•
My Westminster fave remains the well-documented case of Lady Falkender’s two children, born at a time when she was Harold Wilson’s all-powerful political secretary. It was not widely known in that innocent era. But one of the tabloids got as sniff of it and asked its veteran political editor, Walter Terry, to crack the case. Walter, whom I knew slightly, had to report failure. Odd really, but understandable because they turned out to be Walter’s kids.
•
It´s one thing to argue, as we do, that there´s too much government. And that it´s too expensive. But what we´d really like to know is why is it so eyewateringly costly? What do they actually do with the money in government?
Shred it and pour it down the drains?
The Department for International Development spent £526,990 on a two-day event discussing the impact of the global economic downturn on the developing world.
The sum was £100,000 more than the total amount DFID gave to Namibia between 2007 and last year and could have bought more than 100,000 anti-malaria bed nets.
Err, yes, they do appear to simply shred it.
Anyone who says there´s no fat to cut from government simply hasn´t been paying attention.
•
On the inheritance tax subject.
SIR – Thanks for removing the doubt, Ken. I’m definitely voting Ukip.
Peter Lally
Broseley, Shropshire
Short and sweet, don´t you think?
•
From the Telegraph:
It has often been claimed that the project of “ever-closer union” within the EU is over, killed when the Lisbon Treaty was rejected by the Irish, the only people who had the chance to vote on it. That’s a big mistake. The Eurocrats think integration is inevitable and essential – and they are certainly not going to let it be derailed by anything as vulgar as the fact that most of the EU’s citizens do not want it.
Perhaps the best example is an imminent change to the justice system, designed to make it easier for one state to imprison citizens who live and work in another. Under the present rules, the Government is not obliged to hand over a British citizen who has been convicted of a crime in another EU country. There are very good reasons for that. The procedures of justice are not of a uniformly high standard across the EU.
Yes, we’ve been shouting about this. A trial which you did not know about, where you were not able to present evidence, where there was no jury, in a country where the entire judicial system is entirely corrupt. But still the UK Government must hand you over to serve the sentence imposed.
No, we really do not want to be part of such a system. Forget the economics now, the very basis of civil liberty, the right to a fair trial, has now been breached. We’ve got to get out.
•
From the Financial Times:
Is it not time for the European Union to have a permanent president - as foreseen under its Lisbon treaty? The rotating presidency, under which each country, big or small, puts on its make-up and appears on stage for six months before making way for the next act, appears anachronistic.
You see, there’s this pesky thing called “the law” that stands in the way. It is indeed true that the Lisbon Treaty forsees a permanent President.
So, before we have a permanent President the Lisbon Treaty needs to come into effect. You don’t get to just bring in things without passing the law that allows such things to happen….
Ah, forgive me, I forgot, of course, we’re talking about the European Union here, aren’t we? The law, as with the voice of the people, is something to ignore not obey, isn’t it?
•
Is that said foreigners don’t in fact speak the same language that we do.
“No”, for example, clearly means in eurospeak that you’ve given the wrong answer and must be asked again until you say “Yes”.
Another example might be the propaganda advertising for the upcoming euro-elections. We’ve just seen the pens and the buttons and you can see the website here.
The slogan is
“European Elections, it’s your choice”.
Anyone see the problem with that? Yes, you at the back there?
Well done, award yourself lashings of ginger beer.
If “European elections” is plural, the second part should read “they’re your choice”. If the second part is to be singular, then the first must read “European election”.
So, we can show that these people ruling us simply don’t speak the same language we do. Which really isn’t all that encouraging, is it?
The only alternative is that they’re illiterate, which isn’t any better.
•
From the Parliament’s daily press roundup.
Language bill (Daily Mirror, p. 6 - Belfast edition): “Last year, the taxpayer was hit with a bill of more than £360,000 to fund Irish speaking in the European Parliament - even though it was only spoken for 30 minutes there in 2008.”
Not really much one can say about that, is there?
Tags:
Add new tag
•
Nigel’s got a piece in The Guardian’s Comment is Free section.
Talking about the proposed minimum prices on alcohol. Here.
We pretend that we’re ruled by the politicians in Westminster and Edinburgh, ably advised by the technocrats like Sir Liam. The great and the good will decide what is good for us and make sure that we get what is good for us, good and hard. And yet when they make a proposal, attempt to deal with some scourge or other, they are so ignorant of who makes the law, who holds the whip hand, that they propose something entirely illegal.It’s not just that they don’t tell us how much power has shifted to Brussels, it’s that they don’t even seem to know themselves.
•
Well, according to some lists we might well be.
Possession of subversive literature: “pictures, cartoons, bumper stickers that contain anti-government rhetoric. Most of this material will depict the HR Revenue and Customs, ACPO, HSE, UN, Police and EU in a derogatory manner.”
Sounds like you and me…..actually, sounds like the vast majority of the British population.
•
For much of the past decade Spain was Europe’s Florida, its economy buoyed by a huge speculative housing boom. As in Florida, boom has now turned to bust. Now Spain needs to find new sources of income and employment to replace the lost jobs in construction.
In the past, Spain would have sought improved competitiveness by devaluing its currency. But now it’s on the euro — and the only way forward seems to be a grinding process of wage cuts. This process would have been difficult in the best of times; it will be almost inconceivably painful if, as seems all too likely, the European economy as a whole is depressed and tending toward deflation for years to come.
Does all this mean that Europe was wrong to let itself become so tightly integrated? Does it mean, in particular, that the creation of the euro was a mistake? Maybe.
We would say yes, of course. But when you’ve got the most recent Nobel Laureate in economics stating that either there is a pan-European fiscal govenment or we’ll have deflation for years….or, that we don’t have the euro, then people really should start listening.
Not the euro is I think your and my choice, no?