Greece, the EU and You.

This article explains Greece's current predicament more succinctly and clearly than any other I have read. It also hints at the chaos that will ensue. I reccomend that you read it.

The EU and the Euro

I am not so interested in the text that reiterates Bruno Waterfield's assertion that we will not get a referendum on treaty change (which, incidentally, is refuted by Richard North at EU Referendum) but in the illustration below it that shows how many politically important people work, or have worked, for Goldman Sachs.

Listen to your Leader

Via Witterings from Witney comes this, a message from Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, talking about the European Council meeting on Friday 4 February.
.
There is a transcript of his speech here.

Incidentally, do you remember voting for him, for a single energy market, for interconnectedness, for one single market of brains? No, neither do I.

Update
Surprise, surprise, at 06.53 this morning on the Today programme on  BBC Radio 4 there was an article explaining how we need a European-wide network for electricity transmission in order to move "power from the sun in the south and from the wind in the north." How incredibly fortuitous that they chose to highlight this burning problem on exactly the same day as the Council of Europe are about to discuss it. Bizarre that the reporter never mentioned the Council of Europe though.

I Must be Wrong

A series of links led me to this blog. Alarmed by what Ian Parker-Joseph had written I pasted part of the BIS quote into Google and arrived at the Top Stories section of the BIS website. Writ there for all to see, it says “The key to the new measures … will be the principle of copying out the text of European directives directly into UK law.” Is that not admitting that we do not run our own country anymore? Are we really paying 650 MPs a minimum of £65,738 per year just to cut-and-paste?

Maybe I am wrong in thinking that we are a sovereign state, which by definition is a state which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power. Perhaps the majority of this country is happy with being ruled by Brussels because that is the only reason I can imagine for the complete lack of criticism, lack of protest and lack of rebellion.

What A Tangled Web

A European Parliament press release issued on Wednesday 7th April starts with the sentence “The Constitutional Affairs Committee gave its support on Wednesday to a modification of the Lisbon Treaty that would allow 18 new Members of the European Parliament to take their seats during the ongoing legislature.” The essence of the release is revealed in the next paragraph where it state “The number of MEPs needs to be increased because the June European Parliament elections were held under the rules of the Nice Treaty, which sets the number of MEPs at 736, while the new Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1st December 2009, allows 751 seats.”
Those of you that are good at mathematics will have noticed 18 MEPs in addition to the existing 736 MEPs will result in 754 MEPs not 751. The reason for this apparent discrepancy is because Germany is to lose 3 of its MEPs. However, there are strict rules governing the curtailment of a mandate so Germany will retain its 99 MEPs until the end of this parliament meaning that there will be 754 MEPs after all. This is the nub of the problem, the Lisbon treaty does not allow for a parliament to have 754 MEPs which means the treaty will have to be amended. It the amendment is approved by parliament it will then have to be ratified by the 27 Member states.
As pointed out by Daniel Hannan in his blog, the Conservative party has committed itself to a referendum on treaty changes thus, it would seem, that we have the prospect of a referendum far sooner than one might have anticipated. Inspecting the online Conservative manifesto one finds that it says “A Conservative Government would change the law so that never again would a government be able to agree to a Treaty that hands over areas of power from Britain to the EU without a referendum.” Since we are one of the countries that will see an increase in the number of its MEPs, we are to have one more, I hardly think that this comes under the heading of handing over power from Britain to the EU. I suspect that, delightful as the prospect might be, we will not be granted a referendum on this particular matter.

Brussels's Dictates

The European commission is the part of the executive branch of the EU. Amongst other things it is responsible for proposing new legislation. There is one commissioner from each EU member state though they do not represent that state; in fact they are specifically charged with representing the EU as a whole. Our appointee is The Baroness Ashton of Upholland. No, I had never heard of her before either but reading her potted biography here, it is clear that she is a career politician.
Anyway, as reported in Tuesday's Daily Telegraph,

The Commission aims to create three “authorities” with their own staff, full-time president and independent budget. If there is a dispute between regulators from EU countries over how to proceed, these EU bodies can “settle the matter” by binding mediation. The European Court would have final jurisdiction. The wording would appear to reduce Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) to a subservient arm of the EU apparatus, limited to “daily oversight”.

So, there you have the European Union in a nutshell. A bunch of people you never elected have taken advantage of the recent banking crisis and are going to take control of our banking, insurance and securities business. If you think I am being paranoid then look at the following comments. From a previous Daily Telegraph article:

"This is exactly what I feared would happen," said Ruth Lea, director of UK think-tank Global Vision. "The EU is taking advantage of the crisis to extend its control over the British financial system. It is very threatening because it is almost impossible to repeal anything in the EU, however damaging it proves to be."

Further on it the same article we read:

Antonio Borges, chair of the Hedge Funds Standards Board, said the blizzard of EU proposals had been hijacked by political forces and were "out of control".
"There is little intellectual foundation to what they are doing," he said. "You would have thought that since 80pc of Europe's hedge funds are in Britain, and are already regulated, that the FSA would have a big say [on hedge fund proposals], but the FSA was marginalised. The reality is that a great deal of regulatory power is going to Brussels."

But don't worry because Alistair Darling has saved us. As quoted in yesterday's Guardian

Darling said: "The thing that concerned us, which we could not live with, was a proposal whereby there might be an agreement reached by regulators at a European level that would have had domestic fiscal consequences for domestic governments. In other words, they might have been able to say to a government 'you've got to do something about a bank', therefore that government would have had to ask its taxpayers to contribute."

Which has resulted in …

a key pledge that any decisions made would not affect the fiscal responsibilities of nation states.

To put it simply, we cannot do anything about EU control over our banks, our insurance companies and our hedge funds but we have managed to stop them indirectly dictating our government spending.

Isn't wonderful being part of the EU?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

So Gordon Brown believes "that the keystone of any reform must be to switch from self-regulation to independent external regulation". I believe that this would be a monumental folly. What he is saying is that the very people who are charged with running our country are not responsible enough to devise a remuneration system that is perceived to be equitable and fair. The government cannot and should not create a body that is independent and whose remit is to apply rules back to parliament. This is creating an entity that is above parliament. Who will it answer to? It clearly cannot answer to parliament because it is independent.
This proposal also removes accountability. I will have no say on who serves on this independent body whereas I do have a say (too little and too infrequently but that is another story) on who serves in parliament.
The allowances saga is but a symptom of the malaise that has infected parliament for the past forty years. A self-induced illness caused by handing power to the EU which has made its existence increasingly irrelevant. Creating an independent body to oversee MPs remuneration would be yet another step along the way to complete loss of sovereignty of government.

Resigning the Whip

When a member of a political party resigns the whip this is often followed by a call for a by-election. There then ensues a debate, at least there is one amongst those that concern themselves with these matters, as to whether a politician is there to represent the constituency in Parliament in which case there is no need for a by-election or the MP is representing the party in which case there is a need for a by-election. In Christopher Beazley’s case the debate is slightly different.
Christopher Beazley is the Conservative MEP for the East of England and he has just resigned the whip apparently because Mr. Cameron has announced that the Conservatives will leave the European People’s Party grouping in the European Parliament. The difference here is due to the method of election that we are subjected to for European elections. If you don’t know then it is all explained at here at http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/, where it pithily states that the voting system is ‘Proportional representation – closed list.’ Later, AboutMyVote, an Electoral Comission website, explains that to vote one ‘put[s] an X (a cross) next to the party … that you wish to vote for.’ Under the title ‘Who is Elected?’ it states that ‘The first seat that a party wins goes to the first person on its list, the second seat to the second person, and so on.’ So, you vote for a party, not an individual. With a closed list system you do not know, when you are voting, who the person is who will get a seat as a consequence of your vote.
Mr. Beazley has resigned the party whip. This means that he is no longer in the party that the people voted for. Surely, logic dictates that this man should be ejected from the European Parliament and a by-election should be held?

Turning Wine into Water

The EUs tendrils creep a lot further into our daily life than we imagine. It transpires that there is an official designation for what can be called wine. As is always the case defining something like this is not easy. More often than not it seems to result in an unintended consequences. The need to define what is a cake comes about from the fact that cakes are zero-rated for VAT whilst chocolate covered biscuits are not. This led to a 13 year long dispute between Marks and Spencer and HMRC over the tax status of M&S chocolate teacakes, see here, which was only resolved last week.
Today we have reports of the EU example regarding wine, see here. Is it wine or isn't it? I think it is and I also think that the law, which increasingly means the Eu, is an ass.

Free Speech

I am not sure why this is not splashed across the front pages of all the newspapers but I think it is a clear indication of how this country has lost its way when it comes to standing up for those principles I was bought up to respect such as the right to free speech. Refusing entry to this country to a politician from another EU country is not what I expect my government to be doing.

Only in America?

On February 10th a new law comes into effect in America called the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Now with a name like that I am sure you are thinking what on earth can one find to complain about? Well, the consequences of this law would seem to imply that either children will be banned from entering libraries or millions of children's books will have to be destroyed.
This law requires that all products for children under 12, including books, games, toys and clothing, must be tested for the presence of lead. It is estimated that the testing required for a book would cost between $300 and $600. Presumably, for a new book, this cost would be borne by the publisher but what about all the existing books in the libraries? The American Libraries Association says that they cannot afford to test every book and that, as a consequence, millions of books would have to be taken off the shelves and destroyed in order that children will be able to enter a library.
My question is "How many children have suffered from the lead content of books, games, toys and clothing? Is this a problem that needs fixing?" My thoughts are how long before the EU enacts something similar. See here for the story.

Unintended Consequences Again

The EU thinks that it needs to save the planet from excessive CO2 emissions so it has introduced a carbon trading scheme. The idea is that permits are handed out to industry to allow them to produce CO2. If you need more permits then you have to buy them off somebody else who doesn't need all their permits. Thus a fixed amount of CO2 is discharged into the atmosphere.
Each year the number of permits is reduced which has the twin effect of reducing the total amount of CO2 emitted and forcing up the price of the permits. The latter effect is designed to encourage recalcitrant industries to reduce their CO2 output.
The only problem is that this whole scheme is based on a growing economy. Now, you may have noticed that European economies are not growing. In fact production by industry has declined so much that the output of CO2 will be below the amount this years permits allow. Thus companies are selling off excess permits to make a few bob and, in doing so, they are depressing the price of the permits.
It doesn't encourage one to feel good about the EU does it?
(H/T EU Referendum)

A short quiz

Who is the President of the United States of America?
Who is the President of the European Commission?
Who is the UKs representative on the European Commission?
Of the following three institutions which one creates the majority of the legislation that is enacted in the UK?
a) The Congress, i.e. the Senate and House of Representatives, of the United States of America.
b) The parliament of the United Kingdom.
c) The European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

The end of the Euro?

This article about Ireland's economic woes, this one about Spain's and this one about half the countries within the EU leads one to believe that the Euro is definitely under pressure. Curiously, I heard recently that the only country that has a clause that enables it to leave the Euro is ... Germany.

The end of my support

To be honest I haven't been sure who I would vote for in a general election for some time. I harboured some hope that the Conservatives would show some anti-EU colours. Following the election of Mr. Cameron as leader I started to lose hope. Now I hear that Mr. Clarke has been brought into the shadow cabinet and all hope is lost.
Who does one vote for if one wants to get out of the EU?

What are they there for?

I did not intend to do political blogging but I find the following tale encapsulates everything that is wrong with the leadership of this country.
The headline is that 500 jobs are to go in Anglesey. Not a surprising headline in the current econoic climate. However, this is nothing to do with the credit-crunch (where did that awful phrase originate from). This is due to the climate-change obsessed government that is incapable of doing the its job. The 500 jobs are at the Anglesey Aluminium Metals Ltd which cannot find anyone to supply its power when the current power supply agreement runs out. Despite working "intensively with Uk and Welsh government authorities and agencies to find a sustainable alternative to the power supply needs of a smelter, [it] has been unabel to reach a feasible solution".
The long and the short of it is that the Wylfa nuclear power station which currently supplied the plants needs is due to be de-commissioned in 2010 and there is no immediate replacement in the offing. Now, nuclear power stations are de-commissioned but what has this government done about replacing them? Approximately one-fifth of the electricity produced in the UK is from a nuclear power station. 56% of that power they produce will be de-commissioned by 2016, 100% by 2035. Of the existing power stations, according to the BBC, one-seventh will come out of service before 2012 due to the european Large Combustion Plants Directive (LCPD). Where is the power going to come from. Oh, I forgot, the wind-farms. Did you notive that during the recent cold spell the wind just wasn't there? Note then when I say it wasn't there I don't just mean inone place withion the Uk I mean the whole of the UK. As was pointed out on the excellent EU referendum website there was not enough wind in the Uk on January 1st to turn any turbines. What use is that?
Between the governemnt and the EU we have got ourseles into a situation where we cannot produce the power that we need. The point at which demand exceeds supply is curretnyl estimated to be around the time of the 2012 Olympics.
I hate this governemnt, I anot see any releif from either of the opposition parties, I detest the Eu and I don't beleive that climate change is a probelm or that it is a preblem caused by man. Is it wany wonder I spend a lot of my time being a grumpy old man?