If EUphile delusion is a disease, this man could be the unwitting cure

If there is one thing we can all respect about fanatical EU federalists, it’s that they invariably tell the truth about the EU project even if to further its aims they slip in the odfd misdirection to keep the less informed on side.  Contrast that with the UK political class, which spends all its time attempting – clearly with some success – to deceive the British public into believing the EU is only about the single market, rather than the decades-old objective of political union.

Reading the piss-poor Huffington Post ranks lower on my list of enjoyable activities than having teeth pulled without anaesthetic or undergoing a vasectomy with garden shears. But every so often that paean of quasi-Marxist groin-centric spherical objects, does manage to extract a valuable contribution from one its fellow travellers that underline the scale of the task facing we democratically-minded, classically-liberal freedom lovers.  On Friday that digital equivalent of used toilet roll delivered one such soul-destroying jumble of bovine colonic detritus.

The former prime minister of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, replete with those thick framed spectacles that are the essential fashion eyewear of socialist authoritarians the world over, for the benefit of the UK audience briefly used the tired but seemingly effective trick of conflating the EU and it destination of political union with the single market. Cue yawns, or in Nile Gardiner’s worthy case a short rebuttal in the Telegraph. But thereafter the true EUphile colours streamed through. Following the typical EU federalist falsehood came some welcome honesty:

Cameron will not succeed if he attempts to hold his European partners to ransom, exchanging acquiescence to EU treaty change over the eurozone for a unilateral repatriation of powers. Moreover, the rest of the EU knows that stability and economic recovery in the eurozone is vital to the UK’s own economic interests. Some have said Cameron is not going to get his way by pointing a gun at everyone else’s head. I believe a more apt metaphor would be that of a madman, threatening to blow himself up unless he gets his own way.

One issue on which Cameron has been deliberately vague is what powers he seeks to repatriate. Social and employment law which sets minimum standards for annual leave, maternity, working hours or health and safety practices? Police and judicial cooperation which leading law enforcement figures have said are vital to the UK’s national security? The Common Fisheries Policy, which is already currently undergoing major reform? Do the fish even know wherei (sic) international borders are anyway? The only thing Cameron will achieve by seeking to renegotiate terms of membership is that Britain will be left ostracised, resented and alone. And the failure to meet expectations back home for a repatriation of powers would risk sending the UK hurtling towards the exit.

We can but hope.  But this honesty, even though it has been spilled out in a curious effort to make Britons want more of this rather than less, once again exposes Cameron’s empty rhetoric and the bleating of supposed business geniuses for what it is.  What it also does is provide ‘outers’ with yet more valuable ‘horse’s mouth’ material to show the renegotiation meme so beloved of Cameron, the leaden Tories and their partisan cheerleaders, is a fantasy option.

People are being lured in to supporting a non-existant ‘renegotiation’ option or reluctantly accepting continued EU membership because of establishment scare tactics and the concealment of the benefits of independence; which is why Mr Catherine Ashton’s recent YouGov poll (for the EUphile Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the socialist authoritarian Fabian Society) saw a fall in the number of people aged 18-34 wanting to leave the EU with more in that group wanting to stay put. Across the whole electorate the split for leaving the EU/staying in the EU is 55% / 43%.

Click to enlarge

People desiring a major renegotiation of the terms of EU subordination is perfectly fine in itself; but its prospects are even less likely than me fulfilling my desire of engaging in an extended passionate, Monte Carlo based extra-marital liaison with Bar Refaeli, Kate Beckinsale, Doutzen Kroes and Blake Lively.  However many people polled say they support the idea, it’s just not going to happen.

While Verhofstadt then deviates back into the realms of lies and gross distortion by repeating the agreed line on EFTA and the ‘fax law’ fallacy, misleading people by describing the more than 50% of UK exports that travel through the EU as being exports to the EU, (the UK Treasury Pink Book, the OECD and the European Commission all put the figure at below 50 per cent, with the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics showing the Eurozone accounts for just 47.1 per cent of our exports of goods) and desperately trying to convince people that having your voice and interests diluted and weakened by combining it with 26 other competing and conflicting voices and interests is more effective than using your own voice to articulate your own position, he has nonetheless offered some service.  If little Guy reads the HuffPo comments in response to his rant he may also be rather disheartened to see how many people reject his premise and see the need and value to be an independent country again.

But before heading back to his seat on the gravy train and some back-slapping from the ‘colleagues’ who are desperate to keep the whole stinking ediface intact, Verhofstadt leaves us with a fisking opportunity:

In fields as diverse as the single market, foreign policy, trade and enlargement, the UK has shown that it can play a leading role. Crucially, Britain’s liberal instincts have helped ensure that the EU remains competitive, outward looking, and a force for peace and trade liberalisation throughout the world. It has achieved this not through blackmail, but by building alliances and pushing for EU-wide reform.

If put accurately and truthfully that would read: In fields as diverse as the single market, foreign policy, trade and enlargement, the UK has tried to play a leading role but has been ignored. Crucially, Britain’s liberal instints have been abused to keep it firmly inside an EU that is anti-competitive, insular, and a force for empty rhetoric and corporatism throughout the world. It has achieved this not through blackmail, but by being lied to and blackmailed by EU federalists who determine the UK’s alliances for her and reject every call for EU-wide reform.

Thanks for your help, Guy!

No, not bullshit…

But another product generated by bulls that furthers the continuation of the species…  Yes, even bull semen is regulated, as you can see in the list below.

It’s always interesting to see a snapshot of just one small element of the EU’s control over this country – in this case regulations imposed on DEFRA as a direct result of EU legislation. There is no reason why the UK could not draft essential regulations itself rather than wait for Brussels to hand down the diktats for implementation, but our EU membership means we have to adopt whatever our supreme government overseas decides is best for all 27 member states, regardless of their differing needs and situations.

Tory MP, Priti Patel, likes asking questions like these to elicit a written answer in the House of Commons.  While she doesn’t seem to do much with the information, eurosceptics can benefit from it.  The range and scope of EU legislation and regulation that will need to be reviewed and unpicked will take many years to deal with to suit this country’s needs.  There will need to be a period of transition from EU member state to independent country so we can take control of our own affairs once again.  A unilateral withdrawal without attention to the consequences would be a disaster – something Nigel Farage needs to learn pretty bloody fast.

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which regulations his Department introduced as a result of EU legislation in (a) 2011 and (b) 2012 to date; which regulations his Department expects to implement as a result of EU legislation in (i) 2013 and (ii) the next two years; and what estimate he has made of the cost of each such regulation to the (A) public purse and (B) private sector.

Richard Benyon: DEFRA introduced the following regulations in 2011 as a result of EU legislation:

Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2011

Energy Information Regulations 2011

The Seed Marketing (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Marketing of Fresh Horticultural Produce (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011(1)

The Environmental Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) Regulations 2011

The Reporting of Prices of Milk Products (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Wine Regulations 2011(1)

The Pollution Prevention and Control (Designation of Directives) (England and Wales) Order 2011(1)

The Animal By-Products (Enforcement) and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2011

The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Fruit Juices and Fruit Nectars (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Incidental Flooding and Coastal Erosion (England) Order 2011

The Agricultural Holdings (Units of Production) (England) Order 2011(1)

The Bovine Semen (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Poultrymeat (England) Regulations 2011

The Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

The Non-Commercial Movements of Pet Animals Order 2011

The Rural Development Programme (Transfer and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2011(1)

The Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2011

The Aquatic Animal Health (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

The Plant Protection Products (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2011

The Poultry Health Scheme (Fees) Regulations 2011(1)

The Charges for Residues Surveillance (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Eels (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Landfill (Maximum Landfill Amount) Regulations 2011(1)

The Natural Mineral Water, Spring Water and Bottled Drinking Water (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2011(1)

The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

The Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011

The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Commencement No.5, Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Order 2011(1)

The Pigs (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 2011

The Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003 (Amendment) Regulations 2011

DEFRA introduced the following regulations in 2012 as a result of EU legislation:

The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Agriculture, Animals, Environment and Food etc. (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2012(1)

The INSPIRE (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Veterinary Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Uplands Transitional Payment Regulations 2012(1)

The Zootechnical Standards (England) Regulations 2012

The Bluetongue (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Plant Health (Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) Regulations 2012(1)

The Seed Marketing (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Volatile Organic Compounds in Paints, Varnishes and Vehicle Refinishing Products Regulations 2012

The Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2012(1)

The Plant Health (Fees) (England) Regulations 2012

The Quality Standards for Green Bananas (England and Wales) Regulations 2012(1)

The Agricultural Holdings (Units of Production) (England) Regulations 2012(1)

The Plant Health (Import Inspection Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012(1)

The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Transitional Provisions) 2012(1)

The Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012(1)

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulations 2012

The Controlled Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2012

The Scallop Fishing (England) Order 2012

The Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012

The Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment) Order 2012(1)

The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2012

The Contaminated Land (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Plant Health (England) (Amendment) Order 2012(1)

The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012

DEFRA does not capture estimated costs to the public purse of new regulations but does capture estimated costs to business. These are set out in individual impact assessments which can be found on the Better Regulation Executive’s Impact Assessment Library:

http://www.ialibrary.bis.gov.uk/links/

Details of forthcoming Government regulations on business are published every six months in Statements of New Regulation. The most recent statement was published on 17 December and details new regulations expected over the period 1 January to 30 June 2013, including those to be introduced as a result of EU legislation. This Fifth Statement can be found on GOV.UK at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bis-fifth-statement-of-new-regulation-regulations-covering-january-to-june-2013

(1) There are no associated impact assessments for this legislation because the legislation was not expected to have an impact on business or civil society.

And there’s plenty more where this lot came from…

Norway to EU: “Ingen”

David Cameron and his little EUrohelpers at Open Europe were probably, like us, too busy looking forward to Christmas to have spotted this important piece of information published by EFTA regarding EU plans for harmonisation of environmental policy relating to oil and gas energy:

The European Commission has recently proposed legislation aiming at harmonising the environmental procedures and risk management related to offshore oil and gas activities. A proposal for a regulation on the safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities was presented by the Commission on 27 October 2011. Under the rules of the proposed new legislation, offshore oil and gas firms would have to submit major hazard reports and emergency response plans before getting a licence to drill in European Union territory. It is currently being discussed in the EU institutions whether the proposal for a regulation should be changed into a directive.

The Norwegian government has taken the view that the proposed regulation by the European Commission falls outside the geographic and substantive scope of the EEA agreement.

Oh dear, David Cameron and Open Europe caught out lying again. You would think the media would be all over this, unless of course they have vested interests or are getting pressure from their owner barons to exercise bias by omission and ignore this important story…

OK, ‘En svale gjør ingen sommer,’ as they say in Norway. But we are not talking about one swallow, this is yet another example – and there are many more – of Norway having a big say in what legislation is adopted. Conversely, when the EU declares this is the way things will be, the UK will have to accept it lock, stock and anti-democratic barrel.

So can we expect to see Cameron and Open Europe correct their false assertions? Or will their rampant Europhilia and fetish for pleasing their masters in Brussels see them continue peddling blatant lies about Norway and Switzerland supposedly having no say in EU matters yet having to accept everything handed down from the EU bureaucrats?

More evidence that Cameron lied about Norway and Switzerland

The europhile narrative when it comes to Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland – the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) members of the European Economic Area (EEA) -  is that they are obliged to adopt all EU legislation related to the single market.  The stated exceptions are in matters of agriculture and fisheries.

Indeed, as we have seen recently seen David Cameron say of Norway and Switzerland’s position (blindly accepted and repeated by organisations that take their lead from Conservative Central Office):

[...] basically you have to obey all the rules of the single market but you don’t have a say over what they are.

So, poking around various websites, it was very interesting to come across this information published in mid-December on europolitics.info concerning the assessesment of relations between the EU and the EFTA states by the European Council:

The EEA agreement “has proven to be effective and in the interest of all,” state the draft conclusions by the 27, which nevertheless regret that Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland have not yet incorporated into their national laws a “large number” of legal acts adopted in the EU. The homogeneity of the internal market and its “credibility” depend on their doing so, notes the text.

You can read the full report that spawned the article here.  The full text of the article is at the bottom of this post.

It seems the ‘obligation’ to adopt all EU legislation relating to the single market is nothing of the sort and the EFTA countries continue to enjoy autonomy, much to the chagrin of the EU.  It is worth noting that Switzerland comes in for a hammering in the assessment from the Council, for having the temerity to act in its own interests and not adopt evolving EU law and the various mechanisms (surveillance, judicial control and dispute settlement) that the EU says guarantee “homogeneous interpretation and application” of the internal market rules in the EU.

That being the case and the fact the UK was party to the drafting of the Council assessment, it demonstrates ever more clearly the deceitful nature of Cameron’s false assertions.  Perhaps Cameron’s quote would be accurate if he had said; ‘basically the EU wants EFTA countries to obey all the rules of the single market they have had a hand in shaping, but they can and do sometimes refuse to adopt them leaving the 27 reduced to threatening, cajoling and bullying in the hope they finally cave in’.

Full Text of article

Good marks for EEA, bad marks for Berne
By Tanguy Verhoosel | Tuesday 18 December 2012

Liechtenstein: good. Norway and Iceland: average. Switzerland: unsatisfactory.

These are the very contrasting marks the 27 will be giving to the four European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) countries, on 20 December (1). Every two years, the Council assesses relations between the EU and the EFTA states. The three – Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland – that are members of the European Economic Area (EEA) earn the highest marks.

The EEA agreement “has proven to be effective and in the interest of all,” state the draft conclusions by the 27, which nevertheless regret that Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland have not yet incorporated into their national laws a “large number” of legal acts adopted in the EU. The homogeneity of the internal market and its “credibility” depend on their doing so, notes the text.

Individually, the Union praises Liechtenstein, whose “political determination” and “significant administrative efforts” are seen as exemplary. The principality can be considered a “reference” for other countries of small territorial size – Andorra, San Marino and Monaco – with which the Union wishes to intensify its relations.

CRITICISMS OF ICELAND
The 27 particularly applaud the steps taken by Vaduz to step up the fight against tax fraud and evasion. The spirit of “solidarity” shown by the people of Liechtenstein through their financial support for new EU member states to 2014 is also appreciated.

The compliment is also valid for Norway and Iceland, which nonetheless receive lower marks than Liechtenstein.
Norway and the EU have developed successful cooperation in recent years in a number of sectors – Norway’s contribution of more than €7 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the context of the economic crisis, police and judicial cooperation, foreign and security policy, fisheries and energy – note the EU conclusions.

On trade, however, the Council “regrets” that Norway has decided to make use of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement proceedings against EU measures on trade in seal products and that it has raised customs duties on certain agricultural products.

Certain criticisms are also addressed to Iceland, held at least partially responsible for the failed negotiations with the EU on joint management of mackerel stocks.

The Council applauds Reykjavik’s measures to stabilise its economy following the bank sector crash in 2008. However, it notes “remaining weaknesses” in the financial services sector and adds that certain economic issues, including capital controls, still need to be addressed.

SWITZERLAND: STALEMATE
The biggest problem for the EU is Switzerland (see Europolitics 4534 and 4548).
The 27 reiterate their determination to develop their relations with Switzerland. However, the negotiations launched by the two partners on further Swiss participation in the internal market “have been marked by a stalemate” for years and are not likely to advance until the institutional issues highlighted by the Union since 2008 have been “solved”. These concern adaptation of agreements with Switzerland to evolving EU law and the introduction of various mechanisms (surveillance, judicial control and dispute settlement) to guarantee “homogeneous interpretation and application” of the internal market rules in the EU.

Switzerland presented proposals in this respect in June, but Berne needs to take “further steps” to achieve this objective, from which the EU will not turn away. Switzerland is not engaging solely in a bilateral relationship with the Union; it has become a “participant in a multilateral project”.

For the 27, this justifies the creation of a “legally binding mechanism” on incorporation of the acquisand “international mechanisms” for surveillance and judicial control, similar to what exists in the EEA.

“Exploratory discussions” in this context will continue – Swiss State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Yves Rossier is expected in Brussels on 29 January 2013 – before the possible opening of formal negotiations.

The 27 also denounce certain Swiss measures “that are not compatible with the provisions and the spirit” of the agreement on the free movement of persons. They urge Switzerland, among other things, to reconsider its decision to limit access to its labour market for nationals of Central and Eastern European EU member states.

On business taxation, the Union remains “deeply concerned” about certain canton-level tax regimes (favourable to holding companies, domiciliary companies and joint enterprises) that create “an unacceptable distortion of competition” in Europe. The Council calls for their “abolition”.

Although “progress” has been made in the ongoing “dialogue” between the Commission and Berne, the conclusions state that Switzerland remains reluctant to take all the EU’s concerns, which also relate to certain federal tax regimes, into account.

Foreign policy represents another point of friction.

The 27 welcome Switzerland’s participation in several EU missions, but regret that it has not “fully aligned itself” with EU sanctions against Iran. Reading between the lines, the Council suggest that its refusal to impose an embargo on Iranian oil products dictated first and foremost by its determination to protect the many trading companies based in Geneva.

The 27 also highlight the need for an additional Swiss financial contribution to the reduction of economic and social disparities in the Union. This is only fair since Switzerland has been granted access to this “enlarged internal market”.
To date, Berne has contributed around €1 billion to the ten Cental and Eastern countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. The Council “reaffirms” its expectation that “this expression of solidarity, which underpins the relations between the EU and Switzerland, will be extended” to Croatia, as a start. The Commission has been given negotiating directives in this framework.

The Union remains “deeply concerned” about certain canton-level tax regimes in Switzerland

(1) The draft conclusions are available at http://www.europolitics.info > Search = 327164

EU scare stories now coming thick and fast

Earlier today Richard explained over at his EU Referendum dominion that:

A little while ago, we identified a three-legged europhile strategy – “renegotiation-reform-scare”. The three legs are intended to blunt calls for a referendum or blur and confuse the issues so that any result is indecisive. And Van Rompuy is doing the scare bit for us.

It’s not just Van Rompuy doing the scaring, now Viviane Reding has weighed in with a EUroscare of her own concerning a British opt-out from EU crime and policing laws, including the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).

La Reding says in an interview given to the Barclay Beano:

“Do you want criminals and paedophiles running around freely on the streets, is that really in the United Kingdom’s interest? It is crazy.”

The meme is clear, without the EU there will be no law and order in Britain, which therefore cannot survive without the EU. This laugh-out-loud fallacy is presented as a reality by a true believer who is desperate to see the EU become a United States of Europe. Reding clearly fails to recognise it is law from Europe incorporated into this country’s legal system that keeps criminals and paedophiles running around freely on our streets on the spurious basis of protecting their human rights.

The fact Reding cites British police forces as desperate to keep some of the EU’s proposed powers should be reason enough for us to be gravely suspicious of the package.  But the real issue here is that the EU crime and policing package dispenses with protections that are essential in a society where people must be considered innocent unless proven guilty.  The package does not require police in other EU states to present any evidence that there is a case to answer before this country’s citizens can be put into custody and shipped overseas without any recourse.

No doubt the BBC will faithfully report the EU viewpoint on this and perhaps pull in a EUphile Lib Dem to explain why we absolutely must opt-in to EU crime and policing laws, while doing the bare minimum to provide a platform for the opposing viewpoint.

If they were minded to impartial coverage they should give a platform to Michael Turner and Jason McGoldrick, who have been convicted of fraud in Hungary only in the last month having been whisked off and detained for four months in a judicial process that began in 2009 with the processing of a questionable extradition under the terms of a European Arrest Warrant.

EU withdrawal showdown – not a matter of if, but when

Adding weight to what we keep saying on this blog, that David Cameron is engaging in fairytale politics with his pledges to ‘renegotiate’ Britain’s ‘relationship’ with the EU, is an intervention from the French president, Francois Hollande.  As the Telegraph reports:

The French President, Francois Hollande, declared that Europe is not “a la carte” like a menu from which member states can pick and choose their powers.

He issued his rebuke to the Prime Minister as Mr Cameron insisted he would fight for a “better deal for Britain” and seek to take back certain powers from Europe.

The idea of a pick and mix EU is a non starter and now we have not just an EU bureaucrat offering that assessment anonymously, we now have a head of state of a major EU member doing so.  The commitment of EU member states is to ever closer union, but Cameron’s non-existant fairtytale option of taking some powers back but leaving other areas under EU control flies in the face of that.  The option is simply not on the table and the EU knows allowing it would result in the unpicking of the acquis communautaire.

Cameron and the Europlastics need to understand EU membership is a binary condition.  You’re fully in or you’re completely out.  Just as a woman can’t be a little bit pregnant, a country can’t be a little bit of an EU member – even though both conditions originate from having been screwed.

The drawbacks of membership and increasing recognition of the loss of self determination in this country are strongly outweighing the retailed positives, resulting in a growing number of Britons saying they would like to leave the union.  The number will only increase as more people come to recognise Cameron and the Tories have been telling tall tales, and that recognition will dawn as more interventions from the likes of Hollande are publicised.

That means there will eventually be a showdown and the battle will be the in-out question. It’s not a question of if, Hollande has seen to that.  It’s now a matter of when.  The EUsceptics will need to be on their game to defeat the wreckers of the Tory Europlastic tendancy.

Reality bites for Tory fairytale EU renegotiation option

Here’s one in the eye for David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Open Europe, the Daily Mail, Telegraph and a host of other EUphile fantasists who keep presenting the British people with a fake and non-existant option of renegotiating a ‘looser relationship’ with the EU…

We have been saying this for years.  Now the EU home affairs commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, has reminded the Tory fronts that other EU states would be able to block the UK from accessing the powers it might choose to opt back in to, a clear diplomatic message that power has been ceded to the EU and it will decide what goes.  Malmström is quoted in the Financial Times:

“Negotiations haven’t started yet as we don’t know what the UK wants to opt out of but, of course, we will have to analyse their choices with our legal experts because, of these 136 laws, many are very connected.”

In typical Tory fashion, denial was the immediate response.  With clear parallels to the false statements from the government about Starbucks and the tax rules it should be following, Tory MP, Dominic Raab, said Britain had “every right” to cherry-pick which laws it wanted:

“The commissioner is quite wrong to insist we give Brussels democratic control in order to engage in operational law enforcement co-operation,” the MP added. “It is that kind of arrogance that corrodes public confidence in the EU.”

The problem for Raab is that Brussels already has control.  The UK signed a variety of treaties against the wishes of the British people and it is another fairytale for Raab to pretend the UK has control in areas it has given up.  In the same way Danny Alexander is trying to channel public anger at Starbucks for acting lawfully and within the rules, because he doesn’t like the outcome, Raab is trying to shift the public focus on the EU acting lawfully and within the rules the UK political class agreed to, because he doesn’t like the outcome.

As Malmström has explained, any decision concerning the UK’s opt-in choices would not be up to her but would have to be agreed by all other member states. Them’s the rules, whether Raab, Cameron, Johnson, Open Europe et al like it or not.  Those are the treaties they have to accept to remain members of the EU.

The only reality is this, if the UK wants to determine laws and regulations for itself then it needs to be a sovereign, independent nation state.  It is not, and never can be all the while it remains a member of the EU.  Membership is incompatible with the vision Cameron & co are painting, and their vision is not possible within the structures they are determined to remain a part of.

Solution?  Invoke Article 50 by stating the UK intends to leave the EU.  The UK would regain full control of its ow affairs, while forcing the EU to the negotiating table to thrash out agreements on free trade, movement of people and capital and the other matters essential to protecting our economic interests.

 

A very Scottish independence referendum

There is a body of opinion in Scotland that wishes for that country to leave the United Kingdom and become a fully independent nation state, embodied by the Scottish National Party (SNP).

With the SNP having beaten Labour to form the devolved government in Holyrood, the notion of a referendum on Scottish independence has ceased to become a moot point and has become a genuine prospect.  As a result the independence issue in Scotland seems to be coming to life.  There is a feeling that as Scots have become used to their SNP devolved administration they are increasingly warming to the idea of full independence – or enhanced devolution at the very least.

Polls last year by YouGov and Ipsos-MORI showed a majority of Scots voters still opposed to independence, although support for independence was shown to be increasing.  In between those two polls, however, Scotland’s Herald newspaper commissioned a poll by TNS-BMRB that saw more respondants in favour of independence than against it.  Momentum is clearly with the pro-independence argument and it seems to be building.

We have long been subjected to the sight of the main three political parties uniting under a ‘consensus’ banner to oppose any idea that doesn’t suit their wishes.  The same thing is happening in respect of the issue of a Scottish independence referendum.  The main three parties want to lead a government of the United Kingdom (setting aside the EU elephant in the room).  The idea of English, Welsh or Northern Irish MPs running a government that does not encompass rule over Scotland doesn’t fit with their delusion of power.  What the Scottish people may want is neither here nor there, which is why Westminster is holding on tight to its legal authority over binding independence referenda by countries that form the United Kingdom.  And therein lies the problem.  That is why we are seeing non Scots holding forth in front of the media saying what the Scots can and can’t do, must and mustn’t do.

Polling data shows the desire for independence is growing, therefore the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are now pressing hard for a referendum in Scotland to be held sooner rather than later.  The aim is clear – force the SNP to hold the referendum now before momentum builds and more people swap to the independence side.  Understandably the SNP wants to wait until it thinks enough Scots will vote for independence.  The resulting bunfight is now in full swing.

The only people who should decide the future of Scotland are the Scots.  The only people who should decide the timing of the referendum in Scotland and the question(s) asked of the Scottish people are the Scots.  The Scots must be freed of the constraints imposed by Westminster and allowed to decide their future for themselves.

We are now witnessing hypocrisy writ large.  There are people who expressed outrage that Ireland’s Lisbon Treaty referendum was subject to heavy interference by the EU, but who are endorsing similar interference by the UK in Scotland’s independence debate.

The Scots must be free from interference to organise themselves, reap their own rewards and make their own mistakes.  The same must hold true for the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.  That is what democracy and self determination entail.

Never mind the irony that they might secure for themselves independent nation status only to surrender it to governance by the anti democratic European Union, or help bring about the EU’s regionalisation agenda.  Never mind that they may have misplaced assumptions about North Sea oil ownership and revenues.  Never mind the complex issues around fiscal and military (to name but two hugely important matters) separation from the UK.  The Scots must decide for themselves – and they must do so on their terms and at a time of their choosing.

The penny is dropping in Ireland

… so to speak.  Of course now it is not the penny, it is the Euro.

No matter.  This previously fiercely independent nation, one that fought so hard to throw off British rule yet handed power to the EU mandarins in Brussels, seems to be rediscovering its appetite for self determination and is refusing to accept the anti democratic settlement foisted upon it.

In September this blog posted about Eamon Keane of the Irish Independent encouraging the Irish people to forge a parliament of their own to replace the impotent imposter that is presiding over the dismantling of democracy.

Two months on, Richard North at EU Referendum posts about Fintan O’Toole of the Irish Times railing against the setting aside of collective decision-making by the Government acting as a whole.  The comments left in reply to O’Toole’s piece demonstrate an incisive understanding of the situation, rightly identifying how democracy has been hijacked and that Ireland is operating in an unspoken federalist fashion.

Op-eds such as these in the Irish media will only serve to energise the people and stoke their resentment of the political class.  If that boils over, history bears testament to how far the famously rebellious Irish will go to restore their independence.

That much discussed trade between the UK and EU

In the run up to the Commons debate on national referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU, many talking heads kept referring to the UK’s trade with other EU member states.

Time and again on various news programmes we heard pro-EU advocates proclaim than anywhere between 40-50% of the UK’s trade is with the EU and therefore leaving the EU would be devastating to our economy.  Setting aside the flaws in the inherent suggestion that leaving the political structures of the EU would automatically mean we would lose our ability to trade with remaining EU member states, very little focus was directed at who holds the relative power in UK-EU trade.

A written answer in the House of Commons yesterday goes some way to explaining why so little attention was given to the question of who would come off worst from a trade dispute between the UK and EU.  For it was confirmed that the EU continues to do better out of trade with the UK than the UK does. In fact the Balance of Trade deficit the UK has with the EU has widened:

Mr Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what the size of the UK trade deficit with the EU was in each of the last five years.

Mr Davey: As published by the Office of National Statistics, the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union over the last years were as follows:

UK’s balance of trade in goods and services with the EU
£ million
2006	-29,616
2007	-35,235
2008	-28,582
2009	-27,421
2010	-35,534

While a number of commentators were quick to mention that Honda cars are made in Swindon and Nissan cars are made in Sunderland to take advantage of the UK’s ability to trade within the EU customs union, even with these manufacturing activities we still buy far more from the EU member states than they buy from us.  If both car makers moved to the continent it would only increase our balance of trade deficit with the EU and actually make us an even more valuable trading partner.

The figures make clear there is a vested interest in EU member states maintaining strong trade links with the UK, irrespective of whether the UK is self governing or ruled from Brussels.  To cite a loss of trade as a rationale for staying firmly inside the EU, and subverting the right of the British people to decide how this country is governed and by whom, is simply dishonest.

The EU reality ignored by politicians and media

This week’s announcement by Sir Max Hastings that was supposed to reverberate around the media bubble with the force of a volcanic eruption – namely that he has changed his unimpeachable view and now thinks his precious EU has been a disaster – landed with all the impact of a downy feather gliding slowly down on to a paving slab.

Despite his 1800+ words of grandiose moral superiority, Hastings still didn’t ‘get it’, a point illustrated superbly by EU Referendum.  Now, following on the heels of that clinical assessment of Hastings’ waffle, Christopher Booker uses column in the Sunday Telegraph to point out the vacuous nature of Hastings and the Tory Europlastics and remind readers of the reality of the EU that is either ignored or disregarded by our craven politicians and useless media:

Until the points Booker makes are understood and accepted there is little point listening to anything the politicians and hacks have to say about the EU issue.

Talking to the political class’ non-issues will help expose their ignorance and duplicity but it will not move us forward very far.  Perhaps we are finally approaching the time when we should switch our focus from attacking the failing EU to presenting a positive vision for Britain’s future as the independent nation it would be if it threw off governance by Brussels.  Events are changing the terms of the debate.

UK needs to be independent to deport foreign criminals

There can be no more clear a demonstration that our politicians do not understand who controls this country, or are content to wilfully misrepresent the truth to continue deceiving many British people who simply do not understand where power resides.

The subject is the unsurprising revelation that 102 foreign criminals and illegal immigrants who were set for deportation have been able to stay in the UK by claiming that they had a ‘family life’ here which is covered in Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The quote is carried by the Barclay Brother Beano and was made by Conservative MP, Dominic Raab:

Before the Human Rights Act, no criminal had ever claimed a right to family life to frustrate a deportation order in this country.

It is high time we changed the law, to restore some common sense and retain public confidence in our border controls.

If one wants to change something it is essential to understand the nature of the thing and honestly describe what must be done to change it. We do not have legal control over our borders.  It doesn’t matter if the Human Rights Act is kept or repealed. In order to rectify the situation of failed deportation efforts this country needs to take back control of its borders by having primacy over the law in this land.

The nature of the thing is clear. The UK is not independent, because UK politicians have subsumed it into the European Union without the permission of the electorate.  All the while the UK remains signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and remains part of the EU, the law in England and Wales and that in Scotland and that in Northern Ireland, will never have primacy.

Until the UK is truly independent people will be able to appeal decisions beyond our Supreme Court in London to the European Court of Human Rights. Thus te UK will remain beholden to its real government in Brussels and its real seat of legal authority in Strasbourg.

That is the only answer . We need to take back the power our politicians have given away to European bodies. But Raab does not say that because he either does not understand it (unlikely), or (almost certainly) he knows he would fall foul of the man who controls his Parliamentary career prospects, the Europhile quisling overlord David Cameron.

Thus Raab is just another of Cameron’s useful idiots.  He is either too stupid to be an elected representative because he does not understand who runs this country, or like most of his Parliamentary colleagues he puts his own interests and the tribal demands of his political party before the interests of the people he was elected by – and is handsomely paid to serve – namely the British public.

Political posturing and who is master in Hungary

Readers may be familiar with Hungary’s vicious assault on press freedom and the ability of citizen journalists to share their views.

The media would be neutered because if the ruling elite did not like what was reported, they could claim ‘offence’ and use a raft of measures to effectively shut down the paper or station carrying it. In addition, bloggers would have to register with the state and any videos, personal posts or tweets would be subject to a ‘balanced information’ requirement which enabled a newly formed Media Council to issue heavy fines for anyone expressing a subjective opinion.

Despite the internal outcry and the European Union’s insistance that Hungary follows EU law on media freedom, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said earlier this week:

‘The government has beaten back this attack,’ (in reference to criticism from the EU commission). ‘We do not accept any countries or country groupings as our superiors. Brussels is not Moscow,’ (in reference to the Soviet era).

It was a strong and unambiguous statement. Could it be that an elected national government, however dictatorial and wrongheaded, was daring to tell the EU to stay out of its affairs?  Was this a sign of growing rebelliousness among member states?  The challenge to Brussels was clear.

In the event it may as well have been David Cameron making that comment instead of Viktor Orlan.  For just several dozen hours on, we learn that Hungary has backed down.  Bloggers will no longer have to register and the ‘balanced information’ requirement has been dropped. And the provision restricting media content on the basis of not ‘causing offence’ to individuals, minorities or majorities is being narrowed down to not ‘discriminating’ against any group or not inciting to hatred.

Hungarians have just been given a clear demonstration of who holds power and governs their country – and it isn’t the Orlan administration or anyone they voted for.

For all the tough words and anger at the interference of Brussels (all be it on the subject of a dangerous attempt to stifle free speech and dissent) the elected government in Budapest has bowed before their EU master. For Orlan, read Cameron.  Once the theatric posturing has been acted out and the tough talk has been delivered to the domestic audience to give the impression of strength, the outcome is always an EU victory.  This is because these national leaders are Europhile lackeys.

And so it will continue to be until a national government holds itself completely sovereign, says ‘no’ to the EU  and refuses to accept any and all instruction, coercion or strong arming from Brussels. Power needs to be taken because it is never freely relinquished by a person or entity that wishes to retain it.

That Conservative Euroscepticism in action

Following on from yesterday’s post rubbishing James Forsyth’s news story in the Mail that suggested ‘constantly being told what you can and can’t do by Brussels is driving Ministers and No 10 deeper and deeper into the Eurosceptic camp’, a timely reminder of the depth of that Conservative Euroscepticism in the Conservatives’ favourite rag.  Click on the image below to enlarge then read the text beneath it and ask yourself, does this look like a Eurosceptic Conservative at his wits end with frustration on the verge of calling for an in-out referendum on EU membership?

And when clicking through on his image this is ‘Conservative Eurosceptic’ Foreign Secretary, William Hague’s introduction to the EU Civil Service recruitment section:

5:20PM GMT 25 Jan 2011

“Whatever you think of it, the EU is incredibly important to Britain. Whether you’re angry about red tape from Brussels, interested in what it means for British business, excited about the opportunities it gives young people to work in other European countries or wondering what European countries can achieve on the environment or international crises, you are bound to have an opinion on it.

“If you care about any of these things you should think about working in the EU’s institutions – the EU’s Civil Service. We want to see bright and ambitious British graduates taking up that opportunity. We need people involved who can bring a British point of view and expertise to the EU’s work.

“That’s why I’m backing this campaign for UK graduates to look at the EU’s Civil Service as a career. It could give you the chance to help the countries of Europe shape the European Union’s future direction. If you’re concerned about big policy issues, want to learn about international negotiations or fascinated by European cultures and languages, you may find the job you’re looking for with the EU.

“So do browse this site and leave your contact details if you’re interested in receiving further information on working for the EU’s Civil Service.”

The words quisling and sell out spring to mind.  How ironic the date that page was last updated, 25th January 2011, was the same date the Egyptian people began their effort to throw off undemocratic rule with a protest in Tahrir Square.

Cameron’s useful idiots, Hannan and Carswell

The Critical Reaction website carries a piece this evening which confirms the suspicions of many people that Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell are nothing more than David Cameron’s useful idiots:

In Committee Room 7 at the House of Commons this evening, Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell proposed that Better Off Out should wind itself up. Arguing that the supporters of BOO – whom present tonight included Lord Tebbit – have, in one form or another, ‘sat for thirty years’ without achieving the objective of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, the two men, supported by Mark Reckless, proposed that BOO should go out of business and be replaced by a cross-party referendum campaign.

There seems to be no end in sight to politicians seeking to dismember grassroots campaigns while pledging to advance them in another guise. Closing down a grassroots campaign like Better Off Out so it can be replaced by a politicians’ ego club within the walls of the Palace of Westminster, which will wither and die, suffocated by the desire to attain consensus and horse trade over vested interests, is the worst thing that could happen.  I can’t wait to hear what Simon Richards at The Freedom Association has to say about this.

Thankfully the author of the Critical Reaction piece has their wits about them, unlike Hannan and Carswell.  As the editorial rights points out:

If Tory MPs are reluctant to join BOO because of the implications for their career prospects, any group which is established that doesn’t threaten their personal ambitions isn’t likely to be doing its job.  David Cameron has been unambiguous on this point: he fully supports British membership of the EU. A group that he and the whips can tolerate ambitious Tory backbenchers belonging to is, almost by definition, a neutered body. With, in this instance, the proposed distinction of being one that intends to neuter itself.

Perhaps that is Hannan and Carswell’s intention?  Cameron would be very grateful.  After all, despite claiming to want Britain to leave the EU Hannan and Carswell have resolutely stayed within a Conservative party that has vowed to remain inside the EU and also refuses to allow the British people their democratic say on membership in a binding referendum. Perhaps Hannan and Carswell value the trappings of power as MEP and MP respectively more than principle.

Better Off Out should remain.  It should continue to provide a grassroots outlet for those outside the Westminster and Brussels villages who want democratic accountability restored to the UK. It should redouble its efforts to educate people about the consequences of being run by the EU and it should do so without a couple of parliamentarians attempting to play power games within a system that ensures they are doomed to failure.

Cameron shows his inner chameleon

This is what it all boils down to. This is what matters to David Cameron and in turn what he thinks matters to MPs. Everything those of us who have tried to explain what Cameron is really like has been made clear in two sentences from his own mouth.

Cameron had no interest in politics when he was at Oxford University, it just became a good route to power and success later on.  He was never a conservative, had no political ideology or principle, but in order to achieve selection to fight a parliamentary election he knew it was the Conservative party he had to join.

Cameron knew what act he had to put on to appeal to the mainstream conservative grassroots, hence the narrative about being a tax cutting, EUsceptic, law and order Tory.  Consequently Cameron believes every other MP has the same self serving, unprincipled, belief-free motives for being in parliament.  Experience has shown him to be largely correct and that is why his chosen method of threatening and intimidating new MPs into voting for his deceitful, utterly meaningless, sham European Union Bill centred on power:

‘You are making a bloody terrible mistake, Chris, it will do your career and reputation no good at all.

‘And you can bloody well forget about being a Minister.’

Anyone who still believes Cameron to be some kind of secret EUsceptic should have those words burned into their consciousness, because this demonstrates his EUphilia. It underlines the deception and the lies. It shows the sheer determination he possesses to create a piece of legislation that furthers the aim of transferring power to the EU while dishonestly spinning to the public that the Act will arrest the flow of competences to Brussels.

We live in an electoral dictatorship run by a cabal of EU enthusiasts who are determined to further the interests of Brussels in spite of the wishes of the people. No matter whether they wear Conservative blue, Labour red or Lib Dem yellow, underneath they don the gold stars of the European Union. They are determined to do everything in their power to prevent the majority of people in the UK from deciding if we want to be part of this anti democratic suprastate or not.

Cameron is the current head of the enemy within. It could just as easily be Miliband or Clegg. The effect would be identical.  Despite the acts of partisan posturing for the cameras in parliament, they are all friends and all in this together, united by a common goal to overcome the wishes of the British people and serve their own interests instead. This is the head of the fifth column.

Cameron is a liar and his EU Bill a fraud

Guido Fawkes has a bit of a focus on David Cameron’s completely meaningless piece of Common theatre known as the European Union Bill. As he says on his blog:

The Europe Bill allegedly seeks to close the “wriggle room” that ministers would have in granting referendums over changes to the powers surrendered to the EU. However given the fact it would require the UK to sign up to Treaties, only to subsequently put them to the country, it has left many scratching their head at how it would work.

Precisely. And the thing is Cameron knew this all along.  The Bill is only meant to give the illusion of self determination. It is intended to give people the impression that no more power will move from Westminster to Brussels. But it affords the UK no buffer from EU lwas and regulations and power will continue to flow to Brussels, weaking democratic accountability in this country. As such it is a wholesale deception from a pro EU Prime Minister who is serving the EU’s interests by ruthlessly attempting to con the public.

The EU love Cameron for doing this. He is not our man talking to Brussels, he is Brussels’ man keeping us in check. There is a concerted effort to perpetrate a fraud against the public as Guido’s piece and this summary of William Hague’s disgraceful deceit demonstrate. As I pointed out in that post, the Conservatives have lied through their teeth about stopping powers being surrendered to the EU:

Consider, George Osborne’s backing and approval of the EU’s new oversight plan for financial services which removes power from the UK and relocates in with the EU in Brussels. Let’s not forget Theresa May signing Britain up to European Investigation Orders (EIO). Do you recall being asked to approve any of the powers in this article that have been handed to the EU on Cameron’s watch?  And let us not forget the key fact that even with Cameron’s pathetic and meaningless ‘Referendum Lock’ we are having more and more laws are being imposed on the UK and Hague and his little chums are not lifting a finger to stop them. Next up on the export manifest is control over policing and justice, which the EU will be handed in the near future.

Now we have John Redwood chipping in with this observation – but staying firmly in the Conservative Party despite the fraud that is being carried out:

The government says its Bill will reassert or confirm Parliamentary sovereignty, at least with respect to the EU. It will confirm that EU law only applies here because Parliament enacted the 1972 European Communities Act, giving the EU what powers it enjoys.

Some say it is now more complex than that. If, as some say, judges can now change or overturn laws through common law judgements and cases, then judges too can work with EU law and Treaties regardless of the views of Parliament.

While Redwood is broadly correct his subsequent assessment where he says: ‘I do believe we need to strengthen democratic accountability here at home’ shows he has missed the point. We need to restore democratic accountability here at home because it has been swept away. If Redwood thinks we still have it, he is at best misguided.

Despite the weight of accumulated evidence elsewhere showing the EU Bill will achieve nothing if enacted, Cameron is pushing ahead with this con regardless. It is nothing more than a costly performance and a waste of time. To put it into context, if enacted the EU Bill will have the same effect as a law passed banning cheese production on the moon. Nothing will change. No lunar cheese will be made anyway and nothing this Bill claims to do will stop further powers being handed to the EU. Cameron and Hague are bare faced liars and are taking us all for fools.

Lies and deception from Europhile hypocrite Hague

Despite my best efforts, words cannot express the simmering fury that rose in me today as I read William Hague’s article in the Sunday Telegraph.

Rarely has such an eloquent and articulate individual compromised so many positions of principle in such a short space of time, before going on to write articles such as today’s fatuous, hypocritical cant that utterly misrepresents reality and actively seeks to deceive the public. Spin is not a word that adequately describes what Hague has written. A pack of lies is the expression that springs to mind.

Here’s how Hague opens his piece:

The disillusionment of British voters with politicians has many causes: expenses scandals, economic pressures and the failures of the last Labour Government.

But high on the list of such causes is the sheer undemocratic arrogance with which a European treaty of huge significance – the Lisbon Treaty – was rammed into law two years ago with no mandate of any kind from the people of this country.

Immediately one can see where Hague is going with this. And as sure as night follows day, he does.  He launches the standard partisan party political attack on Labour for ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without the promised referendum. But then, in an extraordinary defence of the EU goes on to say that Labour’s actions were: ‘a very grave blow to the European Union’s democratic credentials in this country’.

Straight away Hague has drifted off into some parallel reality. The EU is fundamentally anti democratic, by design. It is structured to ensure ordinary people throughout the member states are incapable of derailing the wishes of the political class. But Hague’s use of language is carefully crafted to give the impression the EU is democratic and we only think otherwise because of Labour’s actions. This is pretty cynical and untruthful stuff. Wee Willie then goes on to say:

I would have dearly loved to hold a referendum on that treaty after a change of government: sadly the ratification of Lisbon by all 27 EU states last autumn made that impossible. But I have always been determined that this flagrant denial of democratic choice to the people of Britain would never happen again.

At this point the cat’s sixth sense triggered his decision to flee through the door, the TV remote went airborne and a low rumbling roar ascended from deep inside, gaining pitch and volume as the anger erupted in response to the naked lies in that short paragraph.

Nothing, I repeat, nothing prevented the Tories from keeping their promise to ask the British people if they wished to be bound by the provisions set out in Lisbon. David Cameron had said time and again that if the treaty was ratified he would not let matters rest there, but he would not elaborate about what that meant.  A significant proportion of the electorate believed him.  The ratification could have been withdrawn citing the will of the British people. But Cameron, Hague and the rest of the sopping wet social democrats masquerading as conservatives revealed that not letting matters rest there meant letting matters rest right there.

In fact, they metaphorically plumped up the cushions and brought the treaty a cup of tea. They said it was impossible to do anything. This is a lie. They could have tackled the issue but chose not to. They wanted to appear ‘constructive’ for their friends in Brussels. As for Hague being determined that it would never happen again, this is what we have heard every previous time and the lie has already been exposed since Cameron slithered into Downing Street. This comes to the fore as Hague shamelessly postulates that:

The current system we have for these kinds of decisions is, quite simply, now morally bankrupt. It must change.

It is our firm belief and our policy that no more powers should be moved from Britain to the EU but that is not enough – if any Government ever again attempted to change the EU Treaties to transfer further powers the British people must rightfully have their say.

Bullshit. Sorry, there is no more suitable word for it. What is the reality behind these fine words?

Consider, George Osborne’s backing and approval of the EU’s new oversight plan for financial services which removes power from the UK and relocates in with the EU in Brussels. Let’s not forget Theresa May signing Britain up to European Investigation Orders (EIO). Do you recall being asked to approve any of the powers in this article that have been handed to the EU on Cameron’s watch?  And let us not forget the key fact that even with Cameron’s pathetic and meaningless ‘Referendum Lock’ we are having more and more laws are being imposed on the UK and Hague and his little chums are not lifting a finger to stop them. Next up on the export manifest is control over policing and justice, which the EU will be handed in the near future.

There really is no point reading any more of Hague’s Janusesqe waffle, where he delves into hypothetical technical matters about how the useless European Union Bill will supposedly stop more powers heading east, while the examples above show that in practice it is a con trick that makes no material difference. Hague has written his piece, there is no facility for leaving comments, and so he remains in the Westminster bubble contenting himself that his job is done and we have bought into his supposed Eurosceptic outlook.

And they call this a democracy.

Incandescent about the light bulb swindle

News from the United States.

Congressman Joe Barton (Republican – Texas 6th) has introduced a Bill in the House to repeal the 2007 law that effectively bans incandescent bulbs in the US, starting in 2012.

On his website Rep. Barton explains:

This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom. Voters sent us a message in November that it is time for politicians and activists in Washington to stop interfering in their lives and manipulating the free market. The light bulb ban is the perfect symbol of that frustration. People don’t want congress dictating what light fixtures they can use.

Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable. Alternatives, including the most common replacement Compact Fluorescent Lights or CFL’s, are more expensive and health hazards – so why force them on the American people? From the health insurance you’re allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy, Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to you and your family.

Take a bow, Congressman. You seem to understand what representative democracy means. But then, America is about the last country that has something resembling a functioning democracy.

If only the UK was sovereign and had politicians like Barton. Just think, we might even have politicians who would listen to the people they serve and tell the self selecting and unaccountable elite of the European Commission to carefully locate their unnecessary, expensive and harmful ban on incandescent light bulbs in their deep, dark anatomical crevices.

(Hat tip: Green Hell)

EU spin machine moving into another gear

The ‘party line’ is the order of the day for the EU in 2011.

Stephen Fidler, writing in the Wall Street Journal, explains that at the top of the European leaders’ new year resolutions is ‘promising to stay on message’. In other words, leaders and officials are being told to shut up and only sing from the Brussels approved hymnal. It is a recipe for deceit that will widen the gulf between the political elite and the people they are determined hide the truth from.

Fidler provides an anecdote that neatly summarises what communication from the EU will look like in the future:

It used to be quite common for politicians to say one thing to audiences at home and something quite different abroad. The Brazilians have a saying for it: só para inglês ver. It literally means “Only for the English to see” but it’s used to describe things said or done for show where the underlying reality is quite different. It is said to have derived from the 19th century when the British were clamping down on the slave trade, and the Brazilian government (which did not abolish slavery until 1888) pretended to be helping them.

In the example, the role of latter day Brazilians will be played by the EU and the deceived English will be played by the ordinary people of the member states, who be told the party line rather than the truth. This is not about better communication, it is about controlling the flow of information to keep people in the dark. We will only hear what Brussels wants us to hear.

It is an abuse of power by the political elite in its determination to avoid being held to account or accept the wishes of the people. It is neither democratic nor acceptable. But this is what will come to pass unless people wake up and resist what amounts to a concerted effort to enslave us within a new bureaucratic order over which we will have no control.

Update: Witterings From Witney weighs in, observing that the Heads of Member States are just confirming that they are no longer in charge of their country’s destiny.