Tag Archive: European Union

2013
05/10

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:





COMMENTS:
3 Comments »

World Government

Oh we have a world, or global, government – and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is part of it. Digressing slightly, so is the WTO, IMF, WHO, to name but three more.

One has only to look at the latest edition of UNECE Weekly to see this, from which:

“The United Nations system in Europe and Central Asia, under the joint leadership of UNECE as Chair of the Regional Coordination Mechanism (RCM) and the United Nations Development Group for Europe and Central Asia (ECA UNDG), will shortly come up with a common vision on the post-2015 development agenda in the pan-European region. On 29 April, directors of the European offices of 14 United Nations entities — UNECE, UNDP, UNICEF, FAO, IAEA, ILO, UNAIDS, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNIDO, UN WOMEN and WHO — met at the European offices of WHO in Copenhagen to discuss and agree upon key messages. These messages, in the form of a regional advocacy report and more detailed issue briefs, will serve as a contribution to discussions at both the regional and global levels. During their meeting, the directors addressed both challenges and opportunities for the post-2015 development agenda. They agreed that for all countries of Europe and Central Asia building more inclusive, sustainable and prosperous societies remains a considerable challenge, and one that requires continued and strengthened attention. Reducing inequalities in the economic and social areas and in the consumption of environmental resources is a key priority throughout the region. The same is true for ensuring an enabling environment free of conflict, violence and instability.”

So 14 individuals are deciding on a post-2015 development agenda which will include reducing inequalities in the economic and social areas and the consumption of environmental resources.

Some our politicians maintain that they govern this country, but they forget the EU factor, others maintain that the EU governs this country, but they forget the UN factor. As has been demonstrated on many occasions by Richard North, all bodies such as UNECE produce what are known as ”dual international quasi-legislation” – aka “diqules” – which are then handed down to member governments for implementation through their national assemblies. In the case of the UK, this is done by the EU, hence the EU becomes no more than a middle-man.

As an example of this, consider: the EU has decided that where transport is concerned it has “competence”, consequently on matters transport it demands the right to speak for all 27 member states. Transport includes car production, yet Norway which has no car production, as a member of UNECE in its own right can decide on matters affecting car production, in which we have quite a stake. And we have to remain a member of the EU in order to have influence on laws which affect us?

Where governance of our country is concerned and the aforementioned 14 individuals are concerned, who elected them? While the present system of representative democracy is allowed by us to continue, we the people will never have true democracy, we can never become sovereign, we can never become the masters of our political elite.

Is it not time for we the people to say “Foxtrot Oscar” to the EU and take our rightful place at the table where “law” is actually decided? Do we not have the same rights as “Little Norway”, “Little Iceland” or even “Little Switzerland”?

2013
05/08

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
No Comments »

Political Shenanigans

According to this report in the Mail there is more to the Queen’s Speech than meets the eye and one could say that once again we have an example of our political elite not being totally honest with us. Apparently there is “buried in the detail” of the Queen”s Speech, although not mentioned, the small matter of the European Union Approvals Bill which allows for authorisation for the UK ‘to support measures and programmes in the European Union’. Among three programmes listed, it includes Europe for Citizens which according to government briefing notes ‘aims to develop understanding of the EU, its history and policy-making processes and encourage civic participation in the EU’. It also aims to ‘promote remembrance of Europe’s history, particularly the wars and totalitarian regimes of the 20th century’.

Invariably, if one wishes to know what is about to happen with matters EU in this country, one of the good places to start is at the European Scrutiny Committee website (ESC) – and bingo, what do we find?  A ”Europe for Citizens” Programme with a budget of €229 million for the period 2014-20. It would ensure continuity of funding for a range of activities already supported by the EU under the current Europe for Citizens Programme (2007-13). And when were we told about the current programme? When did our informative press tell us about this?

So as we all wonder why David Cameron blows hot and cold over a referendum – intimating he may “propose” a bill and then backtracking – we find that our government actually supports the objectives of the Europe for Citizens Programme, citing the fact that it has “synergies with the Government’s “Big Society” agenda and youth policies, as well as the focus on “localising action at the lowest possible level” and empowering individuals.”

And to cap it all, we have a Scrutiny Committee prepared to issue a conditional “scrutiny waiver”? And we have a parliamentary system that is supposed to govern our country?

Does the size of the budget matter (its only small so the ESC say) when this is no more than brainwashing – and not very subtle at that.

Afterthought: Why have Ukip not picked up on this and made a fuss – I’ve seen nowt – has anyone else? Do they even know about it? Just asking my Ukip followers, you understand…..

 

 

2013
05/08

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:





COMMENTS:
No Comments »

Think about it, do

Philip Johnston, Daily Telegraph, comments on the Queen’s Speech and in particular the intentions where immigration is concerned, querying why landlords have to police our borders. Johnston ends his article querying whether we are seeing legislation used, not for the first time, as a political signal rather than a practical measure that will make a real difference?

At the recent local elections we saw a rise in the Ukip vote resulting, so I read, in that party coming either first or second in 55% of the seats in which they stood. Those voting did so, it would seem, because of Ukip’s stance on immigration, yet seem to realise not that there is nothing those newly elected Ukip councillors can do, nor can any government, to resolve the problems caused by immigration to our society and services while we remain a member of the European Union and are subject to and abide by rulings from the ECHR.

Consequently I am a tad bemused that a journalist poses a question to which the answer is obvious, coupled with the fact voters obviously do not understand that about which they vote. Another subject of bemusement is that when polled about their concerns we are told that at the head of the list is immigration – with that of the EU coming way down the list.

Weird,

Update: Confirmation of the point about concerns: immigration vs Europe

 

2013
05/05

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:






COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Seal or no seal

An interesting spat has broken out at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) wherein Canada and Norway have complained about the hunting of seals and the implications of the EU’s Regulations covering seal hunting and the import and sale of seal goods. The story is carried in the Norwegian edition of The Local and it would appear that Canada and Norway have been joined by Iceland in their appeal to the WTO.

Seal hunts around the world are governed by different rules and regulations. In some countries comprehensive systems are in place, while in others the seal hunt is regulated to a lesser degree. Within the EU, certain methods and means of capture and killing are prohibited in areas protected under EU nature law (the Habitats Directive). See Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products.

The European Union is concerned about the animal welfare aspects of the seal hunt. Doubts have been expressed about some of the methods used for hunting seals, such as shooting, netting and clubbing, that can cause avoidable pain and distress. Several EU Member States were considering, or had already introduced, national legislative measures to ban the import and use of seal skins and seal products. In the light of these concerns, on 16 September 2009 the European Parliament and the Council adopted a Regulation banning the trade in seal products in the European Union. It applies to seal products produced in the EU and to imported products. The aim of the Regulation is to ensure that products derived from seals are no longer found on the European market. The Regulation was published in the Official Journal on 31 October 2009, entering into force on 20 November 2009. The ban itself entered into force 9 months after the entry into force of the Regulation (i.e. 20 August 2010).

The Regulation foresees limited exemptions to respect the fundamental economic and social interests of Inuit and other indigenous communities. It also contains exceptions for goods derived from seals for personal and non-commercial use and for goods derived from seals hunted for the sole purpose of the sustainable management of marine resources on a not-for profit basis and for non-commercial reasons. See Commission Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 which lays down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products. .

The WTO’s procedure for resolving trade quarrels under the Dispute Settlement Understanding is vital for enforcing the rules and therefore for ensuring that trade flows smoothly. A dispute arises when a member government believes another member government is violating an agreement or a commitment that it has made in the WTO. The authors of these agreements are the member governments themselves — the agreements are the outcome of negotiations among members. Ultimate responsibility for settling disputes also lies with member governments, through the Dispute Settlement Body. Further detailed background can be obtained from the WTO website here.

Whether one agrees with culling seals, for whatever reason and by whatever method, or not, is not the point of this post. The reason I have highlighted this matter is to demonstrate the complexity of trade negotiations and the fact that elements of world government do exist – and that Norway and Iceland, not being a full members of the EU, can fight their own case whereas the United Kingdom cannot due to the EU claiming competence.

 

2013
05/01

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:








COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

And……?

James Forsyth of the Speccie was out on the campaign trail yesterday with Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, spending the day with him in South Shields. South Shields constituency, it will be remembered, was the old sinecure of MilibandD – before he decided to seek pastures new and re-enact the journey undertaken by the Pilgrim Fathers. As an aside, I am totally confujsed why an article about events yesterday is headed by a picture of today – but, as ever, I digress.

While Forsyth is correct that in negotiations Cameron will not get any movement on the four freedoms – namely the free movement of goods, services, people and capital – acceptance of which are conditional on full EU memebership, it is disappointing to see yet another journalist apparently believing, or accepting the premise, that renegotiation of full membership status is possible. That is the first “And”.

A country is either a full member of the EU, or it is not – and if not, then there are only two alternatives available in order to trade with the EU; membership of EFTA or Bi-Lateral Agreements on separate subjects, as has Switzerland. This then brings us to Farage’s position with his call for Britain to leave the European Union. He is on record as stating that this can only be done by using Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, but other than that there is silence.

To enable trade to continue without horrendous interruption and consequences, on invoking Article 50 it would be necessary to simultaneously re-apply for membership of EFTA, of which we were a founding member – yet I have not heard, or read, about Farage mentioning this. Assuming this could be accomplished, we would still be liable to accept the four freedoms – so that leaves Farage in the same position as he now is in respect of controlling the immigration issue which he considers to be so important.

What surely needs to happen is that on resuming our membership of EFTA, we then need to negotiate bi-lateral agreements with the EU – but should that work not be being done now? Is it by Ukip? I think we should be told. Likewise David Cameron talks about renegotiation – but what happens if renegotiation fails; what are his back-up plans? We know he would then present an “Yes/No” referendum to the people (or so he says) – and if the answer is “No”, what then? All of these questions comprise the second “And”.

Farage is, presently, “riding the wave” and does not seem to recognise that, eventually, all waves break and crash on the shore of mis-conceived dreams. In other words people, we are, in true “political-form”, being “palmed-off” with sound bytes with the one purpose all politicians have –  trying to keep us quiet for their own personal reasons in order to continue their careers.

They care not for us – only themselves!

 

 

 

2013
05/01

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:


COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Now there’s a laugh…..

Courtesy of Presseurop comes notice of an article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) entitled: “Dare to be a little more Swiss!” in which the authors call for the introduction of elements of direct democracy in the EU and make the point that political representation and responsiveness is a matter of the structure that binds citizens and policy-makers and that in a democracy, politicians ought to act on behalf of the people, and theoretically, the citizen is the true ruler. The article also states:

“The results are rather clear and robust: when the citizens have a direct voice in how their own money is spent, regional authorities spend less on government. They spend more prudently, and the fiscal and social security burden is lower. Their indebtedness also tends to be smaller when citizens instead of governments determine the financial management of the public sector through financial referenda.”

To even contemplate that the EU and the principles of direct democracy and “referism” are compatible is to doubt the sanity of those suggesting it – which in the case of Michael Wohlgemuth is understandable seeing as he is Director of Open Europe (Berlin) – but I digress.

Why are the two incompatible? The answer is obvious: in representative democracy politicians say: “We decide, you pay”, whereas in direct democracy the people say: “We decide, we pay”.

Theoretically, the citizen is the true ruler – then it is about time that theory was put into practice. Lets do it, people!

2013
04/17

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:


COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

Similar to searching for the elusive “end of the rainbow”

“A conference entitled ‘Identities and Identifications: Politicized Uses of Collective Identities’ will take place from 18 to 20 April 2013 in Zagreb, Croatia.

In psychology and sociology, identity is a person’s conception and expression of his/her individuality or group affiliations (such as national identity and cultural identity).The identity is conceived to provide unity and recognition while it also exists through separation and differentiation. Few concepts were used as much as identity for contradictory purposes. From the fragile individual identities as self-solidifying frameworks to layered in-group identifications in families, orders, organizations, religions, ethnic groups, regions, nation-states, supra-national entities or any other social entities, this concept always shows up in the core of debates and makes everything either too dangerously simple or too complicated.

The conference will discuss collective identities research, to bring once more into debate the processes of identity making, identity building in both constructivist or de-constructivist dimensions. The conference will open the floor to dynamic, multi-dimensional and inter-disciplinary understandings of identities in their historic context and in the way they shape the present and future of organizations or communities.”

Source (courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents)

The European Union are obviously resorting to what may be termed extreme measures in order to make us all love them and that for which they stand.

When will these idiots in Brussels come to realise that I was born English and I shall die English?

H/T: Ian Parker-Joseph (PDPS Internet Hosting)

2013
03/26

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:



COMMENTS:
1 Comment »

Scrapping the scrap yards

Is there no end to the ways in which environmentalism as a “cash-cow” can be used?

It appears that a new draft regulation is being presented in regard to the scrapping of ships that – and I quote:

“aims to reduce the adverse effects of careless scrapping, such as accidents, injuries or damage to human health or the environment, by ensuring that EU ships, and non-EU ships that have called regularly at EU ports, are scrapped in EU-approved facilities worldwide”.

The scheme is to be economically viable, we are informed, yet it seems to have escaped the notice of these greens who sprout their environmental rubbish in Brussels that the cost will only fall on those that use ships for transporting freight, in higher charges; and for passenger ships, in higher fares for passengers.

So besides wishing to impose yet a further tax on businesses in member states, they also believe they have the right to tax businesses in other countries.

There was I believing that the EU only sought domination in Europe…………

2013
03/26

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
1 Comment »

Immigration – further thoughts

In his morning briefing email Benedict Brogan wrote:

“Downing Street’s big immigration announcement went down with a bit of a whimper yesterday. Perhaps it was the fact that it followed major announcements along the same lines by Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, but rather than break new ground, it seemed to nod politely to what the Times (£) leader terms “a political consensus…over immigration”.

It is hardly surprising that a political consensus exists over immigration when one realises that all three party leaders are wedded to the European Union and must therefore implement the same policy. Not what one would call an illuminating comment, Benedict.

We are continually informed that immigration brings great benefits to our country, the latest offering on these lines coming from Stumbling and Mumbling. There may well be economic benefits but what does not seem to be factored in – nor mentioned – is the cost to our society and the subsequent change therein. Also, there seems to be no acknowledgement of the difference to the disruption to our society  when comparing immigrants from Eastern Europe and those from Muslim countries.

Leaving to one side the cost involved, whether that cost be benefits paid or that incurred by their incarceration for some misdemeanour, which we are informed only affects a few thousand of those from Eastern Europe; it is the unfairness in the justice system when comparing penalties imposed, regardless of the immigrants country of origin, that I would suggest riles the native Brit.

Factor in the point that this change has been wrought without our consent; factor in the point that we are continually told by our political class there are economic benefits while they ignore the cost to our society and our traditions and it becomes no wonder that the subject of immigration has taken centre stage.

Just saying……………….

2013
03/22

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
Comments Closed

What the eye doesn’t see……

Among the recent press releases sprouting from our masters in Brussels today has been one proclaiming that the Commission has opened consultations on media freedom and pluralism and audiovisual media regulator independence. From that we learn that the first and wider consultation invites comments on issues such as the scope of the EU’s competence to act in order to protect media freedom, the respective roles of public authorities and self-regulation or protection of journalistic sources in Europe. And we in the UK are at sixes and sevens over the recent attempt by MPs to regulate our press?

Another is one that announces the Commission has today published a study on protection via geographical indications for non-agricultural products in the internal market. While a system using geographical indications to protect many kinds of food products has been in place for a long time, there is currently no EU-wide system of protection via geographical indications for non-agricultural products – products that have a particular geographic origin and tradition, such as typical regional handicrafts. The study published today will feed into the Commission’s on-going analysis of whether action at EU level is required in this area. It evaluates the existing legal framework for protection by geographical indication for non-agricultural products in the different EU Member States and the economic consequences of its fragmentation, as well as putting forward possible solutions. The results of the study are going to be presented and discussed at a public hearing organised by the Commission on 22 April 2013.

Reverting to the first topic, media freedom and pluralism, we find that there is a “request” for a European mobilisation calling for a European Directive to protect Media Pluralism and Press Freedom; one which Martin Schultz has signed (surprise not). It does appear to be struggling as so far, just over a month after launching, they only have 2249 signatures – and if they need 1`million to force action………… At this juncture it is worth asking how many of the general public would be able to define pluralism? According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, pluralism is defined as: “a form of society in which members of minority groups maintain their independent cultural traditions”. So, that definition of “pluralism” is the basis for all this “multi-culti” thingy that is being imposed on us via equality and diversity – and at what cost to the indigenous population? If we are to accept the ideology of “pluralism”, an ideology of which not one of us, as individuals, has had the opportunity to voice an opinion, then how in the name of all that is holy can the Commission and our own MPs impose restrictions on “independent cultural traditions” where the media is concerned; especially when a “free press” is considered one of the basic requirements of a democracy?

On the second press release, on whether EU action is required on products that have a particular geographic origin and tradition, such as typical regional handicrafts, just what the hell is this all about, if not to impose yet more regulation and yet another example of “mission creep” where control by the EU is concerned?

Viviane Reding has today been in Thessaloniki to talk about the Year of the European Citizen, proclaiming that she was there to not to solve all problems, but to understand the people’s problems. to explain her perspective and to take the people’s point of view with her to Brussels – where the people’s views will promptly be ignored and Brussels will decide how the people’s problems will be solved – and still people such as Reding continue to talk about “democracy”.

We also learn that EU advisory bodies vow to join forces in building a Europe “of the people and for the people” and that the success of the European project depends on effective participation of all local, regional and civil society players in policy design and implementation and efficient coordination at all levels of governance. In the latter part of that statement where in the success of the European project does the word “people” appear among the participants? If it is the intention to build a Europe “of the people and for the people”, where do the words “We, the People” appear?

Yet another press release informs us that an effective EU energy policy needs informed and structured public dialogues and readers will forgive me if I interpret “structured” as “fixed”. If the EU is to meet its energy policy targets and it is necessary take society with it then methinks they have a fight on their hands.

What the foregoing shows is that where anyone who believes in self-determination, both nationally and locally, then the sooner “We, the People” stand up and copy those captured in the following picture, the sooner the better!

EU Referendum_20130322-200841


And when considering the words “sooner” and “better” then what could be more logical and productive than to begin in the UK where our political class are even more self-centred, corrupt, dictatorial and without honour or principle?

Older Entries

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012