Fail by the Mail

Yet again we find an article in the press, one in which the “journalist” has failed to “dig beneath the surface” where the origin of legislation is concerned. I refer to this article in the Mail from yesterday about the fact that war is about to be declared on speeding motorists with the introduction of 20mph speed limits and yet more cameras.

Richard North, EUReferendum, post recently about the origin of legislation showing that invariably this comes from bodies way above the European Union when considering aspects of “heirachy”. Ministers are not calling for many more 20mph limits in residential and urban areas, and for the riskiest rural roads to be slashed from 60mph to 40mph – others are. As a result of that statement, in regard to this Mail article, let us do a little “digging”.

Where matters about road safety, configuration and road speed are concerned, there are UN organizations and affiliated bodies that have been quite vocal on this subject; all of which have a bearing on legislation that the European Union – and any other nation that has membership to those bodies – may wish to introduce.

  • Among the “interests” of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is “transport“, which includes “road traffic safety” – a subject on which they have had quite a bit to say.
  • The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are another body that are “interested” in road safety through their “think tank”, the International Transport Forum who in turn link to a report, published in 2006, by the OECD/ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport).
  • The European Union, being a member of the Council of the OED – and thus speaking for the Member States – are fully involved in talks about “road safety”.
  • That “road safety” is UN “driven” can be seen from this “Resolution” adopted by the UN General Assembly.
  • From this EU “paper” we find the “reasoning” behind the need for the introduction of lower speed limits and speed cameras: “In this light it should be understood that speed limits on their own will have only modest effects on actual speeds“. (Emphasis theirs).
  • From this link we learn that “by this Directive the European Commission has to adopt within the next seven years specifications (i.e. functional, technical, organisational or services provisions) to address the compatibility, interoperability and continuity of ITS solutions across the EU – but fail to say why.

What this shows is that legislation being introduced by national governments – and the European Union – is not “home grown”, but is dictated by UN bodies to which they have acceded.

An immediate example of national governments – and the European Union – being forced to adopt legislation by UN “agreement” is best illustrated by the recent decision reached of/by the United Nation’s Environment Programme – and the final decision of those taking part in the recent meeting, hosted by Switzerland, on the subject of mercury.

As mentioned on twitter by @WhiteWednesday, no doubt – and hopefully – the Swiss “faxed” Brussels to give them advanced warning of legislation they would shortly have to introduce – but I digress again …………………..



3 Responses

  1. Sean O'Hare says:

    Will exit from the EU actually change anything at all? Are we doomed to suffer one world government? Have we been directing our fire at the wrong target all these years?

  2. Geoff Cavender says:

    Sean O’Hara we are not aiming at the wrong target at all. If we can extricate ourselves from the European Union and become a sovereign state again then we have influence AS A SOVEREIGN STATE at the ‘EU’ table. Norway has an independent voice at the UN and so can we if we leave the EU. The point is that Cameron’s lie about Norway being commanded by fax to do as it is told needs to be nailed. Norway has an influence at the real top table (the UN) and the UK doesn’t.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012