•
Another piece over there.
Another way of putting this is that there are two important questions in our current political arena.
This first is where is that political control over us going to be exercised from? Brussels? Westminster? That´s the question for the European elections.
Then there´s the question of who is going to exercise whatever power still does exist at Westminster: that´s what the General Election will decide. It´s obvious that one might support different parties at the different elections: different questions, different answers, after all.
•
It´s one of the slightly cynical observations about politics and politicians. That a politician will trade away long term paid in return for a short term gain.
Of course, this isn´t good for the rest of us but it does no end of good for the politician´s ego and career. Looks like we*ve got one of those moments just coming up:
Gordon Brown will diminish Britain’s international role in global financial institutions by increasing European Union representation, as the price for an agreement at the G20 summit.
Brown is simply desperate to make sure that there´s an agreement at this summit. Doesn´t really matter what the agreement is (to continue being cynical), just that there is one that he can trumpet as being his initiative to save the world.
And if the price of that is that we lose yet more of our independence in hte international institutions, well, from Brown´s point of view, so what?
He´s not going to be dealing with that loss of influence in the decades to come, is he?
•
As the Daily Express points out:
The CAP costs British taxpayers £10.3billion-a-year and researchers claim it has made food here a fifth more expensive. It also gives our farmers a raw deal compared to the French, Germans and Italians.
Brussels bureaucrats have bound the agricultural industry in red tape and doled out millions of pounds in subsidies to wealthy landowners, claims the report Food For Thought, compiled by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
And as Nigel points out:
UKIP leader Nigel Farage said the solution was to get out of Europe.
“Every British Prime Minister and opposition leader has promised at every single election that they will reform the CAP but they have not,” he said. “We will never reform the CAP because the French won’t let it happen. We’re paying a fortune for our food to subsidise rich landowners.”
It’s not possible to refom it from within. Simply not politically possible. So the only thing we can do is leave and be free of the entire nonsense.
•
OIf course, the big news this morning is that Stuart Wheeler has come aboard. Here’s the piece he did for the Sunday Times explaining his decision:
This country has not been successfully invaded since William the Conqueror in 1066, yet most of our laws are now made in Brussels by unelected commissioners, who impoverish the people of the EU, while making fortunes for themselves. At the same time the Hungarians threaten that five million unemployed migrants will head West unless we bail them out. How much do they want? About £160 billion!
What is wrong with the EU and why is it so important? Above all – cost – it is astronomic. The chief difficulty for those who want to draw attention to it is that the figures are so awful that people think they cannot be true.
The well known economist Patrick Minford and the merchant banker Ian Milne put the cost at about £1,000 per annum for every man, woman, child and baby in this country.
Others think it is far more. Let us stick with £1,000 i.e. £4,000 for a typical family of four which, if it has only one breadwinner, has to live on an average of about £17,000 a year after tax.
How can this conceivably be worth it? What are the colossal benefits which could justify the enormous cost even in normal times, let alone in the worst recession for a very long time?
Remarkably the answer is that we get nothing we could not get by normal agreements and cooperation with the other members or with the EU itself. Ask a Europhile what the advantages are. You will get general waffle as an answer. Insist on specifics.
Pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?
•
So, erm, a DJ says that a dormouse might have been woken from hibernation.
At this point the police spring into action:
Some viewers believed him and rang police. When an officer went to investigate at the Secret World Wildlife Rescue Centre in Somerset, staff were horrified……..A spokesman for Avon and Somerset Police confirmed that a complaint was made over the dormouse and that an officer was sent out to investigate.
It´s a pity you don´t get that sort of visit when you report a burglary really, isn´t it?
•
Now no, I´m no more enamoured of Le Pen than you are however, this is typical of the way that teh whole EU project works.
The prospect of Jean-Marie Le Pen becoming the father of the European Parliament led MEPs yesterday to start a frantic attempt to change their own rules to stop the far-right French politician from presiding over the new chamber.
Under the Parliament’s rules its inaugural session must be overseen by its doyen - the oldest MEP - which will be Mr Le Pen, 81, if he is re-elected for the French National Front in the elections in June.
Members who have just realised this are making a last-minute effort to block him, perhaps to give the honour of running the inaugural session on July 14 to the youngest member of the new Parliament.
Just let me make this clear again. No, I don´t think that giving Le Pen a platform for his grandstanding is a good idea.
However, as I say, this is typical of the way that the whole EU project works.
There are a set of rules. If the outcome of following those rules is something unliked then they change the rules. They´ve done this when having votes on the Constitution, the Lisbon Treaty, Maastricht and all of the rest.
That´s just not the right way, is it? Once the rules have been set then we play the game within them, not pick up our ball and go home if we don´t get our own way.
Or is this another one of those things that we British haven´t quite yet educated the world about?
•
Nice piece by Dizzy (even though he is a Tory).
The historical bargain here in hte UK was that there weren´t going to be many laws and those that we did have were important. So we all thought it important that we obeyed those laws that we did have.
The continental bargain was somewhat different. There would be many laws, the entirety of society would be bound by rules and regulations. But as a societal matter, most of them were ignored. To be a scofflaw was not just something necessary to get anything done but even a badge of pride.
It´s in part the clash of these two methods which so enrages about the EU. We have the imposition of these incredibly prescriptive laws (for example, the allowable ingredients of jam are now described in the criminal law….yes, the criminal law) but we also have this residual feeling that all laws are important and that all laws must be obeyed.
This isn´t a position that can be maintained. Only one of the two poles can: few laws and they´re obeyed or many laws and many are ignored.
•
This is a text book case of what is wrong with the Labour Government.
Start with a possibly desirable idea. Improving the quality of school meals.
Then process it through the bureaucracy and the quangoes to get:
The future of school meals is in jeopardy because only half of secondary schools are on course to comply with stringent government standards, catering leaders will say today.
This could bring about the demise of hot meals in secondary schools, as caterers struggle to cope with the expensive and time-consuming restrictions. From September they will have to buy costly computer equipment to calculate the nutritional content of every meal. Each dish must meet 14 standards, including calorie content, fat, proteins and vitamins.
That´s right, impose so many detailed restrictions, so much box ticking, that the quality and choice will inevitably go down.
“We have to meet 14 nutrient standards and will have most problems with zinc and iron. Liver and spinach are the best sources but these aren’t the most popular items in school. We would be providing something that they shun, in order to tick a box.”
Mr Porter said that the changes would “inevitably lead to a loss of posts within kitchens and could finally result in the school meals service, as we know it, ceasing in secondary schools.”
A statement issued by Laca said: “Together with a number of other leading organisations, academic researchers, dietitians and health experts, we believe that nutrient standards could bring the demise of the secondary school meal service in this country.”
The survey found that almost three quarters of caterers believed that the standards would result in high food costs and an increase in meal prices. Four fifths thought it would cause a decline in the uptake of school lunches.
It just doesn´t work as a method of governance, does it?
•
Nigel has a piece online at the New Statesman.
An interesting point, that we´ll only have civil society, community and communal actovities, when we are free to do so without requiring permission from government.
•
Here´s one sent in by Mr. A Howard in Norfolk.
United Kingdom Independence Party
“Deny EU-I intend mock-pending depart”
Anyone got any others?