This is just bizarre.
One of the more curious recipients of European Union farm susbidies are Danish prisons. Seven prisons receive farm subsidies from EU for running the grassland and farms in and around prison lands.
This just goes to show how subsidies which are designed for one purpose, end up becoming distorted beyond recognition.
They will just keep on flogging that dead horse, the constitution.
Work on the EU constitution is to begin again in an informal manner when a "wise" group of politicians and officials from across Europe meet this weekend to see if they can come up with solutions to pull Europe out of its institutional impasse.
Ok, so wise politician is a difficult concept, but just imagine you were asked to come up with a list of such people.
The group also includes British ex-commissioner Chris Patten, former French foreign minister Michel Barnier, ex-German justice minister Otto Schily, former prime ministers Paavo Lipponen and Wim Kok of Finland and the Netherlands.What do all these people have in common? The are all wild eyed federasts, the very antithesis of Wise. Chris Patten deciding on the future of Europe? Why am I not convinced. Just give it up, it'll save you the hassle of being voted down again.
The idea that an organisation that murders innocent people for political gain is called a terrorist organisation, should be fairly uncontroversial. Not everyone thinks so.
EU courts in Luxembourg could in Spring 2007 restart hearings on whether Brussels was wrong to brand the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) as terrorists
Which bit of Suicide Bomber don't these people understand?
Greece is currently unable to meet its targets for budget deficit, that Maastrict require of it. So what does one do? Well fiddle obviously:
Greece will revise upward its gross domestic product for the past six years by as much as 25 percent a quarter by including parts of its underground economy.
The fact that a government's ability to service its debt is not helped by unregistered economic activity is regarded as irrelevant. However, as the EU can't even sign off its own accounts, I guess they can't complain.
If any of my fellow Eurosceptic Bloggers are interested, I have set up a mailing list for likeminded souls. The idea is that we can share ideas and stories, and maybe coordinate some actions. If you are interested, apply here.
For decades, European fishing fleets have been subsidised to the hilt, enabling them to destroy the entire marine ecosystem. The Common Fisheries Policy is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons.
So, if we want the stocks of fish to be replenished, we just stop the subsidies and find a way to allocate ownership right? Not according to these chaps.
The conservation group WWF is calling on European consumers to think twice before they eat fish.
So now we consumers are to blame for the stupid and wasteful way in which the fishing industry is managed and we are to be punished for it, by not being allowed to eat fish.
Now I am sure that you, like me, were under the impression that efforts were under way to decrease the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy, am spend the money on other priorities. You would be wrong.
The European Commission has released new figures showing that Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) spending jumped to a record €48.5 billion in 2005, up 11.2% over the previous year. By contrast, non-agricultural expenditure fell very slightly in 2005 to €56.3 billion.
So we continue to be screwed, at record levels, for something that is unneccesary, damages the environment and makes poverty worse in the third world.
As expected, our veto on home affairs and justice issues was not given away. No bets on whether that state of affairs will be permanent.
We downtrodden Serfs, are watching with trepidation as members of her majesty’s Government are meeting with their counterparts in Brussels. It is being reported that our government, will be asked to give up veto power over issues of justice. If this were to happen, it would be nothing short of a disaster for the United Kingdom and those ordinary honest folk who comprise the majority of her population.
So before you consider even discussing the matter, please bear these points in mind:
Although we have little confidence in our justice system since your side took control, we have even less confidence in the wisdom of EU committees. So for all our sakes, and in the hope that David Davis will have the power to actually solve the problems in the home office, once we get you lot out, please do not say yes
The papers are all claiming that hard man John Reid is really a complete pussy. He wants to give up our veto on justice matters.
BRITAIN is ready to surrender its veto over European Union decisions on
police and judicial matters in a dramatic policy change.
Will he or won't he?
This is how it normally goes:
Look for robust language tomorrow and a treachery at a later date.
There is a website out there, that is doing a great public service and I wanted to bring it to your attention. Its called Farm Subsidies and it aims to inform the public of where their money is going to with respect to the Common Agricultural Policy. Please do go and have a look.
After months of looking nice and saying not to much, David Cameron has actually said something very sensible about the EU:
"Our key commitment is to get back for Britain our opt out from the social
chapter," he responds. "It is through the social chapter that so much of this
legislation is coming. It is all very well Blair going on in the European
parliament about the failure of the European social model. He signed up to it."
Thanks to James Cleverly for the link.
By Guest Writer, Denis Cooper of the Campaign for an Independent Britain.
One of the great mysteries of our age is how Gordon Brown can spend so much more on the health service, yet to all appearances with so little benefit to patients. With budget deficits and the closure of wards and even whole hospitals, one might think that the economy had plunged into a deep recession and austerity measures had become the necessary order of the day.
As always there are multiple factors at work, but the one which has received minimal media attention - the classic "elephant in the room" which politicians of all parties prefer to ignore - is the effect of the European Working Time Directive.
It is not as if the government failed to see this coming. For example in early 2003 a Department of Health document, "Keeping the NHS Local - A New Direction of Travel" included an entire section entitled: "Why services may need to change – European Working Time Directive".
It was pointed out that
"While the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) already applies to the majority of NHS staff it will soon apply to doctors in training as well";
that
"The requirements of the EWTD for continuous rest periods, and the ruling of the European Court of Justice that time spent resident on call counts as working time, (the SiMAP judgement), mean that it will impact most strongly on services which require 24 hour cover. Currently much of this cover is provided by doctors in training. If working patterns stay the same, compliance with EWTD would imply a sharp rise in the number of doctors needed to run a 24 hour service. This would present real problems for many smaller hospitals with limited staff in individual specialties.";and that
"Solutions initially proposed for achieving compliance with the EWTD – relying on massive increases in the medical workforce, or major reductions in the locations where 24 hour services are provided – were unrealistic."In summary,
"This makes the EWTD a powerful force driving the NHS to look at how services are provided".The government knew that perfectly well then, years ago; and yet the general public are still unaware that this is a major reason - perhaps the main reason - why, despite paying higher taxes to improve the health service, they now find that their local hospitals are under threat. Only now is this story beginning to find its way into the MSM.
From The Observer
From The Guardian
Of course nobody wants doctors treated unfairly, or worked to such a frazzle that they are unfit to look after their patients. But who is better placed to assess how our hospital system can be run efficiently and economically? The doctors and administrators who are supposed to be running it, or the bureaucrats in Brussels and the lawyers at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg?
Of course you can interpret it some other way, but thats my understanding of this.
A Polish Lawyer, runs her eye over the contrasting situation of Lobbyists in Warsaw and Brussels:
However, if I were a lobbyist and could choose whether to work in Poland or at the EU, I would already be on a plane to Brussels.
The reason?
The EU's take on lobbyists is essentially a gentleman's agreement on good conduct. It appears to assume that all players will abide by the rules, but requires some reporting for transparency and honesty's sake.
So the role of the world's sleaziest profession, is self regulating in the EU. Nice to know isn't it.
One of the reasons that Turkey fails to convince the EU at its members' citizens that it should be able to join, is the really bad arguments of many of its supporters. This is a classic.
Turkey’s full membership to the EU is supported by all the Muslim countries.
Many Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt and Palestine, have openly
expressed their enthusiasm to see Turkey as a full member of the EU. Even
countries like Syria and Iran, which are seen as “enemy” by the West, have
stated that they would be pleased to be neighbor with the EU with Turkey’s
membership, and that they supported Turkey in the membership process.
To which the only rational answer can be so what. Other Muslim countries want Turkey to join so we are obliged to act?
There are no Muslim representatives in the G-8 or among the permanent
members of the United Nations Security Council. To put it short, there are
serious representation deficiencies in global governance.
Further weakening his argument. What this is effectively saying, is that he sees Turkish membership of the EU as getting Muslim representation at the top table. How is this going to persuade European who are frightened (obviously wrongly in his opinion) of 70 million new Muslim members.
EU’s rejection of Turkey on the ground that it is a Muslim country and
reconstruction of the EU on the basis of Christian fanaticism will turn the
much-expected miracle into impossibility, and in a sense, will justify how right
the extremities such as al-Qaeda are. In this case, it will be a mere dream to
think that the conflicts will be confined to Beirut, Baghdad or Ramallah.
Which sounds like a threat. Not the best way to convince sceptics is it.
And there is one final thing, he starts the article thus:
Almost all the unsuccessful politicians in many of the EU countries have recently been talking about the issue of Turkey’s full membership to the EU.And then goes on to mention Sarkozy more than once. If Sarko is a failure, I wonder what a success looks like?
We all know that some of the less scrupulous members of the EU are less than thorough with their controls on the spending of EU Grants. Normally we would expect such scandals from Southern Europe. However, the EU is asking for money back from the People's Republic of Northen Britain.
THE European Commission is demanding the return of more than £20 million in
development grants paid out to the Highlands and Islands in the 1990s. The EU
has found errors and problems in the way that many of the projects were handled
between 1994 and 1999, and has asked for the £20 million claw-back as a
penalty.
Now whatever I think of the EU, I think they are right in principal here. If the money has been wrongly spent, it should be returned. However, I would like the principal extended more generally...... Can we have OUR money back?
I am a little late in getting this up.
On Sunday a new front opened in the war against useless lefties. Its called Prison Works and is designed to be an answer to the abolitionists and pro criminals at The Howard League and Home Office.
Do pay a visit and lend your support.
What can I say. I was surprised to read today that the EU has missed its goal on getting more people into work.
EU leaders meeting in Stockholm in 2001 agreed that in 2005, at least 67 percent of people in the union aged 15-64 should be employed in order to finance rising pension and social costs due to an ageing population. But figures released by Eurostat, the EU's statistical office, revealed on Monday (11 September) that only 63.8 percent of EU citizens in that age group had a job in 2005.Shocking isn't it. An organisation that focuses almost completely on tying up companies in red tape, has failed to increase employment. Perhaps a change of path is in order? I am sure that the approach of the "Doctors" in Brussels will be different. If its not working, ncrease the dosage.
His Grace, Archbishop Cranmer is reporting that a German Minister claims that the first German Reich is the model for Europe.
Germany’s Culture Minister, Bernd Neumann, has voiced what some have suspected for decades: that Germany is creating the European Union in her image.
Even after this, sceptics like myself will still be called fantasists and conspiracy theorists. Its the Holy Roman Empire Folks, even if a little less than Holy and not particulary Roman.
And so the illiberal ratchet continues to turn.
The European Union's highest court yesterday banned many British employees from choosing how much overtime they want to work.
So however much you need the money and how ever keen your employer is to use your labour, you cannot work more than big brother tells you.
The government, national or european, has no right to intervene in relationships between consenting adults. This is a principle that should be defended in the economic as well as the sexual realm.
I often see the argument put forward that the EU is responsible for peace in Europe after the second world war. Yesterday in a reply to such a comment, I posted the following over at Tommy England's Blog:
When I hear the statement "That the EU has kept the peace" I often ask the question "which part of the EU". Its instructive to think about it.
If we did not subsidised inefficient French Farmers, would we still have peace? If we had separate national regulations on the type of tree we are allowed to plant, would it lead to a Fourth Reich? Is a common tariff necessary to stop War?
Bear in mind that the EU is only 14 years old, though its forebears, the EC, EEC back to the Coal & Steel community go back many decades. With this evolution in mind, would we have gone to war is the EEC had never become the EC? At which point in the process did war become impossible? Do we need to continue to keep it that way?
You see what I am getting at. Even if the EU is responsible for keeping the peace, we still need a good debate on what the EU should or shouldn't do. And we need to identify what is it about the EU that keeps the peace?
Coming to the crux of the matter, I personally do not believe that we needed the EU to keep the peace. Since 1945, we had a number of things going in our favour.
You see, I believe that rather than being the cause of peace, the EU is the result of it. Look at the way that counties have willingly given up their power to a central organisation. They have surrendered without a shot being fired. That is how much they are scared of war. Do such pacifists really pose a threat to each other?
When Israel kills an unfortunate 1.000 civilians in the space of a month of bombing, the reaction in much of the west is as if they have raised major cities to the ground. Does anyone really think that such people could stomach a full scale conflict, where 1.000 people would be a drop in the ocean?
It is all very well to claim that the EU keeps the peace. However for the huge sums of money it costs us to belong, and the massive damage it does to our system of government and law, it is up to those making the claim to substantiate it, not the other way around.
Having been told off for snoozing by Ellee, I bring you another interesting development courtesy of Margot Wallstrom.
The campaign to end the European parliament's expensive monthly commute to Strasbourg received a boost yesterday when a European commissioner criticised it as a sign of "insanity".
I say interesting because a campaign that many Eurosceptics support, in order to highlight EU waste, is now being supported by Europhiles, worried at the damage being done to the EUs image. As France will certainly Veto any change, I think we have nothing to worry about.
In case the fragrant Margot should ever grace us with her presence, its the whole EU that is Insanity, not just the parliament merry go round. Compare the loose change that this costs us to the complete madness of CAP.
MEPs as we all know are a useless self righteous bunch of cretins. Their latest work of genius shows it off really well.
Turkey should recognize the Armenian genocide as a condition for its EU accession, MEPs argue in a highly critical report adopted by a broad majority in Strasbourg.
Whatever one thinks about the Armenian situation or Turkey's membership for that matter, Brussels always takes the worst possible course of action. Demanding something that in itself is unimportant, yet is politically impossible for Turkey to deliver on. To keep changing the rules in the middle of the game is unbelievably crass as well.
Wrongheaded as they may be, those in Turkey who wish to join the EU are generally the same people who want Turkey to modernise and stay secular. They are more likely than the average man on the street to support equal rights, freedom and democratic norms. The message they keep recieving however is don't bother, we will do everything in our power to stop you.
The religious nuts and nationalist loons must get really happy when the EU keeps increasing its demands. They had been worried that their dream to take Turkey back to the middle ages was dying, yet those useful idiots in the EU just keep giving them a helping hand.
Surely it is not beyond the realm of the possible to keep Turkey on the road to democratic normality whilst continually postponing membership, if that is what you are after.
Divide and Conquer, the slogan of empires through the ages. Now it becomes the vision of our glorious European future.
A team of cartographers is drawing up a version of the political map of Europe, taking advantage of a proposed Brussels directive. It is feared the directive, which is passing through the European Parliament, could allow a United States of Europe to be created, obliterating the British map.So incredibly people living in much of the East of England, including the North-East and North Yorkshire, would find themselves inhabitants of a North Sea region. Language, culture and history be damned.
Best of all,
Parts of Scotland would become the North Atlantic region with Iceland and northern Scandinavia.
They have obviously chosen to ignore the slight problem that Iceland is not a member of the EU. Can't have reality spoiling the fun.
I find the calls for a common front in the EU to be ridiculous, with the primary reason neatly illustrated here.
Most member states of the European Union are not in favor of the idea of imposing sanctions on Iran as it did not meet a Security Council deadline to suspend enrichment activity.
You see we already have an almost common front on one of the most important issues facing the world. An extremist religious government headed by a complete madman wants to develop nuclear weapons. The Blessed United Nations has ruled that they should stop.
So what should the super power of the future do?
Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier stressed that "the most important thing is that the international community does not let itself be divided," with Russia and China disliking the sanctions option.The answer: Bugger all. All A Common Foreign Policy would achieve is to muzzle those members who do not rejoice at the sight of Madmen with Nuclear weapons. Which is precisely the whole point of the exercise.
£100.000. Just think about that figure for a minute. Thats the amount that EU membership will cost us in 2007. Not bad is it.........
Except that is £100.000 Per Minute (pdf)
For that kind of membership cost, you had better hope that we get something worthwhile.
Just a thought. If the reason for membership of the EU is peace, we could afford so many weapons with that amount of money, that you would have to be certified to want to mess with us.
The Guardian is unfailingly able to offer ignorant comment by economically illiterate idiots, combined with the encouragement of brain washed believers of fantasy. Hywel Williams offers up todays pile of crap.
Electoral reform and the euro were the two most important political issues in 1997, and both would have changed Britain for ever - and for the better.After years of all the world's sentient beings talking about how badly the single currency has fared, Mr Williams is still of the opinion that it would have been good had Britain joined. He is not alone:
AntonVDH Not joining the Euro is going to look like a bad move before much longer. The dollar is about to crash big time, not a question of if but when and who it drags down with it.Anton seems to believe that we have pegged our currency to the dollar. Either that or he thinks that we should stop trading with the USA, because its dangerous.
Of course the UK should join the euro and as soon as possible. The opposition comes from the banks, who make huge amounts of money out of charging people to exchange moneyMy game is up, I have been rumbled. My real name is HSBC. The fact that ordinary people might have an opinion is completely discounted.
Their only arguments are conspiracy and scare tactics, and yet they wish to make irreparable changes to our nation and we should shut up and take it. After all we are demonstrably stupid. We disagree with them.
If any of these enlightened souls should happen across this humble blog, the real argument against the Euro is simple.
An economy is best served by interest rates that reflect the reality at that moment, not the average of a dozen or so starkly different economies. Only a national currency can achieve that. The Pound will go up and down against the Euro and other currencies. This is as natural as the sea going up and down with the tides. As long as it reflects the underlying economy, fighting against it is as pointless as Canute's stand against the tide. An unnaturally low interest rate is just as undesirable as an unnaturally high one. So by keeping our currency we maximise our chances of achieving good economic governance.
Oh and above all, The Euro is a political project not an economic one. So don't try and use economic arguments to justify it.
The Vietnamese government is claiming that the latest EU dumping duties on shoes will cause small businesses to close. Bear in mind if you will, that the GDP per head in Vietnam is $630 . On the other side of the equation, this action will raise the price of shoes across Europe, forcing consumers to pay more. Not that it will effect wearers of Prada very much. The poor of Europe however, thats another thing. Great isn't it this EU thing. Screw the poor abroad and the poor at home.
