Tag Archive: Richard North

EEA ‘Lite’ (2)

Following my critique of David Campbell Bannerman’s IEA Brexit entry and the related post by Richard North – in which he, Richard North, has been kind enough to add his support to that which I wrote – both of which had links tweeted to David Campbell Bannerman (one of which asked if he had any rebuttal), he has, contrary to expectations, deigned to respond on twitter thus:

@WitteringWitney Currently too busy campaigning to help save the UK to worry about these witterings. But please send me your expert solution

It is heartwarming to see a politician supposedly being too busy working hard to ‘save the UK’ especially when, previously as a member of Ukip and latterly as a member of the Conservative Party, he has been complicit in the continued ruination of the UK through misguided beliefs and lack of knowledge.

Of course had David Campbell Bannerman not been so busy he would have seen that my critique contained a link to such a paper, ie, one that has produced the only detailed exit plan that, to my knowledge, has ever been published.

In the hope that he can manage to spare the time, especially as he seems to find time for poor attempts at sarcasm, I can only hope that he does read FleXcit in its entireity – he might just learn something!

What goes round comes round

I am sure readers will recall Regional Development Offices introduced by John Major in 1994, the setting up of which  was because Major had, in effect, his arm twisted so to do, their creation being conditional on the continued flow of EU funding. It was proffered at the time that this was no more than a way whereby the EU could bypass national government with a view to hastening the regionalisation of the United Kingdom. (for any reader that would like a history of RDOs they can do no better than read this article, from 2006, by Richard North).

It will also be recalled that under the Coalition Agreement the present government committed to establishing local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) to replace Regional Development Offices.

Recalling also that the EU, having set its sights on something, never gives up should it fail first time, my attention was drawn to a speech given today by Johannes Hahn, Commissioner for Regional Policy, from which:

We have made clear that the dialogue between levels of government (multi-level governance) is essential to ensure that strategies and programmes do reflect needs and characteristics of territories and investment have maximum impact.

We have made clear that regional and local authorities are our primary partners and will play a central role in designing, implementing, and monitoring investment. (Emphasis mine)

Referral to this document shows, in their own words, how a common set of standards to improve consultation, participation and dialogue with partners such as regional, local, urban and other public authorities, trade unions, employers, non-governmental organisations and bodies responsible for promoting social inclusion, gender equality and non-discrimination during the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), have been set up. Note towards the foot of the page a link can be found to the Delegated Regulation.

Note, from the Staff Working Document (SWD):

In the United Kingdom, between 2007 and 2013, partners were already involved in consultations at different points in the programming cycle. For the new 2014-2020 programming period, the UK Government has published guidance on European Union Investment Strategies, to explain the role partners will be invited to play, the support that will be available to them, and the timetable for implementation.

Bearing in mind the European Union issued a press release on 7th January this year, google European Code of Conduct on the Partnership Principle and not one mention of any member of the MSM appears. And much is made of the fact that the European Union does not appear in the top concerns of the British public – is it any wonder? I rest my case.

That what goes round comes round, in respect of the European Union, is also applicable to the United Kingdom. Consider: every five years the electorate is given the opportunity to kick out one government and replace it with another – and to what end? Consider: between 2007 and 2013. Once again I rest my case.

What goes round sure does comes round – does it not?


David's Musings


Comments Closed

Racial Programming (2)

Following on from the preceding post, I am drawn to an article in the Mail, one which quotes the words of Antonio Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

When considering the article linked to above, one is forced to query how it differs from another, one admirably commented upon, but a few months ago, by Richard North about ‘L’affaire Raquel Rolnik‘ – an article which originates from the same source of ‘news’ as does this latest article.

Don’t you just love – and does it not tug at your heart-strings – the phrase: undermine the longer-term prospects for integration of such persons and prove detrimental to social cohesion? How 1984-esque can one get where thought control is concerned? One has to ask once more: is it not the intention of ‘those in power’ – the majority of whom we do not elect; and when we do elect them we seem to forget insisting that they do that which we wish – to eradicate the nation state, to ‘kill’ any sense of national pride, any sense of ‘belonging’?

I have to apologise to readers in that I made a serious error in the preceding post when I referred to conditioning of the people. In view of an article brought to my attention by Ian Parker Joseph, I should of course have referred to ‘control of the people’.

People, you need to recognise – and quickly – that there are ‘dark forces’ at work; that unless you ‘stand up’ and fight those forces, your lives will no longer be yours.

The choice is yours – I suggest you do not waste that choice!





Yet more ‘Smoke & Mirrors’

The Daily Mail today publishes an article, one authored by Mark Howarth, in which he provides a platform for Andrea Crossfield, of Tobacco Free Futures to perpetuate the myth about second-hand smoke. As is usual with what passes for journalism today, Howarth excels in the ‘cut ‘n paste’ method of his profession, not making any effort to refute the ‘evidence’ presented.

It is a great pity that Howarth did not take the time to read Scared to Death, written by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum: 2007) and in particular chapter 12, which is entitled Smoke and Mirrors. Had Howarth so done, he would have been hard put to justify that which appears under his name.

The authors end this particular chapter stating that the campaign against passive smoking had provided an example of how science can be bent and distorted for ideological reasons and which was based on findings that the evidence did not support.

One can but hope that the ‘science’ involved in the question of our membership of the European Union will not also be bent and distorted for ideological reasons; and likewise also not be based on findings that evidence does not support.

But, no doubt, it will be.


Richard North posts on the potential Roma problems of Sheffield, a post in which he points out, as in other instances, that due to political decisions it is the people, who not having been consulted, are expected to pick up the bill.

Let us look at another issue and compare that which happens elsewhere. At the end of September plans for some married couples to get tax breaks worth up to £200 a year have been announced by David Cameron, with him stating that four million couples would benefit from a £1,000 transferable tax allowance from 2015. And just who will pay for this?

Over in Switzerland the electorate will be voting on 24th of this month, at which time they are due to cast their ballots on November 24 on a popular initiative by the rightwing Swiss People’s Party which calls for tax breaks for parents with children at home to be “at least equivalent” to those for parents using daycare.

Admittedly the Coalition, in their manifesto, did state (page 19): We will bring forward plans to reduce the couple penalty in the tax credit system as we make savings from our welfare reform plans -however it has to be noted that: (a) not one member of the electorate had the opportunity to vote on that manifesto but, more importantly, (b): neither was it explained what said plans involved.

Immediately one can question which of the two approaches, in regard to tax concessions, contains the greater element of democracy? In the United Kingdom we have a political party – or parties, as it is a coalition – telling the electorate what they may have; as against in Switzerland, where the electorate are being asked to decide what they are prepared to accept.

What we are seeing in Switzerland is Demand #5 of the 6 Demands coupled with the element of ‘Refereism‘, first proposed by Richard North, being put into practice. Where the taxpayer is concerned, what’s not to like? In fact, when considering that which a government wishes to do, what’s not to like about a government asking those who provide the money for their proposals whether they agree to provide said money?

Just when will the electorate realise that an alternative system of democracy exists, one which demands a government has to ask for agreement of their plans – rather than imposing methods which can only be described as those employed by dictators?

There is democracy and there is dictatorship. It is time for the electorate to don their thinking caps and decide which system of government they prefer.

A sea of confusion

It would seem that the SS United Kingdom is adrift in a sea of confusion with, apparently, only clueless idiots in charge on the bridge.

Two posts, one by Richard North, the other by Autonomous Mind – together with an article in the Telegraph by Isabel Hardman – have appeared today. All three are ‘linked’ and worthy of further comment.

Richard North writes on the polling figures in respect of leaving the European Union, remarking on the fall of those who wish us to leave. Autonomous Mind, while acknowledging the small number of blogs attempting to educate the public, lays the blame for the falling numbers fairly and squarely at the door of Nigel Farage and his party. Isabel Hartman tackles a number of subjects in her article, from Cameron’s wish to ‘slim down the EU’, renegotiation, to the 2017 promised referendum.

Now either Isabel Hardman, Nigel Farage and all the supposed ‘eurosceptic’ Conservative MPs are totally clueless about ‘matters EU’, or they are deliberately choosing not to mention or discuss the intricacies of our membership of the EU – on both counts one has to ask: why? As Autonomous Mind asks: is it any wonder the numbers of those who would vote for ‘out’ are falling, when all they hear and read in the media is about renegotiation, a new deal and reclamation of powers?

Not one Conservative politician, nor Farage, nor come to that Hardman, will talk about what is the ‘nitty-gritty’; that powers cannot be reclaimed, that the 2017 referendum cannot and will not take place, that the EU never will be ‘slimmed down’; that treaty change and an IGC will be required; that it is not necessary to be a full member of the EU to trade with the EU,  thus retaining the statu quo that the business community is so hell-bent on. Where supposed eurosceptic Conservative MPs and Farage are concerned, all we get is: Ah, once we are out of the EU…. Witness Douglas Carswell (at 2:58) in response to a question about EU immigration – After we have left the EU…..

I have yet to hear one Conservative MP talk about all the diplomatic work that would be required were we to leave the EU, nor what type of free-trade agreement we should have – not one! This may be due a number of factors: the ‘payroll vote’ or fear of deselection, for example – or it may be due to the fact besides being afloat on a sea of confusion, there has been a deliberate attempt to create an accompanying fog of confusion and that, having taken Cameron’s plea on board, they are all in it together – including Farage and Ukip.

Readers will have noticed in Hartman’s piece that David Lidington, the Europe minister, has told Conservative colleagues that details of the renegotiation will only emerge after the European elections next year. What we are not told is how soon after the European elections we will be told, not that that is very important. All things considered, does it matter whether you get rebuffed now or later – and it should also be remembered that Barroso has already doomed to failure the repatriation meme.

The way the polls are heading means that if they continue on their present course Cameron faces coming into contact with something that will sink his ship in about 18 months time. Whether he can avoid his impending catastrophe is dependent on whether his radar is still working, which bearing in mind the defence cuts probably isn’t.



Huhne: economical with the actualité – again

That fine example of honour, truth and moral rectitude, has an article in the Guardian today; from which:

 It rejected a Norwegian or Swiss half-pregnant option where you apply the rules but get no say over making them.

As with the old canard about 3 million jobs being dependent on our membership of the European Union, one that has been repeated so many times the needle has worn a hole in the record, so with this lie about Norway and ‘fax-democracy’.

Huhne needs to read this, especially the sections headed: The Origin of Rules and International Treaty Bodies – you never know, the ‘fumb duck’ might learn something.

Needless to say I shan’t hold my breath waiting for the MSM to take Huhne to task – although, with a bit of luck, Christopher Booker, who is undoubtedly a cut above the MSM, might be so persuaded. 

Just saying…………

EU to lay down the law?

In an article which appeared yesterday in the Daily Telegraph Philip Johnston wrote that Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, told a Commons select committee hearing last week that he is fighting a concerted attempt by the Commission in Brussels to “Europeanise” our legal and justice system. One can but presume Grayling is referring to this press release of 7th October, which in turn refers to this two-day forum and this speech by Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, EU Justice Commissioner.

It is possible that the remarks by Grayling are but an attempt to dramatise, for political effect, something that is a long way off – and in any event this article by Johnston would appear to be a re-hash of an article that appeared in the Daily Mail last month and upon which Richard North, EU Referendum, commented.

However, that something is afoot, as they say, cannot I believe be denied; especially bearing in mind the two-day forum being held on 21/22nd November at the Assises de la Justice – a forum on EU justice policies – which seeks to generate ideas which will contribute directly to shaping the European Union’s justice policy. Among the speakers will be Joshua Rozenberg, Ms M. Mcgowan QC (UK), Barrister, Chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales; and Lord Mance (UK), Justice of The Supreme Court. Also it should be remembered that Barroso wrote to Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament on 11th September, in which letter, among possible initiatives was listed A Communication on future initiatives in the field of Justice and Home Affairs policies.

Today sees the European Commission adopting its work programme for 2014 which will set out the key new initiatives for 2014 and will also highlight the priority items for adoption by the co-legislators before the European Parliament elections in May 2014. A press release and the work programme have been promised following adoption and it would be surprising, to say the least, were there to be no mention of Justice and Home Affairs contained therein.

It is necessary to repeat that, as Richard North wrote, at the moment all this is but an aspiration of the Commission and that were it to be pursued to its logical end then an IGC would have to be held as it would involve ‘treaty change’ and a referendum in the UK.

Open Europe – Economical with the actualité (again)

Open Europe has published a ‘report’, according to the press (FTTimesTelegraphSunMail and Express), but which is actually a briefing note  stating that the top 100 EU regulations cost the UK economy £27.4 billion a year – and that the costs outweigh benefits in a quarter of cases.

Reading this briefing note one is led to believe that all EU law originates from the EU, when this is not the case – and that this is not the case is also conveniently ignored by the newspapers mentioned above. Is everyone in Open Europe and the media unaware that the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, created in 1963 by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Health Organisation is responsible for creating food standards? Is everyone in Open Europe and the media, totally unaware of the origin of banking regulations?

That Open Europe invariably talks through an orifice normally used for an entirely different purpose is confirmed, if ever there was any doubt, when they consider that the recent recommendations made by the Government’s ‘Business Task Force’ is a good start in the aim to cut ‘red tape’. These recommendations were totally torn to shreds by Richard North over at EUReferendum; and for Open Europe to ignore the points made only reinforces the impression most of us have: that most of the time Open Europe know not about that which they pontificate – which is understandable really when one  realises they are but a mouthpiece for a Prime Minister who also lacks any real understanding on ‘matters Europe’.

If Open Europe is considered an expert in its chosen field, then one can be forgiven for recalling the words of Benjamin Stolberg who reportedly said: An expert is a person who avoids small error as he sweeps on to the grand fallacy.

Just saying……..

Update: Richard North has gone into this briefing note in far greater detail, hence there is little point in my repeating the ‘expert’ errors of Open Europe, other than the comments I made in the second paragraph.

Yet another vacuous political comment

Not for the first time, this one comes from Mark Wallace writing on Conservative Home about the suggestion of Guy Lodge, IPPR, for compulsory voting – backed by a fine for failing to so do.

Wallace also believes that Lodge is correct when he writes that low turnout among young voters is a slow crisis of democracy, which crushes the validity of Parliament and raises popular disaffection more and more at each election. In decrying a crisis of democracy Wallace fails to acknowledge that to have a crisis of democracy we first need to have democracy; neither does he acknowledge that the only validity of Parliament which that institution may have is that which we the people grant it – and the majority of that which it now has, we have not granted.

Another error Wallace commits is that he maintains a healthy democracy has high participation of the people, yet fails to acknowledge (again) that the system of representative democracy under which we live does not lend itself to nurture any participation of the people. Why should there be any participation by the people when they can only voice an opinion once every five years and in the intervening period have no say on that which is foisted upon them?

The article by Wallace continues with a condemnation of the vast alienation of Parliament’s sovereignty to quangos and to Brussels, without any explanation of how this has come about. Is he aware of the background to this – and about which Richard North has written? If he is, then why not mention said background; if he is not then why the hell am I wasting my time reading that which he has written?

Wallace continues that the political parties, not the people, need to change their behaviour – sorry Mark, but both need to change their behaviour. Parties need to accept they have no divine right to govern, that they have no right to 5-year dictatorial rule; and the people need to be informed that they do not have to endure such a situation, that there is another way that exists providing a form of democracy which results in the situation wherein they are the masters and not the servants – and that to maintain that status which is rightfully theirs they do need to take an interest in that which happens about them.

It is but a demonstration of the fact that our political elite, the media and our political commentators – and in respect of those three one has to ask in whose pocket is who – that while we are presented with articles such as that of Mark Wallace, to which I have linked, the public are not best served, are deliberately misled and misinformed and are thus being “led by the nose” under the “commentariat” of those who have not a clue, really, about that which they write.

An that is democracy?



Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012