Service Deal

They say they have clinched a deal.

EU competitiveness ministers have sealed a deal over a new Services Directive aimed at opening up the sector over the coming years.

But what does this mean?

Crucially, the directive will not – as originally envisaged by the proposal – allow service providers to work in other member states according to the rules of their home country. Instead, the directive simply tells member states to give service providers free access to their country and allow them to freely exercise their business.

So basically nothing has really changed, but we get a news story that pretends that it has. The Services Directive is Dead, long live The Services Directive.

Spat Between Tranzis

The EU is involved in a turf war with the UN

Ireland violated EU law by taking a case about the UK's Sellafield nuclear power plant to the United Nations instead of to the EU courts, the bloc's highest court has ruled.

Apparently only the EU is allowed to intervene in such disputes. Much as it seems more logical to use EU channels in this case, I can't help but enjoy the scene of two Tranzi bodies fighting for turf.

Simplified EU charter

Apparently we need a simplified EU charter, so says Prodi.

During a "sentimental trip" back to Brussels, the new Italian prime minister and ex-president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, said the bloc needs a new "simplified" EU constitution text, developed in a more "optimistic atmosphere" and acceptable to citizens.

There is of course a serious problem in trying to make a simplified treaty. The majority of the text was there to replace existing treaties. So without adding a single sentence, the treaty will already by complicated. So whats the betting that they will simply take the additions and make a treaty with those. They will then sell it to us as a slimmed down treaty evn though its essentially the same.

Don't Mention Strasbourg

Strasbourg has apparently become the subject that cannot be mentioned.

The Austrian chancellor has warned the European Parliament's chief not to create a fuss over the two seats of the bloc's legislature at the EU leaders summit next month.

The problem is Mr Chirac you see.

But the Austrian presidency has moved to prevent a clash on the matter with French president Jacques Chirac.

Can someone please explain to me why one of the core jobs of the EU seems to be not upsetting Chirac?

Also note the hypocrisy in the following statement:

"It is a pure demagogy to say we're going to leave Strasbourg," French vice-president of the parliament, Green MEP Gerard Onesta told the EUobserver.

Even a raving capitalist such as myself would question the necessity of adding thousands of tonnes per month of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in such a carefree way. But for a Green Politician who lectures us on our lifestyle choices as a career, this wanton waste is not a problem.

We can't discuss Strasbourg, because it would need agreement of all 25 nations to change it. However, top discussion topic will be.....

The Constitution, which if memory serves correctly, needs the agreement of all 25 nations.

Intransigent Member States

I thought I had heard it all. But apparently not.

Belgian foreign minister Karel de Gucht said on Tuesday in Warsaw that treaty changes should be agreed by a qualified majority of member states, rather than by unanimity, AFP reports. He said member states' current veto on treaty revisions is "a recipe for immobility."

Immobility in EU parlance being a crime worse than tyranny of course.

What he is actually suggesting is that countries should no longer have the right to decide which treaties to sign. He pretends otherwise:

"Countries belonging to the rejecting minority would, of course, have the right to opt out."

Nice. The EU constitution contained within it the voting structure for future. Tell me exactly how a country opts out of the voting structure agreed by the others?

Doesn't work does it.

Great Debate

Our Leaders are to hold a weekend retreat in Austria, to try and plot a course for the EU. Some of them have a few ideas:

Many leaders are calling for a "Great Debate" to establish a consensus on the EU's future and deliver a new manifesto on the principles and values of an increasingly united Europe. Ideally, the declaration would be issued in 2007, when the EU marks its 50th anniversary.

Us Eurosceptics have been calling for a debate for as long as we can remember. But rather than "What should we do for the glory of Europe", we want the topic to be "Whats the bloody point".

Why is it that whenever anyone calls for a debate its about how to push this useless project forward?

That has nothing to do with free speech

Whenever politicains want to do something controversial, they get their retorts in first. The EU is not trying to control free speech.

EU proposals to regulate content on the internet are aimed at protecting society not undermining free speech, European Union Media Commissioner Viviane Reding says.

Who are we to question her. As a blogger however, any effort at regulating the internet worries me. So why do they want to so it?

She said the proposed regulations reflected "basic societal values" - the protection of young children and restrictions on incitement to hatred.

Reflecting on the fact that I spend my time online inciting people to hate the EU, that doesn't really answer my fears.

Thanks to AntiCitizenOne for the tip.

The Little Red Book

Its out.

The Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze is now in the shops, go out and buy one. It is a collaborative effort written by bloggers, detailing major sleaze and scandal in The New Labour Government. I contributed 1% of the book.

To find out more, it has its own website.

EU Generosity

One of the gripes of Eurosceptics such as myself, is that when the EU is kind enough to give a little of our cash back, they make a huge song and dance about it. Like This:

KELVINGROVE Museum and Art Gallery was yesterday announced as one of the main beneficiaries of an £11 million European funding package aimed at promoting visitor attractions in the west of Scotland.

Which is nice. I have heard that Kelvingrove Museum is a very important one, so I don't begrudge them the cash. However, how important is this cash?

The £180,000 award to the museum would help Glasgow City Council to promote it on the international stage when it opens its doors again in July, following a £27 million, three-year refurbishment.

Yes that's less than one percent, and in return, the project will have EU flags flying all over it in exchange.

In total £11 Million is peanuts anyway. The English Taxpayer, subsidises the Scots to the tune of £19 Million per day and the media says nothing about it. We don't demand that they fly our flag either.

Fishing for Cash

We know that the waters around Europe are overfished. The European Environmental Agency has this to say:

Overfishing in Europe's waters and the deep ocean has proved hard to tackle. Some fish stocks that have high reproductive rates, in conjunction with reduced fishing pressure, have successfully recovered from past overfishing. Most notable are the herring around Iceland and Norway and in the North Sea.

Fish stocks are declining or well below what they should be. So what should we do about it? (Note that non EU members, Iceland & Norway are shown as successes) Why not subsidise even more fishing?

An alliance of European Union Mediterranean and Baltic states will mount a massive assault on the reformed Common Fisheries Policy today by voting to reintroduce subsidies for fishing vessels amid strong opposition from conservationists.

Not only do they want to completely denude the sea of life, they want us to pay for it. Repatriation of fishing rights anyone?

The Roman Circus

The Emperors of Rome kept the population quiet with public circuses. The new Empire has similar thoughts.

The EU is making a move to takeover and control not just the Premiership, but also have overruling power over every national Football Association. The aim is to enable the European Commission to "direct the sport" at a pan-European level.

Lets just hope they keep their hands off of Rugby.

Update on Europe United

After mentioning the Federalist Europe United Party, they noticed and commented about it on their forum. I wanted to highlight this comment

We have a vision, we have a dream, we have love; they have only hatred! We are not afraid of them Nikolas

Nikolas who is so full of love, has a website. Why say NO to Turkey. What are the odds that Nikolas is a Greek, full of love for his neighbours. I also suspect that he was the anonymous commentator bandying about the word fascist with such abandon.

France Gets Special Treatment

Whilst the likes of me may have a problem with the vision of a Kum Bi Ah united Europe, and we don't like the idea of rule by Brussels, it doesn't mean that we necessarily think that everything the EU does is bad. In general I am infavour of free trade, liberal markets and freedom of movement. Where the EU makes movements in these areas, I cheer the philosophy if not the methods. Unfortunately, the EU fails to live up to even its own rules.

The European Commission declared Tuesday that France did not violate internal market rules by promoting a mammoth merger between two French energy companies, disagreeing with complaints by Italy that the deal was engineered to thwart a bid from an Italian rival.

A blatant piece of economic nationalism from the French, is waived through. So the French get to ignore bits of EU law that they don't like, whilst forcing their choices down our throats. Why am I not surprised.

Scary

When I see sites like this one, I fear for our childrens' future.

Europe United is the first pan-European party, which works towards United Europe. We serve the needs of an important and fast growing group of people, the pro-Europeans. Our mission is to defend integration and ultimately, advance the establishment of United Europe.

People actually believe in this crap?

Anyone But Ken

I have launched a new blog, together with a friend. We plan to narrate the train wreck that is Ken Livingstone's management of the worlds greatest city. We think he is the worst possible choice of mayor. I give you Anyone But Ken.

A Firm Maybe

The difficulties that would occur if the EU said either yes or no to Bulgaria & Romania, were avoided yesterday.

The European Commission has recommended that Bulgaria and Romania should join the EU next year as planned, but only if they fulfil key conditions.

A firm maybe then? I guess this covers the potential critics from all angles. Bulgarians and Romanians think that joining the EU will help them to root out corruption. Which in the circumstances is quite funny. Their leaders meanwhile, look forward to stealing their share of the EU cash.

Make Poverty History?

That man of conscience Jacque Chirac has spoken often about aid to the poor, about how we bear a responsibility to help those in need. As the main cheerleader of CAP, he is of course a complete hypocrite. His beloved farming subsidies are responsible for poverty and squalor across Africa and the Developing world.

The £30bn-a-year EU agricultural subsidy regime is one of the biggest iniquities facing farmers in Africa and other developing counties. They cannot export their products because they compete with the lower prices made possible by payments.

Not content with stopping them sell goods to us, we also screw up their domestic markets.

In addition, European countries dump thousands of tons of subsidised exports in Africa every year so that local producers cannot even compete on a level playing field in their own land.

A few startling facts:

1. Mozambique loses more than £70m a year - equivalent to its entire national budget for agriculture and rural development - because of the trade distortions.
2. 12,000 workers in Swaziland have lost their jobs because the local industry cannot compete.
3. European farmers are guaranteed a price for their sugar three times higher than the world price and there are restrictions on foreign imports - backed up by import tariffs of 324 per cent.
4. The dairy subsidies have driven farmers in India and Jamaica out of business.

Finally for those that do not care about the poor:

The CAP costs British taxpayers £3.9bn a year and also adds £16 a week - £832 a year - to the average family of four's food bill.

This extra cost is of course much more significant for the poorest people in EU member states than it is for the better off. That such a scheme still exists is a black mark against all of us. Get rid of CAP and make poverty history.

Oneseat.eu

Thanks to reader Gavin Whenman, I have learned about a campaign to get rid of one of the European Parliament's homes.

The European Parliament should be located in Brussels

It costs European taxpayers approximately 200 million euros a year to move the Parliament between Brussels/Belgium and Strasbourg/France. As a citizen of the European Union, I want the European Parliament to be located only in Brussels.

To sign the petition, go to the website. OK so hold your nose over the citizen thing.

Bear asks Fox, not to Defecate in Woods

There is hyprocrisy and then there is the EU.

The European Union trade chief on Monday urged Washington to make deeper cuts in farm subsidies to ensure that stalled global trade talks can be successfully concluded this year.

Now I would never let my disgust with the EU cloud from me the reality that US farming subsidies are also a complete disgrace. The EU lecturing others on the topic of agriculture is like John Prescott giving lessons in fidelity. Cut ours unilaterally and then we have some credibility on the matter, not to mention cheaper food.

I have noticed a flow of visitors due to an old joke we played on the Deputy Prime Minister. Now I am confused. Was it supposed to be Fuckwit or Two Inches ?

The EPP, a Suitable Partner?

The Conservative Party has made a commitment to leave the European Peoples’ Party umbrella and create a new, more eurosceptic alliance. This is a move that has upset a good half of the current Conservative MEPs and numerous others. They claim that we will be forced into partnership with totally unsuitable partners.

The EPP, having recently held their congress, and published a manifesto, I though it would be a good time to assess whether we can regard the EPP in any way as a “Suitable Partner”.

(The complete manifesto can be downloaded here)

Throughout the document, the EPP refers to itself as the party for Europe, something of which it is proud. For example:

Throughout history, the EPP has been the European party with a clear vision for Europe because we are committed to solve the problems and to address the concerns of our citizens. Europe has to take the necessary actions to achieve its goals.

They clearly see themselves as the heirs to Monnet and Schuman and are proud of their integrationist heritage. As such they are strong supporters of the Lazarus Treaty:

The EPP is convinced that it was the right decision to draft a Constitutional Treaty as a new basis for the European Union.

And worse:

Therefore the EPP proposes that the process leading to the ratification of a European Constitutional Treaty should be continued after the period of reflection

So sod the voters, we think we are right so we go ahead.

As semi detached members, the Conservative party may not be required to put their signatures to such an abomination, but are still not able to fight against the ideas that are behind it.

Despite all the evidence that refutes such a theory, they claim at every opportunity that the “citizens of Europe”, want a stronger EU. For example

Our citizens want a strong Europe and they want Europe to deliver an added value and to deal with the problems that concern them

And

The EPP is convinced that a clear majority of people all over Europe wants a strong European Union that deals with problems swiftly and effectively at the European level

Two referendum defeats and a downward trend in the polls, is not enough to convince then that there made be a problem in their ideas. The reason is that they are ideologues. Their Europeanism is almost a religion.

As such, they reject any alternative view of Europe:

It has been a long time since Europe was just a customs union that promoted common economic policies. The European Union has already developed into a political union with common borders

Fait accompli, they cry, all doubters can give up now. They fact that majority of Brits, see a value in the economic cooperation but not in the political, is irrelevant. The, project must go on. Show them a problem and they will show you a “European Solution”.

Our success in innovation will largely depend on establishing a European Higher Education Area

How the EU can solve the failures in our education systems centrally, when its clear that even the national level is too centralized an approach, is not explained. We just need faith.

A European energy policy strategy and the creation of a Single European Space for Energy, will help energy supply and energy independence

Energy is a problem? Bring on the EU. They speak at length about the idea of subsidarity, and yet they have yet to see a problem whose solution is not Brussels. Despite being notionally right wing, and making some encouraging noises about regulation, these are people steeped in the intellectually bankrupt social model. It has proven to be a bad idea, but they refuse to let go.

The respect of appropriate social protection and of social rights contributes to highly motivated and productive employees.

So economic growth is somehow linked to making employees more expensive, and

The European Social Model is rooted in Christian-Social thought and based on performance and social justice, competition and solidarity, personal responsibility and social security. These remain relevant in conditions of globalized markets and rapid changes in economic life.

The fact is that The European Social Model worked much better in times when there was a lack of global competition. It is precisely the rigours of globalization that have highlighted the fact that this model doesn’t work.

Its not enough for them that the EU is destroying nation states, they wish to go further:

The EU must develop an action plan to put its European Security Strategy (ESS) into practice, and to strengthen the authority of international law, effective multilateralism and international bodies

So can we look forward to rule by the UN, with its body of upstanding, liberal democracies for members?
They are not completely without wit though, they realise that many Europeans think that the EU is irrelevant or worse. So they propose more propaganda, in good EU tradition. The list of achievements is as follows.

This can include the achievements already made by the EU affecting the everyday life of the people (e.g. increased mobility, lower telecommunication costs, lower flight prices, a common market and a single currency with greater choice and lower prices for all consumers, cross-border environmental protection, peace-keeping missions, democracy-building beyond the EU, transnational police cooperation, the concerted fight against terrorism, the promotion of student and youth exchanges, etc.).

So many of them are nothing to do with the EU, or of such low importance as to be irrelevant, but lets not allow the truth to stop us eh? Because its for the good of us all, just think of the children:

Only when a new generation of leaders emerges, which are capable of convincing and committing their citizens to the European idea, will it be possible to assure the future of their people.

So we sit and wait for the great leader to deliver European Socialism.

I challenge anyone to read the manifesto on still be able to swear, hand on heart, that these people are suitable partners. There is nothing remotely Conservative about them, and the sooner we split the better.

EU Tax

They never let it lie do they.

The European Union needs to overhaul its "irrational" budget procedures and consider an EU tax to provide part of its financing, according to a group of European members of parliament.

These would of course be those same people who costs us a million quid or so each every year, whose parliament has been paying too much rent since the time of dinosaurs and whose carnival of movement between Strasborg & Brussels costs sums too large to mention. I think they got their words mixed up. The European Union needs to overhaul its "irrational" spending, is what they should have said.

Bankrolling Hamas

We can't let the Palestinians pay the consequences of electing a terrorist government.

The European Union is to lead international efforts to restore the flow of foreign aid to the Palestinian people. The plan, decided on at a meeting in New York of the so-called Quartet of Middle East peace brokers - the EU, US, Russia and the UN - aims to bypass the Hamas-led government.

Of course they won't pay money direct to Hamas, but will that make a difference?

1. All staff that they pay, will sooner or later be Hamas supporters. Hams will sack exisiting staff and push in their friends. Thats how things are done in such countries.
2. The small amount of money that they raise themselves will be easier to spend where they like, if we pay some of their bills.
3. Palestinians will feel free to vote for such nasty parties, secure in the knowledge that we will continue to pay the bills.

So nice that we are being forced to pay for this.

Falling Popularity

Even by Eurobarometer’s unexacting standards, the EU is become ever less popular and the constitution is considered unnecessary by most Europeans. The number of people who think that EU membership is a good thing:

Finland (36%), the UK (33%), Austria (31%) and Latvia (29%)

Just one third in the UK. As for the constitution:

Belgians show the most faith in an EU constitution being beneficial for Europe at 36 percent while Estonians and Latvians are the least inclined to believe this (12%)

The best that they could achieve was only one third, in solidly pro Belgium. It just goes to show what a good debate about the EU leads to. No wonder they have tried to stop it for so long. Not all the news is good however:

Six in ten citizens favouring harmonization of the bloc's welfare systems, mainly in central and eastern Europe, such as Poland (86%), Latvia (82%) and Hungary (81%)

Things could get even worse for us, if the commission tries to deliver on that wish.

Those Nice Lib Dems

They are often regarded as the nice party, different from the two big nasty ones. Well the head of the Lib Dems in the Europarliament treated us to a glimpse of what these Eurofanatics are really like.

Chris Davies, an MEP for the North West of England, wrote to a constituent saying that he hoped she enjoyed "wallowing in her own filth"

Strange choice of words for a colleague of Mark Oaten.

Sun Protection Factor EU25

Whilst munching breakfast this morning, it was mentioned on the news that the EU is planning to standardise labelling for Sun Cream.

It was a great example of how organisations use the facts to justify their actions. Often the facts may be true, but at closer investigation, irrelevant.

Take this statement:

The commission identified false boasts on suntan products. These include claims that products can act as "sun blocker" or that they offer "total protection" or "100% anti-UVA/UVB". A spokesman said: "It is impossible to offer this, so no such products can exist."

If this is true, then the sellers of these products are surely covered by existing legislation. Forbidding people to make false claims on packaging has after all been around for a very long time.

Another thing mentioned on TV was that the protection factor was misleading, because it referred to laboratory conditions, which were not the same as on the beach.

But seeing as the general public has no idea how their skin behaves under laboratory conditions, but rather buy the level of protection that they find suits their needs, this is a completely misleading statement. The only thing important here is that the numbers actually do reflect a measure of the creams ability to protect.

Once again, there may be small issues to be resolved here, but the information is deliberately misleading and the case for EU wide action strangely absent from the press release.

Answer To A Europhile

Reader Ellee Seymour, posted a comment yesterday, that begs for an answer:

Andrew Duff, Lib Dem MEP, has a letter published to today's East Anglian Daily Press about Douglas Carswell and Co saying they cannot say how an independent Britain could possibly stand up politically to the US or compete economically in an open, global market. He goes on to add that neither can they tell us how they would seek to influence decisions in Brussels without the engagement there of British MEPs, ministers and officials. He concludes by saying that UKIP and its fellow travellers in the Tory party would sell Britain short.

Over to you...

So as not to let Ellee down, here is my response to Andrew Duff. Standing up politically to the US:

• It may be painful to Mr Duff, but the UK is more often than not on the same side as the USA.
• Even if we weren’t the EU is impotent in such matters.

Competing economically in an open, global market

• Countries do not compete against each other, companies and individuals do.
• The EU hobbles our companies with regulations that damage their competitiveness. No amount of joined up lobbying clout can make up for this.
• In fact, when it comes to trade issues, the EU is largely pushing for things that are not in British interests, so we are not even benefiting from the EU’s size.

Influencing decisions in Brussels

• If we were not a member, only the proportion of our trade that is with the EU would be subject to EU rules. Domestic trade and other international trade would not be affected. So why would we need to worry.
• A cynic could also add that we currently seem to have zero impact in Brussels anyway. The train is going to a destination that we don’t want, so at best we are able to slow it down.

A free independent Britain would grow faster and suffer less problems that one handcuffed to the European bureaucratic monolith.

The Directives that Bind Us

I came across this question over at Iain Dales Blog:

Have Blair & Clarke Been Stymied by an EU Directive?

The idea is that automatic deportations are banned under EU Directive 2004/38 Richard North, as usual has more information. On the Somali killer of Sharon Beshenivsky:

Under the European Convention of Human Rights, he could only be expelled after having been convicted and received a prison sentence of five years or more – unless he was a "persistent offender".

So for the sake of being PC, a police officer is killed and innocent children are without a mother. A government's first duty is to protect its citizens. If membership of an international organisation makes that impossible, then it is the duty of our rulers to leave that organisation.

The EU Brand

For those of a paranoid nature, don’t fret, I am not talking about hot irons here, but rather about trade marks.

The EU brand is tarnished, connected as it is in the public’s mind to corruption, incompetence and overweening nannyism. The great unwashed even rejected the constitution.

So what would you do? Clean up the corruption? Cut down on new legislation? Get the accounts cleaned up?

Well not if you were of the calibre of our rulers you wouldn’t:

The European Commission has recruited Simon Anholt, a British brand consultant who has worked with Microsoft, Unilever and Coca Cola, to chair a panel of branding experts on European identity.

To try and make himself interesting, he likened the EU to al-Qaeda.

He did have something useful to say though:

He believes the EU has lost its central narrative: that it brought peace to a war torn continent.

Exactly, and that was 60 years ago, why not move on. Why do you think no-one has come up with another reason for its existence? We don’t need this beast, whatever name you give it, and if the product is rubbish, no amount of brand management will change that.

Good News or Bad?

British companies will be able to keep more of their cash from the grabbing hands of Gordon Brown thanks to an ECJ ruling.

A ruling in the European courts on controversial tax rules for British companies with subsidiaries in other member states could result in millions of pounds being returned to UK firms and a revision of UK tax laws

At first sight, this looks like a ruling for common sense. Gordon’ avarice is being tempered by those nice chaps in the ECJ. But do not be fooled.

Sovereignty means the risk of bad rule from Westminster, as well as the dream of just rule. This ruling is another nail in the coffin of the veto on tax issues. It also adds urgency to the tax harmonisers arguments. Much more of this and Gordon might even join them.

Power Grab

Now and again a story will surface, which on its own explains so much of what is wrong with the EU. This is one such story:

At the heart of the French idea is the elimination of national vetoes in justice and police cooperation and workers' protection rules, through a legal construction which does not require a change in current EU treaties.

In case you are in any doubt, that means removing the vetoes that exist in current treaties, without having to alter the treaties themselves or create new treaties superseding them. This single idea contains within it almost all of the false ideas that sustain this worthless project.

1. The project is so important that procedure, rules and democracy are irrelevant
2. Momentum is everything. Whether an idea is good or bad is less relevant than whether it keeps the juggernaut moving.
3. The people are fools and need to be bullied. Just because they voted against the Constitution does not mean we can listen to them.
4. Taking over more powers is always good. Getting rid of vetoes is not questioned from a logical standpoint, it’s obviously a good idea.
5. Countries that wish to keep control of areas of policy that others think should be EU controlled, are just being obstructive.
6. France can use the EU to solve all of its problems at everyone else expense.

Such a shame that these stories never get the dissection they deserve.