Tag Archive: United Nations

The Ukip problem

On the question of ‘Brexit’, only the other day it was put to me that I was ‘divisive’ in respect of Ukip when I knew very well what was at stake – which I thought a tad rich when I do not write about them as often – and as negatively – as others. Any criticisms I do make are not made from any personal animosity for Nigel Farage, nor his party; and invariably my criticism of Ukip is grouped with a similar dislike of any other political party.

One of the most repeated accusations that I make of Conservative, Labour, or Liberal Democrat politicians is one of ‘being economical with the actualité'; in other words being economical with the facts to the point whereby the electorate is misinformed, even lied to – and in this regard, where being ‘economical with the actualité thus leads to misinformation, Nigel Farage and Ukip are no less guilty than the other three parties.

A recent comment seen is that all this country needs is a free trade agreement so that we can make our own decisions; to which one response said that that is what Ukip proposes while expressing the wish that Ukip would untangle decades of laws. Another comment stated that a vote for Ukip meant Brexit and contained the wish that that party had an exit strategy and policy after withdrawal. After withdrawal? God forbid they go down that route as having withdrawn, what happens to trade, movement of capital, goods and people, while they negotiate a ‘bespoke’ trade agreement?

No-one would begrudge the fervour exhibited by any party’s activists in promoting the party they support, but Ukip MEPs and supporters seem to excel, especially on Twitter, with the inane, discourteous; and at times totally rude, comments; in particular on newspaper stories which are themselves incorrect – and in some cases, deliberately made so it seems.

One such recent illustration of what may be termed ‘Ukip hype’ concerns an article in the Daily Express which reported that the EU intended to impose road tolls; a story stating that European Transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc wants a standardised driving tax across all EU member states. The Express story was factually incorrect as what Bulc said contained a caveat that the Express chose not to mention; that omission being:

There are many options – a fee could be obligatory but it’s also possible to make it optional i.e. that countries decide themselves whether and on which roads they want to levy a road use charge based on kilometres driven. (Emphasis mine)

In fact, subsequently, on 27th January Bulc tweeted:

My vision for EU #tolling system would be optional for Member States. A uniform system would be fairer + more efficient for EU citizens.

On the day of the Express story Twitter was ‘flooded’ with comments from Ukip MEPs and supporters all adversely passing comment on this intended EU law. It is obvious that comment was being made without any attempt to investigate/research the veracity of this newspaper story – is that a logical response from a party that wishes the electorate to take them seriously?

Let us consider Ukips ‘policies’ – as so far published – together with the most recent publication: 100 reasons to vote Ukip. As an aside on the latter, this was most eloquently ‘filleted‘ by a blogger whose ‘diminutive’ is, I understand, ‘The Bastard’ – however I digress.

On the Ukip website we read:

We would negotiate a bespoke trade agreement with the EU to enable our businesses to continue trading to mutual advantage.

I well remember a telephone conversation with a Ukip supporter, one who is a frequent user of Twitter, who when I tried to explain that trade agreements with the EU take time, blithely said that my view was rubbish and that it could be done within a week, if not days.

Really? Let us consult the EU Commission on how free trade agreements are reached:

Many months of careful preparation take place before a trade negotiation begins. This includes public consultation, assessment of an agreement’s potential impact on Europe’s companies and consumers and informal and formal talks between the Commission and the country or region concerned to determine the issues to be covered. After these comprehensive preparations, the Commission requests authorisation from the Council of Ministers (made up of representatives of EU governments) to open negotiations. They agree the objectives that the Commission should try to secure. During the negotiating process that usually lasts several years, the Commission regularly informs the Council and the European Parliament on the progress being made. Once an agreement is reached, its signature is formally authorised by the Council. The European Parliament, using its new Lisbon Treaty powers, may accept or reject, but not amend, the text. Individual EU countries may also need to ratify an agreement according to their own national procedures as well as the green light they give at international level. The agreement enters into force on a particular day, but may be provisionally applied beforehand. (Emphasis mine)

Ukip also state:

We would review all legislation and regulations from the EU (3,600 new laws since 2010) and remove those which hamper British prosperity and competitiveness.

The inference of that statement is that all the legislation and regulation coming from Brussels is ‘EU Law’ – it is not. Where the setting of ‘standards’ is concerned, this is done within bodies under the aegis of the United Nations; for example: Codex (food standards); the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) based in Rome; the United Nations Economic Council (UNECE) based in Geneva; the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) based in Paris; the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) based in Montreal; the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) based in Basel; and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) based in Bonn; the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations – known as WP.29 and held under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Council Europe (UNECE); the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, which jointly manages the fisheries in the region. 

‘Standards’ are then handed down to members of these various UN bodies in the form of dual international quasi-legislation, or ‘diqules’, for implementation by governments and trade blocs. In fact the majority of the bulk of the Single Market regulation originates from these UN bodies, making the EU no more than an intermediary player, processing standards agreed elsewhere, way above the EU and over which the EU has no direct control. So the EU does not make law, consequently law does not come from Brussels. In any event the point has to be made that ‘EU Law’ is no doubt law that the UK would have applied anyway, had it had its own seat on the aforementioned bodies.

Where the statement:

We would reoccupy the UK’s vacant seat at the World Trade Organisation, ensuring that we continue to enjoy ‘most favoured nation’ status in trade with the EU, as is required under WTO rules.

is concerned, I am not going to waste my time pointing out that ‘most favoured nation’ would mean that the UK would still be liable to tariffs; suffice to say that in effect a horse and cart has been driven through WTO ‘most favoured nation’ rules by trade blocs, such as the European Union, which have lowered or eliminated tariffs among their members while maintaining tariff walls between member nations and the rest of the world.

Neither will I waste time with Ukip’s statement:

UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.

If Ukip wishes to negotiate a ‘bespoke’ trade agreement, then what would be simpler than a sideways move to EFTA/EEA while it did just that? That course of action would have no negative effect on the ability of UK business to trade with the EU, neither would it affect the other ‘three pillars’ involving services, capital or the movement of people. What it would do is allow any future government time to negotiate a ‘bespoke’ trade agreement.

The foregoing can but illustrate that, in common with the other three main parties, Ukip, too, is ‘economical with the actualité’ – or, in common with the other three, has no real idea on that which it pontificates.

There is an irony involved in the dissemination of political messages; in that parties spend an inordinate amount of time refuting statements from their opponents in order to negate adverse public perception of their policies – should not political parties also pay attention to what can only be described as the ‘crap’ put out by their supporters – ‘crap’ which also does the respective party no good whatsoever.

And on such ‘shallow’ ignorance, the electorate is prepared to hand over our lives, our future and be ‘ruled’ by any of them?


Global Governance – digging deeper

Only a couple of days ago Enrico Letta, the Italian Prime Minister, was interviewed by the Guardian. Letta, an avowed Europhile, is of the opinion that ‘populism’ within the European Union must be fought ‘tooth and nail’ (I paraphrase); and that European citizens have to feel they are being represented by Europe.

According to Wikipedia ‘populism’ is a political doctrine where one sides with “the people” against “the elites”; continuing that the terms populist and populism are also often used as pejoratives by political parties and politicians against their opponents who claim that they are merely only empathising with the public, (usually through rhetoric or ‘unrealistic’ proposals) to increase their appeal across the political spectrum. (Farage et all to please take note).

With what appears to be a rising of populism and populist parties within the European Union, Letta maintains that European citizens have to feel they are being represented. Letta’s idea that the people of the European Union can be ‘represented’ in Europe when the elites are, in fact, telling them what they must do, beggars belief – but I digress.

The European Union is generally presented to us as ‘the evil’ where our country is concerned, especially in relation to the ‘cost’ of our membership and the onus said costs put on the business community. An example of this scenario is the recent outpourings of Matthew Elliot, CEO Clown of Business for Britain. That Richard North, EUReferendum; and Autonomous Mind (linked to by Richard North) have ‘torn to shreds’ Elliott’s outpouring means that further comment from me would be superfluous.

However, picking up on something mentioned by Richard North is the subject of global governance. From his post:

But what is coming more and more into high profile is the increasing globalisation of regulation……. Leaving the EU is going to afford us very little regulatory relief – at least in the short to medium term………What really matters, especially when the lack of sovereignty is seen to be harmful to our national interest, is who runs Britain – our own governments, Brussels, or beyond……..When it comes to global governance, divesting ourselves of EU control allows us to resume our seats at the real top tables, at present occupied by EU officials. Then, when we do implement offshore regulation – as, indeed we will always have to – we will know where it came from and that we had an opportunity of rejecting it when it was not in our national interest.

The important words in that extract when considering sovereignty are: who runs Britain, global governance and resuming our seats at the many top tables that exist; coupled with the ability of rejection. Of course there are those, among which is this blog, that believe those who should run Britain are the people of Britain; hence the requirement for the adoption of the 6 Demands.

Returning to the question of global governance, it has been pointed out, both here and elsewhere, that nations are subject to ‘soft-law’ which is handed down to them by UN organisations (eg UNECE) for implementation by national governments. It is logical therefore to query just who, or what, is behind organisations such as UNECE – if anyone.

It was interesting then to discover that a Regional Consultation entitled “Inclusive and Sustainable Development: Perspectives from Europe and Central Asia on the Post-2015 Development Agenda” is to be held on 7 and 8 November 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey. The high-level event will be hosted by the Ministry of Development of Turkey and co-organized by the Regional Coordination Mechanism for Europe and Central Asia, which is chaired by UNECE, and the regional United Nations Development Group. When looking at the agenda and reading the ‘advocacy paper’, one can be forgiven for asking just who the hell is Sven Alkalaj and Cihan Sultanoglu – and perhaps more pertinent, who the hell has heard of them? When one reads that one of the aims is to change consumption patterns on the basis that in Europe, the affluence of the majority of the population has moved them beyond consumption patterns dictated by need alone, and beyond what is consistent with intra and intergenerational environmental sustainability, then we surely have entered an area that can only have sinister overtones.

And we think that we are governed by Westminster – with a little help from Brussels? That the rhetoric of the boy Farage, as contained in his Telegraph ‘interview’ – or that of any other politician – is important? Readers are reminded that the url of the Post-2015 Development Agenda contains the words: ‘world we want'; and one has to ask just who is this ‘we’? From the home page it will be seen that the World We Want is a platform created by the United Nations and civil society to amplify people’s voices in the process of building a global agenda for sustainable development. One can, perhaps, be forgiven for believing that that statement contains a typographical error in that the word ‘nullify’ was intended, rather than ‘amplify’.

If we the people are those that should run Britain, then it becomes even more important that we reclaim that sovereignty that has been taken from us by our political class; so that when we are required to implement what Richard North terms ‘off-shore regulation’ it is done knowing that ultimately we can reject it if we so decide.



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”?

Water, water everywhere (3)

Browsing the internet, as one does, I came across a reference to a post by Oliver Heald and knowing that mentions of Heald are few and far between, decided to investigate further. Folowing two earlier posts on the subject of water, it seemed obligatory to follow with a third.

Reporting on a conference arranged by Water Resources South East (WRSE), the purpose of which was to give a briefing on their work towards water resource planning, Heald mentions that WRSE are a group of the six south-eastern water companies plus DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Ofwat, set up in 1996 which jointly look ways of planning for future water demands in the South East whilst ensuring that environmental and consumer concerns are properly taken into consideration too.

Nothing wrong with that I hear you say, but one has to ask to whose agenda are they working, because reading Heald’s article one is led to believe that this “water planning” is a local initiative under national guidance. Were this so, then it does not appear to have been progressing very smoothly – as reported by Richard North, EUReferendum, here, here, here and here.

All policy has a source and in the case of water the European Union has competence, but then again one has to ask who or what is driving European Union policy? And so we end back with our old friends the United Nations. We have UN Water which we are informed is not an organization or an agency but is the United Nations coordination mechanism for all water-related issues and that UN-Water activities and programmes are therefore implemented by its members. Just one week ago the United Nations launched the International Year of Water Cooperation, Neither let us forget the United Nations Environment Programme nor should we forget Agenda 21.

I suppose WRSE are to be complimented on their attempts to provide us with sufficient, clean water – especially as the process seems to involve dealing with so many “foreign bodies”.

Just saying…………

What Dave has joined together, let no man put asunder

The House of Commons is expected to approve a new law legalising same sex marriage in a vote due on February 5. This is despite 11th hour opposition from more than 120 Conservative MPs — including some cabinet ministers — who backed letters of protest urging Prime Minister David Cameron (right on the cake) to abandon the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which will allow gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales.

Across the Channel in France, the Lower Chamber started discussing the extension of marriage to gay couples on January 29. The bill has deeply divided the country but is likely to be passed in mid-February.


Dave Brown (b. 1961) is a British cartoonist. After beginning with the Sunday Times and various other publications, he joined The Independent in 1996, where he still works. In 2003 he received the Political Cartoon of the Year Award for a controversial drawing of Ariel Sharon.

Ack: Presseurop

We all know that everything has a beginning and it is worth noting that on Friday 17 June, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution on the rights of gay, lesbian and transgender people that sought equal rights for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.” The resolution was passed with 23 votes in favour, 19 against and 3 abstentions.  Now consider NWO and Agenda21 – I will not digress into the matter of politicians using any ploy, or adopting any policy, to garner votes – and work out for yourselves where this same-sex marriage proposal thingy came from. Chris Grayling may well ordain that it is acceptable for parents to smack their children (without leaving a mark – natch) but just wait a few years until this enters our legislation – as it surely will, with or without the assistance of our fake-charities.

And we are a free people in a sovereign nation?

Just asking……….


Hard on the heels of articles in the MSM about a possible wave of immigration from Romania and Bulgaria comes news that Turkey may soon “come in from the cold” where its bid to join the EU is concerned as Hollande has reversed Sarkozy’s policy and is now prepared to lift blocks on some accession chapters. No doubt the hacks will be  checking on the spelling of “tsunami”, when the Turkish Weekly news reaches these shores.

The United Kingdom is not the only EU Member State concerned about immigration per se with the news that Sweden is “not a happy bunny”, with the Immigration Minister stating that “volumes are too high”, a situation that is “not sustainable”.

Reverting back to the subject of Turkey, Germany appears to have just discovered that she has nearly 500,000 more Turkish immigrants than was first thought. The discovery occurred because the way statisticians categorize people has changed, as now 471,000 children, born in Germany to families with a Turkish background and are German since birth are included. Previously children with a Turkish background did not show up in the data if their parents had Turkish roots.

Many people are of the belief that the EU is attempting to change the ethnicity of member states and thus undermine their “identities”. Readers will recall last year  Peter Sutherland, the UN’s special representative for migration, appearing before the House of Lords EU home affairs sub-committee and stating that the EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states.

Of course, the people of countries experiencing what they consider to be unacceptable levels of immigration with the resultant change to their societies must not speak of such matters as to so do is considered “provocative“. This begs the question of to whom does a country belong – its peoples, its politicians or those such as Peter Sutherland? When considering  the system of representative democracy coupled with Cameron’s “renegotiation of powers” thingy, I am surprised no-one has queried how transferring the dictatorial powers of one group of people based in Brussels to another identical group based in Britain will do squat-diddley for the likes of you and I.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?




Something not considered

Referring to the latest post by Richard North, EUReferendum, on the subject that there exists over 1,000 treaties to which the UK has been “signed-up to” by the European Union and to which the UK is now bound – is this not an aspect of “ever closer union” that has been enacted behind our backs and thus been carried out “under the radar”? Where and when have the British public been made aware of this?

When considering the subject of “ever closer union” we all concentrate  on Directives and Regulations when considering loss of sovereignty and the supremacy of Parliament, but we seem to forget the matter of “treaties that are done in our name”.

Methinks we can forget any idea that there is a day in which to bury bad news – it would seem that, regardless of the day, news gets buried anyway.

More to follow on this aspect in the days to come…….

Stay tuned – as they say…….

Agenda 21

Courtesy of Ian Parker-Joseph this article was brought to my attention, one which was posted on Christmas Eve last year, from which:

“The philosophy behind Agenda 21 is that our environmental problems are the number one problem that we are facing, and that those problems are being caused by human activity.  Therefore, according to Agenda 21 human activity needs to be tightly monitored, regulated and controlled for the greater good.  Individual liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the planet.”

Continuing that sadly, the principles behind Agenda 21 are being rammed down the throats of local communities all over America, and most of the people living in those communities don’t even realize it, the author writes:

“….after Agenda 21 was adopted, an international organization known as the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI) was established to help implement the goals of Agenda 21 in local communities.”

Interesting body is the International Council for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) who number among their membership the following in the UK:

  • Aberdeen
  • Birmingham City Council
  • Bristol City Council
  • City of Glasgow
  • Craigavon Borough Council
  • Greater London Authority
  • Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council
  • Newcastle City Council
  • Royal Haskoning (Associate Member)
  • Woking Borough Council

to which list can be added the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow. along with South Wiltshire as further examples.

I am aware that there have been articles about Agenda 21 and the New World Order, notably by CallingEngland for example, however methinks it is about time this intriguing subject saw the light of day once again; especially from the local aspect and links to Common Purpose. More to follow in the days and weeks ahead.

Ground-to-air missile?

In what Presseurop terms an unprecedented move, five European countries – Denmark, Spain, France, the United Kingdom and Sweden – have summoned their Israeli ambassadors to protest against the Tel Aviv government’s plan to build 3,000 new homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Israel’s decision to suspend the payment of tax collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

The EU has repeatedly called on Israel to “immediately cease settlement expansion” without result. As a means of putting extra pressure on Israel, former Irish president Mary Robinson and Finnish counterpart Martti Ahtisaari, propose relabelling Israeli goods to distinguish between those made in Israel and those manufactured in Israeli settlements. They suggest the new label “made in Israeli settlements”. The settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

Tom Janssen (b. 1950) is a cartoonist for the Dutch press. He works for Amsterdam daily Trouw and various local papers. His cartoons are also published in The International Herald Tribune, Time MagazineLe Monde and The New York Times. In 2009 World Press Cartoon awarded him 2nd prize in the Editorial Cartoon category for his take on “Wall Street”

Ack: Presseurop

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012