Blair's final betrayal of the UK electorate - and the democratic process - The new EU constitution is backing away from free trade and moving further towards a Super State. All very thinly disguised as a so-called ‘treaty’. He has signed up to it with absolutely no mandate and is arguing one is not needed.
The only question is will it just be The outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s betrayal, or will Gordon Browne make it his and Nu-Lab’s betrayal as well?
Will Gordon Browne have the stomach to hold a referendum. Not, one suspects, without a bit of fuss from the electorate - and they are so dispirited and disengaged with the political process it is questionable if they have the necessary will to bother to register their disapproval.
Cock-a-hoop Pro-European groups and other EU leaders crowed that the Treaty was the derailed Constitution in all but name.
The shadow UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, pointed out:
"Not all the details are clear, or finalised, but we now know the basis of the new EU Treaty and it is clear that large parts of the EU Constitution are repackaged, but back.
"Blair and Brown have signed up to major shifts of power from Britain to the EU and major changes in the way the EU works.
"The EU would now be able to sign treaties in its own right and, despite any 'opt-ins', the European Commission and Court of Justice would now have new powers over criminal law. The EU Treaty would also set up a new EU president and diplomatic service.
"These are just some of the fundamental changes that were in the constitution and are now set to be in this new treaty.
"Given their manifesto commitment to a referendum on the EU Constitution, the Government have absolutely no democratic mandate to introduce these major changes without letting the British people have the final decision in a referendum,"
Now if those aren’t the trappings of a Super State you have to wonder what are?
This is another absolutely glaring example of just how ambivalent to the democratic process the EU actually is.
This ‘treaty’ also gives the EU the right to amend it later, effectively as it suits them. A nice set of sliding goalposts.
Much of this so-called ‘treaty’ has already been rejected. It has no legitimate mandate and is so far reaching it needs a specific endorsement from the electorate. Without such an endorsement it should never expect any acceptance or support from the people of the UK.
The European political elite behaves as if they were Kings and Princes of Europe, entitled to make treaties on their own recognisance. Tony Blair appears to share this view. How dare they? We are not their subjects, they are our servants, elected to represent our views and guard our rights.
Sunday, 24 June 2007
Saturday, 23 June 2007
BMA planning on demanding yet more controls on alcohol
The health fascists at the British Medical Association are planning on demanding a national ban on drinking in the street should be introduced at their annual next Tuesday.
They say it’s to combat Britain’s so-called ‘drinking culture’.
Given that councils can impose local ones where required it would seem to be completely superfluous.
It would stop you having a glass of wine outside. Depending on if ‘street’ was actually in public then it would spoil quite a few adult pick nicks.
Dr Christopher Spencer Jones, the chairman of the BMA's public health committee, said of alcohol yesterday that it is a “mind-altering drug” he went on:
"It can lead people to drive dangerously, have sex without a condom leading to unwanted pregnancies and make someone punch somebody and land them in court.”
No! ~ Alcohol doesn’t make anyone punch anyone. It’s people like Dr Spencer-Jones that give people who have had a drink the excuse, ‘permission’ if you like, to punch someone. It wasn’t me it was the demon drink. Pathetic cop out.
Also I am sure the good Dr is probably unaware that it is already an offence to drink drive, probably especially if you are having sex without a condom at the time ;-) An offence to drive with a fairly small amount of alcohol in their system. Alcohol doesn’t ‘lead’ them to it, they do it entirely of their own accord.
People are responsible for their actions, unless they are mentally ill, including the action of getting drunk, drink driving, or beating someone up.
Adults should be free to drink alcohol and should accept responsibility for their actions, weather or not they have been drinking. They should also be ready to face the consequences of their actions. That's what being an Adult is about, taking reponsibility for yourself.
They say it’s to combat Britain’s so-called ‘drinking culture’.
Given that councils can impose local ones where required it would seem to be completely superfluous.
It would stop you having a glass of wine outside. Depending on if ‘street’ was actually in public then it would spoil quite a few adult pick nicks.
Dr Christopher Spencer Jones, the chairman of the BMA's public health committee, said of alcohol yesterday that it is a “mind-altering drug” he went on:
"It can lead people to drive dangerously, have sex without a condom leading to unwanted pregnancies and make someone punch somebody and land them in court.”
No! ~ Alcohol doesn’t make anyone punch anyone. It’s people like Dr Spencer-Jones that give people who have had a drink the excuse, ‘permission’ if you like, to punch someone. It wasn’t me it was the demon drink. Pathetic cop out.
Also I am sure the good Dr is probably unaware that it is already an offence to drink drive, probably especially if you are having sex without a condom at the time ;-) An offence to drive with a fairly small amount of alcohol in their system. Alcohol doesn’t ‘lead’ them to it, they do it entirely of their own accord.
People are responsible for their actions, unless they are mentally ill, including the action of getting drunk, drink driving, or beating someone up.
Adults should be free to drink alcohol and should accept responsibility for their actions, weather or not they have been drinking. They should also be ready to face the consequences of their actions. That's what being an Adult is about, taking reponsibility for yourself.
Friday, 22 June 2007
Yanks overtaking, French wine
Ahead of the Vinexpo wine fair, in Bordeaux, France, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy, is coming under pressure from vintners to do more for their wine industry, as the Gallic taste for vin ordinaire withers on the vine.
It seems America is now set to overtake France as the world's number one wine drinking nation. Figures show that French national consumption has fallen so low that the Americans are set to overtake them by 2010.
Finally! Perhaps a slightly more rational reason for the French to dislike the Americans so.
There is a ray of hope for the French producers in that their export market seems to be improving somewhat. One wonders if this is more in the top end of the market.
Much of the problems the French market has had in competing with New World wines in the last decade or so is that, whilst their good wine is often very good, their lack of consistency and reliability in the quality of the medium priced end of the market, causes customers to shy away from their products, in favour of the much more consistent quality of the New World wines.
One sometimes suspects Gallic complacency has been their undoing - and possibly an underlying sense that foreigners are not sophisticated enough to tell when they are being sold plonk.
It seems America is now set to overtake France as the world's number one wine drinking nation. Figures show that French national consumption has fallen so low that the Americans are set to overtake them by 2010.
Finally! Perhaps a slightly more rational reason for the French to dislike the Americans so.
There is a ray of hope for the French producers in that their export market seems to be improving somewhat. One wonders if this is more in the top end of the market.
Much of the problems the French market has had in competing with New World wines in the last decade or so is that, whilst their good wine is often very good, their lack of consistency and reliability in the quality of the medium priced end of the market, causes customers to shy away from their products, in favour of the much more consistent quality of the New World wines.
One sometimes suspects Gallic complacency has been their undoing - and possibly an underlying sense that foreigners are not sophisticated enough to tell when they are being sold plonk.
BBC Pushes Anthropocentric Global Warming Theory
The self admittedly politically biased BBC is pushing the anthropocentric global warming theory again, with the built in assumption that it is a done deal. Even cold weather in the summer seems to be “evidence”.
Louise Batchelor of BBC Scotland said:
“only a handful of scientists now doubt that we're seeing a long-term trend and that humans are responsible for Earth's increased atmospheric temperatures.”
It is questionable if a string of cold years could shake the faith of this new religion's adherents now.
Louise Batchelor of BBC Scotland said:
“only a handful of scientists now doubt that we're seeing a long-term trend and that humans are responsible for Earth's increased atmospheric temperatures.”
It is questionable if a string of cold years could shake the faith of this new religion's adherents now.
Thursday, 21 June 2007
No taxation without representation
Fiona Hyslop, Scotland's Nationalist education minister, is planning to spend Taxes raised from England on Scottish school children.
How? Because taxes raised in the UK go in a common pot and are then divided out unevenly in favour of Scotland.
The Scottish parliament can spend their own money on what they like - and if that goes to reduce infant class sizes, or student grants, then fine.
But did they ever hear of the phrase “No taxation without representation”?
Blair Gibbs, of the Taxpayers' Alliance pointed out:
"Sooner or later the Government is going to have to explain why it is OK for SNP ministers in Holyrood to make pledges on public spending with money raised from English taxpayers.
"Voters north of the border are within their rights to want more local control but fairness means not asking someone else to pay for it. English taxpayers once again see the SNP avoiding the logic of their own independence objective. You can't go your own way if you don't pay your own way."
Joel Barnet, who created the formula, is calling for it to be scrapped, as it comes under intense and increasing political scrutiny because the disparity between public spending in Scotland and England is now more than £1,500 per head. This is threatens to create a public backlash in England.
A YouGov opinion poll indicated 70% of English voters now believe Scotland is being "subsidised" by the rest of the UK and things should be balanced. By contrast, 74% of Scots want to keep the money rolling in just as it is. Why would you be surprised?
Defenders of the current system (the 74%?) say cutting Scotland's share of funds from central government could severely damage the country because there public spending forms a much larger part of the economy than in the rest of the UK – well it would form a larger part wouldn’t it, because they can afford it having an extra "subsidy of more than £11 billion a year.
The disparity is funding artificially inflated levels of Scottish public spending, among the highest in Europe.
On top of that there is also the minor matter of Scottish MPs being able to vote in Parliament on purely English matters - that will not impact on their own electorate.
In this respect they are effectively unelected and unaccountable by and to, those they govern - This is not democracy.
How? Because taxes raised in the UK go in a common pot and are then divided out unevenly in favour of Scotland.
The Scottish parliament can spend their own money on what they like - and if that goes to reduce infant class sizes, or student grants, then fine.
But did they ever hear of the phrase “No taxation without representation”?
Blair Gibbs, of the Taxpayers' Alliance pointed out:
"Sooner or later the Government is going to have to explain why it is OK for SNP ministers in Holyrood to make pledges on public spending with money raised from English taxpayers.
"Voters north of the border are within their rights to want more local control but fairness means not asking someone else to pay for it. English taxpayers once again see the SNP avoiding the logic of their own independence objective. You can't go your own way if you don't pay your own way."
Joel Barnet, who created the formula, is calling for it to be scrapped, as it comes under intense and increasing political scrutiny because the disparity between public spending in Scotland and England is now more than £1,500 per head. This is threatens to create a public backlash in England.
A YouGov opinion poll indicated 70% of English voters now believe Scotland is being "subsidised" by the rest of the UK and things should be balanced. By contrast, 74% of Scots want to keep the money rolling in just as it is. Why would you be surprised?
Defenders of the current system (the 74%?) say cutting Scotland's share of funds from central government could severely damage the country because there public spending forms a much larger part of the economy than in the rest of the UK – well it would form a larger part wouldn’t it, because they can afford it having an extra "subsidy of more than £11 billion a year.
The disparity is funding artificially inflated levels of Scottish public spending, among the highest in Europe.
On top of that there is also the minor matter of Scottish MPs being able to vote in Parliament on purely English matters - that will not impact on their own electorate.
In this respect they are effectively unelected and unaccountable by and to, those they govern - This is not democracy.
A Critique of a Critique
This Examination of Kevin Carson's Contract Feudalism by Paul Marks is worth a read and makes some telling points.
EC President against UK referendum
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso is now urging the UK not to hold a referendum the constitution /treaty h is trying to push through at this week's EU summit.
Speaking to BBC, he said:
"Sometimes I hear people saying that for Parliament to approve it would be by the back door.
Is that the respect some people show their Parliament, maybe the greatest Parliament in the world? I don't consider Parliament the back door”
We are talking about Tony Blair approving it not Parliament. If it is done without a referendum it is certainly by the ‘back door’, the British have not had to opportunity to express an opinion and the EU has very little impact on what party they voted for as there is not much difference.
And do we really respect Parliament? I suspect most of us could count the politicians in parliament we actually respect on the thumbs of two hands - So that would be no then.
He went on:
"Britain is the country that exported Parliamentary democracy to the world. Do the British people consider Parliament the backdoor?
"Do the British people who killed their king to protect the rights of Parliament consider it the back door? “
Is it the backdoor? Absolutely - and Jose, it was a civil war. It was a Puritan Parliament killed the King. Plenty were fighting for him, just less organised, less well equipped. What has that got to do with it anyway?
He went on to say leaders had to stand up to the sort of "ugly nationalism" that traded on "imaginary threats" such as the idea that the EU was becoming a super state.
Here he is again branding the desire to actually have a say in the matter as ‘ugly nationalism’ this time and urging the political elite to stand up against the democratic process and resist it.
No. The idea of the EU becoming a super state is completely ridiculous, how could we imagine it for a moment?
Speaking to BBC, he said:
"Sometimes I hear people saying that for Parliament to approve it would be by the back door.
Is that the respect some people show their Parliament, maybe the greatest Parliament in the world? I don't consider Parliament the back door”
We are talking about Tony Blair approving it not Parliament. If it is done without a referendum it is certainly by the ‘back door’, the British have not had to opportunity to express an opinion and the EU has very little impact on what party they voted for as there is not much difference.
And do we really respect Parliament? I suspect most of us could count the politicians in parliament we actually respect on the thumbs of two hands - So that would be no then.
He went on:
"Britain is the country that exported Parliamentary democracy to the world. Do the British people consider Parliament the backdoor?
"Do the British people who killed their king to protect the rights of Parliament consider it the back door? “
Is it the backdoor? Absolutely - and Jose, it was a civil war. It was a Puritan Parliament killed the King. Plenty were fighting for him, just less organised, less well equipped. What has that got to do with it anyway?
He went on to say leaders had to stand up to the sort of "ugly nationalism" that traded on "imaginary threats" such as the idea that the EU was becoming a super state.
Here he is again branding the desire to actually have a say in the matter as ‘ugly nationalism’ this time and urging the political elite to stand up against the democratic process and resist it.
No. The idea of the EU becoming a super state is completely ridiculous, how could we imagine it for a moment?
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
EU President 'leans' on Poland and the UK
Barroso is at it again, still trying to strong arm through his (or rather the German Chancellor's), bogus constitution with anti democratic ‘meaningful comments’.
Maybe he would have more luck with one that looked more like this - then again. No, with the EU political elite, probably not.
In Brussels Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, has warned EU members not to block progress towards the EU treaty comprising much of the previously rejected 2005 EU constitution. He warned:
"It is not in the interest of any member state to be in a position that is seen as hardliner,"
“The environment for a deal is clearly there. Please avoid appearing as blocking. This is not intelligent, this is not in your interest.”
“Defend your positions, but don't come with these red lines and vetoes."
by “any member state” he of course means Poland and the UK.
Now why would it be “not in (the UK’s or Poland's) interests” to defend their interests? That really does not make sense.
Maybe he would have more luck with one that looked more like this - then again. No, with the EU political elite, probably not.
In Brussels Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, has warned EU members not to block progress towards the EU treaty comprising much of the previously rejected 2005 EU constitution. He warned:
"It is not in the interest of any member state to be in a position that is seen as hardliner,"
“The environment for a deal is clearly there. Please avoid appearing as blocking. This is not intelligent, this is not in your interest.”
“Defend your positions, but don't come with these red lines and vetoes."
by “any member state” he of course means Poland and the UK.
Now why would it be “not in (the UK’s or Poland's) interests” to defend their interests? That really does not make sense.
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Knighthood for UK author stirs hatred & controversy
The UK author Salman Rushdie has been awarded a knighthood by the Government.
Rushdie has been under threat of death from a fatwa issued in Iran since 1989 when he wrote a book called ’Satanic Verses’. The book would have had very little exposure if it were not for the Moslem threats - and certainly gets far more than I suspect it deserves as a result.
On hearing of the award Pakistan’s Religious Affairs Minister Mohammad Ejaz ul-Haq said:
“If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified,”
Everyone’s a critic - I guess he must be a ‘moderate’
He later tried to weasel it by trying to claim he actually meant the honour meant a risk of suicide attacks because Muslims believed Sir Salman had insulted Islam.
Iranian conservatives criticised Queen Elizabeth on Tuesday over the conferring of the honour, presumably having no real idea how the system works - and that the Queen doesn’t just pick the conferees personally.
Iran’s First Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar addressing Iran's parliament said to great applause:
"The action by the British Queen in knighting Salman Rushdie, the apostate, is an unwise one.
The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th Century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important."
So, if bestowing titles isn’t still deemed important, then why is he bothering to comment? It is obviously is important to him.
I wonder if he ever read the book – Nah! Nor most of the flag burners and assorted rent-a-crowd either.
These Ranters need to understand that the knighthood has very little to do with trying to annoy fanatical religious types. I doubt it even entered into the equation.
It comes from a small insulated little world, as a natural progression of Rushdie being an acclaimed “arty type”, who has been (despite the fatwa) around for a while and not (to mix metaphors) blotted his arty lefty liberal credentials. It was his turn dummies! No conspiracy, no complicated global Zionist Military/Industrial complex, fiendish and cunning plan to diss Islam.
…Just - his - turn. Smell that coffee folks!
Rushdie has been under threat of death from a fatwa issued in Iran since 1989 when he wrote a book called ’Satanic Verses’. The book would have had very little exposure if it were not for the Moslem threats - and certainly gets far more than I suspect it deserves as a result.
On hearing of the award Pakistan’s Religious Affairs Minister Mohammad Ejaz ul-Haq said:
“If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified,”
Everyone’s a critic - I guess he must be a ‘moderate’
He later tried to weasel it by trying to claim he actually meant the honour meant a risk of suicide attacks because Muslims believed Sir Salman had insulted Islam.
Iranian conservatives criticised Queen Elizabeth on Tuesday over the conferring of the honour, presumably having no real idea how the system works - and that the Queen doesn’t just pick the conferees personally.
Iran’s First Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar addressing Iran's parliament said to great applause:
"The action by the British Queen in knighting Salman Rushdie, the apostate, is an unwise one.
The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th Century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important."
So, if bestowing titles isn’t still deemed important, then why is he bothering to comment? It is obviously is important to him.
I wonder if he ever read the book – Nah! Nor most of the flag burners and assorted rent-a-crowd either.
These Ranters need to understand that the knighthood has very little to do with trying to annoy fanatical religious types. I doubt it even entered into the equation.
It comes from a small insulated little world, as a natural progression of Rushdie being an acclaimed “arty type”, who has been (despite the fatwa) around for a while and not (to mix metaphors) blotted his arty lefty liberal credentials. It was his turn dummies! No conspiracy, no complicated global Zionist Military/Industrial complex, fiendish and cunning plan to diss Islam.
…Just - his - turn. Smell that coffee folks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
