angered French producers and Le Maire has written to his German counterpart Ilse Aigner and said he may not attend the show's opening ceremony in Cologne in October.

"Products that respect current EU legislation should all have access," Le Maire said. Most retail foie gras sales occur towards the end of the year, making Anuga the last opportunity to secure business. In China, foie gras sales are soaring and French producer Delpeyrat has already set up a production unit in the country.

Foie gras was not re-entered in the catalogue listings for Anuga 2011 after animal welfare groups caused security issues at the last event in 2009.

"We had some problems in 2009 and we have been talking to French producers for years about excluding it from Anuga," a spokesperson for the event told just-food. "We didn't expect diplomatic reactions."

France is the largest producer of foie gras and has responded the most vigorously to the ban, although the ruling applies equally to Belgian, Spanish, Bulgarian and Hungarian producers.

The German minister is not expected to overturn the show's decision. The presence of foie gras had already been a contentious issue among exhibitors, the Anuga spokesperson added.

Getting between a Frenchman and his foodstuffs is always a very dangerous game.

Did Ed fib about his love of Boycott?

Last year Ed made some interesting claims about his love of Geoff Boycott, describing the irascible old Yorkshireman as having the 'Charisma of Imperfection'.

But looking at the claims I fear the imperfection must be in the memory of Ed. It looks to me as if the chap was having his Bahamas moment,

in conversation with Des O'Connor in 1996 that Tony Blair told a yarn about running away from school and smuggling himself aboard a flight to the Bahamas at Newcastle Airport - an anecdote subsequently greeted with blank amazement by Mr Blair's father and the authorities at Newcastle Airport, which has never had a direct flight to the Bahamas.

Ed claims to have seen Boycott's 100th century, which was scored at Headingly in August 1977 in an interview with James Forsyth in the Spectator

Given that Ed was 7 ½ at the time I wonder who took him? After all he was a primary schoolboy at the time. I just cannot see his father, the old Polish, Marxist, emigre intellectual trekking up the M1 on the demands of the youthful Ed to watch a day's cricket in Leeds. It just stretches the envelope of believability. His second claim is equally dubious. He can claim that he "bunked off school" to see Boycott at Lords as that test was on the 2-7 of July in 1981. But, but, you see when Forsyth reprised the tale in a later article he added details, no doubt referring back to his recording of the interview,

"he celebrated the end of his GCSEs by going to watch Boycott’s final first-class innings at Lord’s."

Well it was certainly Boycott's final Test match at Lords but he was playing first class cricket there until 1986, but we can forgive the adoring fan Ed that mistake, but...

I know that Ed was a bright boy, but was he really celebrating his GCSE's when he was 11 ½? In his second term at Haverlock Comprehensive? No.

The whole 'I love cricket and Boycott' schtik stinks from start to finish, capped off by his rejection of an invitation to Test Match Special recently. I think that he has been inventing his past. Boycott is still very popular in his old fastness of South Yorkshire. And Milliband desperately needs working class credibility in Doncaster.

Update

As pointed out by Jim in the comments and as I recognised here last night I suspect I might be entirely unfair about this. Damn that I don't have a Wisden.

My bad

A European Patriotism

John Bruton is a prime example of the European Elite. As a former Taoiseach and EU Ambasador to Washington he encapsulates the European capture of the national political classes.

As Brussels dithered last week he spoke to the Google Global Leaders forum in Dublin.

In it he talked about the crisis as he and the elite see it, a problem of the way in which people, even politicians think,

How to solve this problem? How indeed? By the creation of something new,

The European Union will only survive the dramatic changes that the twenty first century will bring if the citizens of all EU states develop a common sense of European patriotism, alongside their national patriotisms.

Oh really and how will that happen?

European patriotism, like national patriotism, is not something that will arise spontaneously. It has to be fostered by the use of symbols, and appeals to people’s emotions, by political leaders who make a conscious decision to do so.

National patriotism doesn't arise spontaneously? No I suppose over the passage of centuries they have been built and created, but so slowly and so incrementally as to have the appearence of spontaneity. What the EU is trying to do is create a patriotism at warp drive. Which of course will have the opposite effect than that which they desire.

His prescription of a directly elected European President is just not going to work. Because no public figure (baring the odd pop star) has public recognition across the EU.

As Jody Corcoran has said in the Sunday Independent (IRE) about the background to this speech,

Motivated by a combination of immediate greed and a desire to maintain a form of social cohesion, the risk is that these forces will fail to see the bigger picture: that Ireland, like Greece, will end up a vassal state.

Add to that the influence being brought to bear by the grandees of Fine Gael, such as John Bruton, Peter Sutherland, even Pat Cox, the man most recently described as an "ultra-europhile".

Many prominent Europeans have privately welcomed the eurozone catastrophe, labelling it a "beneficial crisis": never waste a good recession, they say.

So the omens are not good.

The issue is relatively simple, though: on that red-eye to Beijing, how will you want your great grandchildren to reply: "I am from Europe" or "I am from Ireland"?

Greece was finally forced to surrender last week; others may quickly follow. The choice is clear: nothing less than the sovereignty of the State is now at stake.

Orwelian Titles in Local Government

Meet Jane Beck,

Happy little bunny isn't she? She earns over £50,000 as an official at Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Her title is magnificent.

There she is, Director of Well-Being Services

All rather cuddly don't you think. Must involve apple pies and kittens in baskets. Well, errr.. no.

Housing Needs

Benefits, Cust. Services & Bereav'ment
Revenues & Debt Management
Private Sector H'sing
Construction Services

Not a puppy to be seen.

Get real Yarmouth

If Sir Paul Stephenson is referring to Llewellyn, then Ed is toast

In the hearing just now Sir Paul Stevenson has said that a "Senior official" at Number 10 advised not telling Cameron about Neil Wallis's job with the Met.

If that senior official is Ed Llewellyn then his career is over.

Who's next? Ed Llewellyn?

Hacking, hackery wholesale stuff. But as I ask. Who's next?

We know who the bodies in the Press are, Coulson, Brooks Wallis (and sadly Hoare).

We know who the bodies in the Police are Stephenson and Yates (and now we see that the Met's PR chap  Dick Fedorcio is being investigated by the IPCC).

So the question still remains, which political body will be thrown off Cameron's husky driven sledge to satisfy the wolves. My guess is Ed Llewellyn, the Downing Street Chief of Staff.

The point is that the Coulson scalp was too long ago and he is now seen as much as NOTW as politics.

The pack want another victim and Llewellyn looks to ne to be it. Cameron is burning the midnight Carbon credits winging his way back to Blighty. And he needs to be at the very top of his game tomorrow. But even if he is the altar needs feeling. Now look at this piece by Allegra Stratton a few days ago,

The prime minister admitted that despite the information being passed from one of his closest aides, Steve Hilton, to his chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, Llewellyn took the judgment that the information was already substantially contained in news reports in the public domain.

However, in a fresh statement, the Guardian reveals that Llewellyn was informed by the paper on a second occasion about Coulson's connections to Jonathan Rees, a private detective then facing charges for conspiracy to murder, and previously jailed for conspiracy to plant cocaine on an innocent woman.

Or this,

The prime minister has suggested that the Guardian did not raise any concerns about Coulson after deputy editor Ian Katz's conversation with No 10 director of strategy Steve Hilton in February 2010.

In fact Katz met No 10 chief of staff Ed Llewellyn at the Conservative Party conference on 4 October 2010 and had a further conversation about Coulson's involvement with hacking, as part of a wider conversation of the political scene. In particular they discussed the Rees case, details of which had still not been published because he was still awaiting trial for murder.

Alan Rusbridger said: "The prime minister's account of why he failed to act on the information we passed his office in February 2010 is highly misleading. Any ordinary person hearing of the unpublishable facts about a convicted News of the World private investigator facing conspiracy to murder charges would have recognised the need to investigate the claims."

Now with Coulson gone Cameron needs Hilton, so the polished Ed tenure looks distinctly shakey. As Guido put it,

Ed didn’t pass on the warning to Cameron. Hilton says he is at fault for not doing so. Ed counters that if Hilton thought it so important, why didn’t he tell Dave himself? The image of the PM employing people who employ people who associate with axe murderers is not a good one…

And if he goes then this could have interesting repercussions as to policy outside the Hacking firefight. Hilton is being trailed as a leading Eurosceptic at Cameron's top table.

Downing Street director of strategy Steve Hilton is said to have swung behind moves for the UK to go it alone after being shocked to discover how much sovereignty has switched from Westminster to Brussels.

But this position has always been opposed by, why of course Ed Llewellyn

His stance is strongly opposed by Mr Cameron’s pro-EU chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, who worked for former Tory EU Commissioner Chris Patten and passionate pro-European Liberal Democrat Paddy Ashdown.

Now personally I don't believe that Hilton is Eurosceptic at all, or not in any serious way. These stories about him are to me an obvious attempt to head of discontent in the Tory Party with Cameron's drift onto the shoals of the European Union.

But if Llewellyn goes then it all comes in stark relief.

EU hiring of Pat Cox gets severe reprimand

The European Ombusdman, the funereal Greek Nikiforos Diamandouros has issued a surprisingly strongly worded slap down to the European Commission for hiring Uber Euro Elite charmer Pat Cox. He said that he said that the,

The commission's overall approach does not abide by the increasingly high standards which the citizens expect from the EU institutions

This was all to do with the former President of the Europrean Parliament's apointment as a special advisor to one of the Commissioners whilst also working for APCO, Microsoft and Pfizer. Naughty, naughty Commission.

And frankly the Ombudsman's comments could serve across the board.

Justify yourself Denmark!

So says the European Commission and European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström, in particular. They have been to Denmark and have decided that the new rules governing its borders,

"In a first assessment the experts reported that they were unable to get sufficient justifications from the Danish side for the intensification of the controls at the internal borders."

I am not sure about you but the justification should be, it is what the people of Denmark want. What the Commission is proposing is to beef up its own monitoring of teh beefed up Danish border controls. But they are displaying some straw man arguements while they are at it.

There are persistent concerns about the compatibility of Denmark's strengthened internal control measures with the freedoms provided under the EU Treaty including the Schengen acquis. It is incumbent on Denmark to demonstrate factually that the gravity of the situation justifies putting in place controls which might affect the exercise of free movement of goods, services and persons at the internal borders with Germany and Sweden.

You see though the new Danish controls are indeed there to crack down on mass migration, they have nothing whatsoever with the free movement of goods and services. Everybody is pretty happy about that not least the Danes, but by suggesting that they are holding up goods and services rather than merely people the EU is trying to demonise the Danes into backtracking on what is clearly a popular policy.

StonyStandoff gets funnier

The whole carry on at Stony Stratford viz Councillor Bartlet's attempted smoking ban now gets preposterous.

he is trying to have tomorrow's meeting postponed to September out of his fears that his opponenets (that means us) are not ready for the debate. According to the MK News,

Councillor Paul Bartlett was planning to postpone his motion as he believes his opponents' arguments are 'flimsy' and they need more time to prepare.

Stony Stratford Town Council has now confirmed the discussion will not take place at tomorrow night's meeting, and has been moved to September 20.

That'll be the reason Councillor Bartlett. But don't act all shy, don't be nice, if we are unprepared, wghy not strike home your advantage?

Or are you having a fit of the wobbles knowing as surely you must now know that your proposals are deeply unpopular with both the residents of Stony and its buisness community?

Given the wild range of extremely iffy claims you have made,

Stony Stratford Town Council does not condone smoking and the health risks associated with it. This Council seeks to reduce the amount of litter in our streets and to protect our historic town from germs, general nuisance and the possibility of young people in particular being burnt by cigarettes.
Stony Stratford Town Council wishes to encourage all businesses in the town and, in doing so, to recognize the leading role they and residents can play in preventing the spread of disease, injury, litter, smoke, illnesses such as asthma, lung cancer and the narrowing of arteries, heart disease and its unpleasant other side effects and including the impact discarded cigarettes have on residents of Market Sq and High St in particular and children who have to put up with this 24hrs a day.

I suspect that it is not us who are unprepared.

Un Grande Ecole dit non au Financial Transaction Tax

I think that the proposed Tobin/Finacial Transaction Tax is a daft idea. My reasons are those of my gut, not pretending to be an economist. I think that it is anti-democratic in its construction, as it will allow the European Elite to set tax rates without any effective democratic oversight. It is also another tax that will hit consumers as the costs will be inevitably passed onto them in increased bank charges. And it isn't as if we are not Taxed Enough Already.

So it was gratifying to read this morning that others with bigger and pointier heads than I have come against the whole idea.

The École De Hautes Études Commerciales du Nord, or EDHEC as it is known, or more precisely the Risk Institute based there is one of the great Grande Ecoles of France. And it is pretty clear in what it thinks about the FTT. In a letter to the Commission they have put it thusly,

The findings of theoretical models are mixed about the effectiveness of the Tobin tax to reduce volatility and improve welfare. The Tobin tax will obviously lead to a reduction in the trading of securities on which the tax is imposed. But, a reduction in the trading of financial securities also means that it is now more difficult to smooth consumption over time and across states of nature. The Tobin tax reduces speculative activity in financial markets; but, this tax also drives away investors who provide liquidity, stabilise prices, and help in the price discovery process.

So according to EDHEC it fails even under its own light.

The market works by increasing information, the FTT would reduce information, leading to worse and more ill-informed decisions.

If Somaliland is an "Island of Stability" why don't we recognise it?

The Foreign Secretary has been bimbling around the Horn of Africa, mainly to turn up at the jamboree that was the Independence day celebrations of Southern Sudan. He also says here that he met the President of Somaliland, Ahmed Mohammed Mohamoud.

As he says it is one of the "Islands of stability and order" in the area. So why on earth is he celebrating the Independence of Southern Sudan, which does not fulfil;l; the criteria set by the African Union for sovereign state status (the pre colonial borders) and failing to do so for Somaliland?

Britain should take the lead, if we accept, as we do the remarkable and peaceful existence of Somaliland over the past 20 years, why on earth do we not go the extra mile to support their accession to the Commonwealth. After all as a former British protectorate they have more right to be there than Mozambique or Rwanda?

What would Junius say?

Brendan O'Neill of Spiked has used his Telegraph blog to give a spirited defence of media freedom whilst all around people scream for its curtailing.

Yesterday, effectively at the invitation of the Guardian and other campaigners against the Murdoch empire, MPs butted back in, once more making it the business of the state to discuss and determine what kind of ethics and morality the press should adhere to.

As he points out these moves so enthusiastically cheerled by the boy Dave would cause a heart failure in figures as diverse as Milton,

 Far from controlling what the press is allowed to say, and how it may say it, Parliament should have more faith in the ability of truth to survive in the rowdy arena of unfettered public debate, said Milton. “Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

And having just had the good fortune to pick up an 1804 edition of the collected letters of Junius who is pretty strong on the subject,

"Let it be impressed upon your minds, let it be instilled in your children, that the liberty of the press is the palladium of all the civil, political and religious  rights of an Englishman...

Can I have some of what he is drinking?

Today we have had confirmed that the Lincolnshire blast which killed 5 was indeed a illegal booze factory going off. We are lead to believe that the factory was being run by Poles.

In the light of that I wonder if Jerzy Buzek has been testing their wares after his comments in Ireland this week.

"Ireland's success has been an inspiration to the countries which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007," EP President Jerzy Buzek said Tuesday in a speech to the Seanad Éireann, the upper house of the Irish Parliament.

Eh? Hasn't he read the news recently.

"Poland and Ireland share a similar history - of occupation, of immigration, of poverty, of striving for freedom and...of transformation, of economic success and of shared European aspirations."

The key lesson from Ireland for Poland must surely be...

Take the money, don't join the Euro.

Yes Partisan looks for Motes.

What is the group noun for Straw men? A Dolly? What ever it is Jon Worth has paraded quite a collection of those harvest mementoes in his rejection of the idea of a In/Out referendum as a distraction.


First he claims that interest in Britain for such a vote is doubtful. I would wager that he is wrong. No it is not as high on the list of priorities as some other areas of public debate, but there is no doubt that if it were proposed the public would involve themselves in the debate with more interest, knowledge and passion than they have for any of the recent referenda, both National and regional.

To claim there is little focus on

'Shaping the EU in Britain's interests'

If he thought about it he would have to admit that that is precisely what the last few Governments have been trying to do. For decades. To no avail. There is a general rule in life that if at 9th you don't succeed, try another tack.

Yet he insists that we must concentrate our efforts in restating the 'in the heart of Europe' game set and Match, battling for Britain's interests, cast iron guarantee, I have saved the pound sort of nonsense that has typified the British political debate on the European Union over the years.

It.
Doesn't.
Work.

He claims,

"At any other level of politics – local, regional, national, and even international through the United Nations or North Atlantic Treaty Organisation – we do not argue about the existence of these political systems."

Which is false.

At a local level we have referenda to determine whether there should be elected executive Mayors. (as was recently the case in Leicester) or the various referenda at a regional level (such as greater powers to the Welsh Assembly), or how we elect our MP's (The AV referenda) All these examples are from this May. So to extrapolate from that to a vote on our relationship to the European Union would be a natural step now that we use the device of referenda to settle constitutional questions. That none under the age of 54 have had a chance to speak on the subject makes the argument compelling. That all the big three parties all supported a referenda on EU matters in their last suggests that referenda are now considered part of the toolkit of that relationship.

At the very least if the Government was serious about changing the way the EU works in the way that Jon suggests, he must admit that having a referendum in your back pocket would concentrate the minds of the Prime Minister's EU colleagues. After all they never blink when they play hard ball at EU Summits, so why shouldn't we?

Next, the claim that us Eurorealists are simplistic is risible. I know nobody in the movement who thinks that leaving the EU would be easy. It would be preferable, but not easy. We do not believe that our problems would be solved by withdrawal, but we do believe that it would be morally and democratically correct to be the masters of our own course.

The ship of state will always be hit by squalls and by tides. It will rise high, and sink low as conditions dictate, and when the storms hit, then it will be buffeted. But having a hand on the wheel allows the captain to set a course that suits it, rather than be corralled into a convoy that continues to sail into the worst of all weather. Our problems would be our problems, our responsibilities our responsibilities and our successes our own successes.

The economic crisis is a case in point, but is illustrative of a far bigger whole rather than the entire argument. Greece, Italy, the bailouts are today's problems, but the underlying issues of the collapse of democratic accountability brought about through our membership of the EU and are perennial.

A referendum on the EU would clear the air around this issue. It would not settle it once and for all as times change, but for a generation.

For him to claim that any referendum would not be worth having because of the standard of debate should take a look across the channel and see how the referenda were carried out on the European constitution in France and the Netherlands. Both were remarkable for the sanity of their debates, and for the information provided by both sides to each and every elector. (Barring of course claims by a European Commissioner that a 'No' vote would lead us back to the gas Chambers, and our own Dennis MacShane calling 'No' voters bastards or worse (Con) in France.

Of course Jon disapproves of populism as his position is not popular. Of course he doesn't want there to be a referendum, as a former President of the European Young Federalists he would be afeared of the result.

Who are the 4% of Tories

Staggering figures from Angus Reid today about our relationship with the EU.

The headlines must be that only 25% would vote to stay as opposed to 49% who would vote to leave, a 2:1 dfference.

That and the numbers for whether people think that the EU is a good thing or bad thing, a 5/% bad to 32% good.

Every social class shares this position. Partisans ofd all political parties, including the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid.

But what I want to know is who are the 4% of Tory supporters who want us to join the Euro.... Now?

The Boundless arrogance of Brussels.

Fraser Nelson has got his bit in on the Coffee House, but here is my Tuppen'th.

It is the way they tell'em that cracks us up. If you were going to offer a massive great bribe then you have to ask how you would do it. This of course is a thought experiment, I wouldn't expect anybody to even contemplate such a thing in reality. Anyhow, how would you do it.
Would you quietly make the proposal hugger mugger, or maybe ask for somebody else to do it for you, a go-between, somebody that you both trust?
Or would you set you terms for the bribe in an incoherent couple of hundred words in a national Sunday Newspaper?
That the EU Commission President Barroso in offering David Cameron a 25 billion Euro bribe in this week's Sunday Times tells a number of stories.
The first is to shine a bright light on the arrogance of the European Union elite. The feeling that in some he would bounce the UK into accepting a significant increase in the EU budget. To do this he would appeal over the heads of the UK politicians directly to the public - no doubt bizarrely thinking that the British public are;

a) More pro European than their politicians

or

b) More stupid than their politicians.
Sadly for Mr Barroso he and his advisor are transparently out of touch and disconnected with the British public who are

a) Significantly more Eurosceptic.

and

b) Not as stupid as their politicians.

He must have calculated that the public would rise up against the Government and demand the cash on offer. The point is of course that he is trying to bribe us with our own money. After all where does he think it is going to come from except the taxpayer. We are not that daft.

He also tried to sugar the pill by suggesting that the money would become available to the UK just before the next slated general election, allowing Cameron to go on a vote winning spending spree. So far the Treasury have rejected the offer, as Barroso always knew they would. But that great pile of cash will look increasingly tempting as the austerity measures start to bite and as public sector workers continue to strike.

Barroso thinks the taxpayers are thick

Well it is the only thing I can work out from this statement made in the European Parliament today,

"Money spent by Europe allows governments to reduce spending at home"

Lokk Manuel, it doesn't matter who spends it. It is our money you are spending. Either my Government taxes me, or your government taxes me. Whichever it is I am out of pocket and a collection of people who think they know better than me spend my money.

Now I prefer, if this has to happen at all for the money to be collected by a bunch of people that I, and those I consent to be governed with have the opportunity of getting rid of through that bizzare innovation, an election.

You, and your dread grey cohorts are immutable, immovable and impervious to the wishes of the people. So you and you wizard wheezes can go hang.

Get this into your thick Iberian head.

It

Is

Not

Your

Money

The Modern Church - Hate the sinner, hate the sin

There is this curate see, no doubt a thoroughly nice chap, but as a fisher of men rather occluded. You see he thinks that anybody who dares question the faith of the Climate Change Lobby is beyond the pale. And in a country which voted rather significantly against the left he has no interest in millions of souls, or at best contempt for them. It is also apparent that according to him one has to hate the sin and the sinner. I would guess that this is a novel doctrine, but there you have it.

The reason why I am aware of this curate is that he tweeted this,

Blog: Paranoid and moronic email from @Nigel_Farage. /cc @christian_aid #ukip #climate

and being the sort of anal chap I am I had had a look for recent #UKIP tweets. Thus I bothered to read his post. Delightful it was

Now, the evidence for climate change is – as anyone who’s not a lunatic right-winger knows – overwhelming. Sadly, Mr Farage falls into the exception category. (No surprise given that UKIP is the blurry area that merges the Tories and the BNP on the right of British politics).

Below is a copy of the paranoid and moronic response I received from Mr Farage so all the world can see the lunacy that UKIP espouse.

You can go and read the response if you want on the above link. Not the words I would have used but there you have it.

I replied to his tweet,

@riggwelter good to see your form of faith allows you to dismiss as lunatics those who disagree with you. Nice tolerant sort I see

 and must have struck some sort of a nerve as he responded rather excitedly. In moments he had replied. Not  once,

@GawainTowler The veracity of #climate science is hardly a matter of faith but of cold hard facts sir +++

Not twice,

@GawainTowler +++ and I said that Mr Farage's email was moronic and paranoid, I specifically did not call him names. Unlike you.

But

@GawainTowler If you parse the post correctly, you'll note that UKIP-style right-wing politics are described as lunatic, not any person.

@GawainTowler It's also clear that UKIP don't like light being shined on their true nature else attack dogs aren't unleashed on constituents

Seems #UKIP dislike light being shined on their true nature so much, they've unleashed the attack dogs on lil ol' me.

Yup five times. I particularly delight in that trite, "lil ol' me" and the sanctimonious use of the cross. But of course that is balderdash. Oh yes and the absolute certainty without the space for doubt about science and its veracity. Again interesting for a man of faith.

Of course, it was Friday night and I was moved to respond to this near confessional,

@riggwelter wow, seem to have touched a nerve. Never saw myself as an attack dog, more a spaniel, Clumber by choice

When called on his rather unchristian attitude his defence was as far as I can see denial. Denial that he had called the boss lunatic, or that his actions were paranoid or moronic. Dunno what you think but he thought this,

@GawainTowler Just strikes me that personal attacks and insults on constituents are an interesting way to do politics is all.

Not sure I had launched a personal attack, or an insult, merely suggested that his tone was somewhat intolerant.

@riggwelter just strikes me that adjectives such as paranoid, lunatic and moronic are fairly ripe for a man of the cloth

Not sure why I bothered with this post, but I felt that the way in which this man was so certain of his own truths that he was willing to degrade and insult those who do not share his views was symptomatic of a malaise that faces both the country at large and the Church in particular. His transparent contempt for a majority of the country rather sits ill with his vocation. Or so it seems to me, but I am only a layman.

He tells us that he is interested in,

 in using both inherited and new forms of church creatively to help the church to live as missional communities and is passionate about helping release people into ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Lord alone knows what that means by this, but I think it is meant to suggests that he respects those of different traditions. But actions speak stronger don't you think?

The Green Inquistion

The sight of Januz Lewandowski crumbling in the face of Green pressure is sad. Bruno picks up the tale,

In an interview with the Novy Przemysl magazine, Mr Lewandowski argued the EU's policy of increasing greenhouse gas reduction targets would be a "disaster" for Poland, which is still rebuilding its economy from the backwardness of the Soviet era.

"There is a view breaking through that the theory of coal-generated power as the main culprit of global warming is seriously in doubt," he said.

Brave man in the current climate, too brave it turned out,

Green campaign groups and an alliance of MEPs described the commissioner's comments as "terrifying" because, it was claimed he was seeking to "deny the overwhelming evidence of climate change".


"The commissioner should fully explain himself," Joris den Blanken a Greenpeace spokesman told the EurActiv website. "If not, the consequences for his role in the European Commission should be considered."

Following a week of increasingly shrill calls from the European Parliament and NGOs for him to recant his views or face disciplinary sanctions, Mr Lewandowski made a humiliating climb down.

"In order to clarify misunderstandings," he said in a statement. "I acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific studies confirm the phenomenon of global warming."

UKIP's very own Godfrey Bloom has piled into the fray,

The sight of Commissioner Lewandowski being forced to recant in the face of the strident Greens looks like nothing other than the Inquisition. With the High priests of Greenery acting as so many Torquemada's.
It is not that I often that I agree with the Commissioner, but he absolutely right, and right to speak out. To see him crawling in apology to these people is a sad day for the freedom of speech. For these people to link him to the holocaust and him a Pole is outrageous.

In 1616 a committee of advisors to the Holy Inquisition attacked Galileo and declared that holding the view that the Sun is the centre of the universe or the earth moves is absurd and formally heretical. Today holding that Anthropomorphic Climate Change is anything more that a desire on the part of heavily subsidised pressure groups and government to tax and control our lives is the same.

In 1992 the Catholic Church finally admitted that Galileo was right.

Year on year on year on year

It's give a bunch of subsidy whores a job week. Or more to the point it's what shall we designate next year, because this year is ‘Year of Volunteering’ so next year is,
‘Year of Inter-generational Solidarity’

The Parliament thinks this is a very good thing of course and has commisioned a opinion poll on it. Just as they did for the Year of Volunteering which told us an awful lot,

Before analysing the responses from Europeans, it is necessary to emphasise some important points which can be drawn from this survey.


Ø It is very difficult to reach general conclusions because of the different status of the voluntary sector in different Member States.

Ø In the absence of Eurostat or other general statistics, the number of Europeans undertaking voluntary work cannot be quantified with any certainty.

Ø The contribution of the voluntary sector to the GDP of the EU and its Member States is very difficult to estimate. No EU-wide statistics are available. National data are only available in a few countries.

The point is that this will be of interest to a vanishingly small number of people most of whom work in publically subsidised pressure groups.

Those pressure groups shoul d be interested at the National Union of Teachers approach to active aging though. This is what grey lobbyists say,

Why a European Year for Active Ageing and Intergenerational Solidarity in 2012?


2012 will be the 10th Anniversary of the United Nations Action Plan on Ageing. In response to the demographic challenge all EU member states are facing the EY2012 will seek to:

1) Promote active ageing in employment

This is what NUT activists say.

“If I am in hospital I don’t want to be treated by a 67-year-old nurse, people can’t carry on in their jobs at that age.”

Solidarity Mr Warner, solidarity...

A plea for (Greek) clemency

The meme is that the Greeks are a feckless lot. Sitting around, lathered in phantom olive oil and glugging back pints of retsina whilst working one hour in 15 and collecting a vast gold plated pension from the state.

Here is a classic example of the type,

Retirement packages are guaranteed and generous.
About one in every four working people is believed to work for the state in one form or another. No-one is quite sure about the exact figure.
Yet the Greek public sector ranks as one of the world's most inefficient.
Pay is generous in some departments.
As one Greek businessman pointed out - a cleaner at the Ministry of Finance earns as much as a manager in other ministries.
Greece's brightest young graduates all want to work for the civil service.

However a Greek friend who wishes to remain anon sent me this, a call for comprehension and understanding if not support,

It reflects my own experience earlier this year when I was in Istanbul. I met a Greek academic who told me that he preferred to be working in a private University in Istanbul on a contract, rather than his previous tenured position in a Greek state university. It reflects also the fact that you used to be able to opinion-poll Greek mothers who would overwhelmingly respond to the question 'what future do you want for your child?' with 'a permanent position in the public sector'.

The Greek experience has similarities to both the Portuguese and also the Spanish experience ... especially the Gonzales Spain. What we saw in these countries was a vast post-dictatorship expansion of the public sector / welfare state so that those marginalised by the dictators could also benefit.

But Portugal had a relatively efficient public administration and trade (legacies of its being a colonial power) and Spain - in addition to Portugal - had some industrial weight. Greece had neither. In fact, because Greek industrialists knew that the government was sensitive on unemployment, they would just abandon unprofitable enterprises (having sold off anything valuable), in the safe knowledge that the state would come in and take them over to prevent job losses. So between 1974 and 1989 Greece ended up with a vast amount of unprofitable, inefficient, industrial units on its hands - "the problematics" as they were known then - which few people knew what to do with, and even fewer dared suggest that they should be closed down.

We need to be careful not to attach too much importance to particular individuals or social theories. The Greek disease goes much beyond Andreas Papandreou or socialism. Greece's experience of the 20th Century was an involvement in WWI which almost led to civil war, defeat in Asia Minor in the early 20s which led to massive population shifts and dictatorship, through to the depression of the 30s, and another dictatorship, WWII, occupation and mass starvation, post WWII civil war and finally yet another dictatorship which ended with military defeat in Cyprus in 1974. Mass emigration throughout this period was a drain on society and on families.

That's pretty much 60 straight years of suffering for the ordinary people. Little wonder that the safety net of a feather-bedded public sector is attractive to Greeks.

And before that of course the centuries of Ottoman rule and dhimmitude.