St Georges Day in Telford & Wrekin

UKIP Telford & Wrekin Branch

Celebrating St Georges Day

on the evening of the 23rd April

at

The Telford White House Hotel
Watling Street
Wellington
Telford
TF1 2NJ

Tickets £12.50 each

Arrival 7.00 – 7.15 Meal 7.30pm

Ends around 10.30pm

Brass Band

Meal
Fish & Chips and Mushy Peas
Apple Pie

This is the time to sing along let your hair down and have fun.

More importantly Fly the Flag

Please forward a cheque payable:

UKIP Telford & Wrekin
c/o Holly Cottage
30 The Fields
Kynnersley
Telford
Shropshire
TF6 6ED

Hangleton Rangers burn Nigel Farage shirts

A youth football club in Brighton have sacked their coach and confiscated a training kit because it was sponsored by Nigel Farage.

Farage made a personal donation of £150 to the club to pay for a training kit for Hangleton Rangers and the coach had Farage's name put on the kit as the sponsor. But the committee, according to the club secretary Kevin Aughey, has decided that it's a political donation.

Would this be Brother Kevin Aughney who is on the committee of the Brighthelmstone Lodge? The committee that also includes Councillor Ron Maskell (Conservative, Lewes)?

Brighton is, of course, in the same euroregion that Nigel Farage represents and the part of the country that provides the highest support for UKIP. In the last EU elections, UKIP took 19.2% of the vote and returned 4 MEPs. The Conservatives currently have 4 MEPs but early indications show that UKIP is on track to gain an even higher number of votes in the impending EU election than the last one and a lot of those will be at the expense of the Conservatives.

The Conservatives run Brighton & Hove City Council with a minority cabinet and the borough's 3 MPs are Labour. With 12 teams and 200 members the last thing the Conservatives will want is Farage's name on Hangleton Rangers' shirts.

According to Kevin Aughey, the donation from Farage is "political" and the shirts will be burned. Farage said:

This was a personal donation. I was glad to help. Being an MEP is being part of the local community and if I can help that community in some way then I always try to. Nobody from the club has had the courtesy to contact me to ask whether it was a personal donation or a political one. If they had then none of this would have happened. The real losers here are the kids themselves.

Wyre Forest PPC Selected

THE son of Kidderminster’s “singing dustman” has been selected as the UK independence Party’s next parliamentary hopeful for Wyre Forest.

Michael Wrench, 40, of Kidderminster, said he was “delighted” to be chosen and would be “working closely” with Tony Baker, branch chairman, on “a number of issues” that UKIP wanted to tackle, including the closure of Kidderminster Hospital’s A&E.

Mr Wrench, who served four years in the army and was posted in Germany with the Royal Signals, is the son of Eddie Wrench, who worked as a refuse collector for Wyre Forest District Council and was once featured on regional television after his unconventional singing act began attracting huge numbers of fans in district pubs.

He said: "My dad sang in many of the area’s pubs and was well liked by all. He was such a cheerful chap, he often featured in the local press because he was always happy and smiling."

Since leaving the army in 1994, Mr Wrench continued to work as a civilian in security for the army in Germany until 1998, when he moved into IT. Mr Wrench said: "Everyone thinks that just because I am in UKIP I am anti-European, which is not the case. I am anti the European Union, which is undermining our British democracy.

“I am out to prove that UKIP has developed into far more than a single issue party and will be campaigning on a number of issues." He added he was also concerned about how the global downturn will affect what remains of Kidderminster’s carpet industry and the jobs of its workers.

Conservatives (Amongst Others) Won't Face Facts

Following Christopher Booker's article last weekend, we have a rebuttal in 'letters' this weekend from Zac Goldsmith - the 'Greenie' Tory - referring readers to the Conservative Party's document, The Low Carbon Economy, which he describes as "a detailed policy programme on energy" and which he urges all to read.

Very well Mr. Goldsmith, lets do that thing.

The Foreward, penned by David Cameron, states "We have a vision of a different Britain"; and "It is a vision of a Britain which leads the world in new green technologies"; and "Is this vision shared across the political spectrum? In one sense, I believe it is. Today, all the major political parties agree that this is what we must seek to achieve".

As the subject of energy is an EU competence - ie, a subject on which only the EU can dictate policy - the vision of which David Cameron speaks is not his vision, but that of our real government in Brussels and one which he is duty bound to follow without question. He is,of course, correct in that this 'vision' is "shared across the political spectrum" and that "all the major political parties agree that this is what we must seek to achieve" because all the main political parties wish to remain a member of the EU and are therefore beholden to the EU's energy policy!

So immediately we have the classic example of politicians lying to their electorate by (a) stating that the 'vision' is theirs - when it is not - and (b) that 'all the major political parties agree on this' by omitting the fact that they have no other option.

David Cameron ends his foreward with the words "This is a blueprint for a better energy future". Wrong Mr. Cameron, it is a policy driven by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats over whom you have no control, based on ideas which have no foundation and which will 'cost the earth' - in more than one sense - to implement.

In the executive summary the document states "Britain is now in the grip of a full-blown recession and Labour’s Debt Crisis has put our public finances in chaos, with the worst budget deficit in the developed world."; and "First, it will strengthen our economy. Decarbonising Britain will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs...."; and "the reckless accumulation of debt in our economy means higher taxes for the next generation".

With Britain 'in the grip of a full-blown recession' and 'our public financies in chaos', the Conservatives plan to spend even more money on something that is costly, cannot be delivered in the time scale planned and which will not provide the energy that the country requires, Decarbonising Britain surely will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, not for the 'average man in the street' but surely for those 'environmentalists' whose latest conference admitted that science was not the objective but that 'political pressure' was. Not only will 'the reckless accumulation of debt mean higher taxes for the next generation', so will this so-called policy that the Conservatives are forced to adopt by the EU.

On page 3 of the document it states "we can meet our target to reduce emissions by 80% over 1990 levels".
Another lie here, in that the targets are not theirs - ie, the Conservative Party - but those of the EU. In respect of 'meeting our targets' - fact: the present government plans to build 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020. There is not the remotest possibility that we could build the 10,000 giant turbines required, at the rate of two a day, when it takes weeks to install each vast machine. On top of which, of the giant barges needed for the work, there is but one in the world. (Christopher Booker - Sunday Telegraph 26./10/2008)

The document includes ideas such as "putting computing intelligence into electricity networks"; transform electricity networks with ‘smart grid’ and ‘smart meter’ technology so that the use of electricity for a wide range of household and workplace appliances, and the charging of electric and plug-in hybrid cars, can be tailored automatically to match the supply of electricity" (page 4); "vastly expand the amount of offshore wind.....power" (debunked above) (page 4); "electricity network operators to establish a new national recharging network" (page 5); "introduce a new entitlement for every home to be fitted immediately with up to £6,500 of approved energy efficiency improvements, the cost to be repaid through fuel bills over a period of up to 25 years" (page 6); "establish a new ‘top runner’ scheme to highlight the most energy-efficient household goods" (page 6): "fully implement the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive and require Display Energy Certificates for public and private non-domestic buildings over 1000 square metres" (page 6) (good heavens - actual mention of the EU Directive!) "immediately start work on establishing a new high speed rail network linking cities in the North and South" (page 6).

Initial question Mr. Cameron -and whose going to pay for all this? Let me guess - the taxpayer and consumer!

Page 7 of the document states "They buy us protection against the hazards of the future." What it does not say is that the hazards of the future are those imposed by our membership of the European Union and by God, were it possible to buy protection from that load of f'wits!

Under the heading of Social Justice (page 10) the document states "When families are being hit hard every time they pay their gas bill, fill up their cars or do the weekly shop, we can all see the advantage of moving to low carbon sources of energy and improving efficiency" - and who, Mr. Cameron, has been responsible for that? Not us consumers, that is for sure!

On page 10 of the document, the Conservative Party have the gall to quote "In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (usually regarded as the apostle of the free market)" - but we haven't got a 'free market' Mr. Cameron because by your blind adherence to the principle of membership of the European Union it imposes regulations which are acknowledged go be counter-productive and thereby extremely costly!

Page 31 of this document discusses the question of low energy light bulbs and states "Until and unless a new generation of LED bulbs comes to replace the existing mercury-based bulbs, we will continue to face the need for a national collection and disposal network that will enable users to dispose safely of the existing low energy bulbs in accordance with the WEEE Directive" (God, another mention of an EU Directive!) And who brought in this stupid rule about low energy light bulbs? That's right Mr. Cameron, your masters in Brussels so, as it is a requirement that they be 'disposed of safely' you have no option but to set up yet another 'industry'!

I really cannot be bothered continuing to pick holes in what is, basically, a laughable proposal. When will any of the three main political parties, in one of their manifestos, actually say the truth - something like 'Look Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Elector, because of our membership of the European Union, in respect of matter xxxxx this is what we have to comply with and here is how we think is the best way to adhere to Directive/Regulation xxxx'?

Just tell us the truth you b******s, that where the EU has 'competence' you are no longer able to formulate policies

More UK First Party lies

I really do have better things to do with my time than keep responding to the lies of the UK First Party's semi-literate representative but as he bravely disabled comments on his blog to make sure nobody can correct him at source, I'll have to do so here.

It's ironic that the mysterious Greg L-W should make such a big thing of using a username instead of my real name on blogs - presumably the name on his cheque book isn't Greg L-W. For the record, however, I am far better known on the interenet - especially in political circles - by my username rather than my real name. There is no secret as to who I am - a quick search of Google will turn up innumerable sources of information about me.

I am not, despite what the UKIP website says, the chairman of Telford & Wrekin UKIP and haven't been for a couple of years. While others, like Greg L-W, were actively trying to bring down the party they supposedly support, I did a stint as chairman when I was needed.

And despite saying this several times, Greg L-W's stunted intelect obviously needs several reminders before anything sinks in - Bloggers4UKIP has nothing to do with UKIP. It is not an "approved UKIP site". UKIP did, in fact, ask for something to be removed from the site once and I refused.

While there is a lot of my personal information about me on the internet (which dispels the myth that I am coy about my identity), putting my employment details on a blog is out of order and in breach of Blogger's terms of service. I specifically don't talk about my employer - especially as I work on a contract for a government department - but it's not hard to work out who it is I work for from other information. However, I am not an "IT Consultant" as Greg L-W says. His tone of writing implies that he knows all this secret inforrmation about me but he doesn't. It's all freely available information with a bit of guess work.

Putting my phone number on there - which, again, is freely available on the internet - and inviting people to make unsolicited calls to me is also in breach of Bloggers terms of service and if I did receive any abusive phone calls would mean Greg L-W had committed a criminal offence.

With cretins like this in the UK First Party, I really don't think UKIP or any other party has anything to worry about. The party is only a couple of weeks old and already their members are bringing it into disrepute!

NEW YOUTH AMBASSADOR FOR TAUNTON DEANE

Just before half term the Taunton Deane Chairman had a phone call from a 14 year old Taunton School pupil, Colin Cortbus. He explained that he was about to start his Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme (DofE) work, and that for one of the elements he would like to work for UKIP.

Colin met with the Committee, told them a little about himself and outlined the requirements of the DofE scheme. His idea was to work for UKIP for the 12 week period of the ‘service’ section, with particular emphasis on trying to stimulate greater interest in UKIP among young people in the constituency.

He is a lively speaker, well-informed, well-read and politically aware, and so impressed the committee that they decided unanimously to co-opt Colin as the Taunton Deane UKIP constituency’s Youth Ambassador for the 12 week period of his DofE award work.

One hour a week does not seem much time to attack such an ambitious aim, but Colin has already spent an hour in the wind an rain distributing UKIP material in Taunton's High Street, and has come up with an idea for a leaflet.

Good Luck Colin !, This again shows that Young Independence, the youth wing for the party, is recruiting more and more bright, intelligent young people. Young people who understand and are attracted by UKIP's global outlook compared to the outdated, backwards thinking of European federalism.

Libertas isn't EU-sceptic

Libertas launches in the UK this morning and it's going to be interesting to find out whether people understand the basic point about Declan Ganley. He's not against the European Union, far from it. He's very much a supporter of the project, just wishing to change very slightly the direction it's going in, that's all.

There's a rather bewildering assumption that because Declan campaigned so successfully for a No vote in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that he's therefore against further integration, ever closer union and the rest of the federalist claptrap. We in UKIP stood alongside him in that campaign and thoroughly admire what he achieved. However, we're also very much aware that he's in favour of much of what makes up the European Project. It's really just the Lisbon Treaty he doesn't like.

Ganley starts from the same place that I do (and therefore his analysis, at this point, is obviously correct). The European Union is responsible for some 75 per cent of our laws, the aim of the grand project is to move power away from the people and place it firmly in the hands of a technocratic class of bureaucrats and there's very little or no democracy in the way that it functions. We both agree further that something about this needs to change. However, what it is that should change is where we diverge and this is where Declan and Libertas fall into error. Essentially, the same error the Conservative party has itself fallen prey to.

They both believe that, while the current situation is dire, matters can and will be improved by working from the inside, by attempting to change the direction of the juggernaut. Libertas is running on the idea that a few more elections, say an elected European Union president, will solve matters, that the voice of the people will be heard. The Tories seem to think that, well, it's difficult to know what the Tories actually intend to do about anything or, indeed, whether they would do anything if they themselves could make up their minds. We're still waiting for them to leave the EPP, something Cameron promised would happen in months, not years or weeks - that promise being what swung his election to the party leadership.

But however well-meaning this all is, however nice it would be to be able to believe that any of us could change the direction we're being moved in, this simply isn't possible. We're not being offered any choices on how the EU is going to work in the future, how it is going to develop. There are no opportunities to force or insist upon our own blueprints either. The parliament does not have the power to initiate legislation: that stays very firmly with the Commission. We are faced with only two choices. We accept the way the EU is, the way that decisions are made and the drive to creating a federal superstate. Or we reject that vision and decide to leave.

You'll recall that they didn't listen to the French or the Dutch in the referendums on the constitution. Also that they're not listening to the Irish on their referendum on the renamed and repacked constitution (now called the Lisbon treaty). They won't listen to calls for reform, for changes in direction, from inside the parliament either. The basic policy idea of both Libertas and the Tory party is flawed: they are arguing for negotiations with people who will not negotiate.

This is how we get to my and our position in UKIP. These changes that people desire are simply not possible while we remain within the Union. We have to leave and to cooperate where we wish and need to but for the rest of it simply become an independent and sovereign nation once again.

Nigel Farage is the leader of the UK Independence party (UKIP)

UKIP Steps Up Fight to Save the British Pub

The battle to save the traditional British pub is today (11.3.09) being stepped up by the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Already well known for speaking out against the slow extinction of the British pub, through a combination of the over taxing of beer and over zealous health and safety legislation, UKIP is using National No Smoking Day to start a ‘Save the Pub’ a petition, with its own website www.savethepub.co.uk which also features a major policy document ‘Pubs and Smoking’ that contains far reaching proposals aimed at keeping British pubs open.

David Campbell Bannerman, the Party’s Deputy Leader and Eastern Counties Lead Candidate in the forthcoming European Election as well as its policy director said: “There is nothing more traditionally British than the local pub but we are losing them at a rate of around 40 a week and they may be wiped out unless there is a major effort to save them. UKIP has a whole range of ideas for turning this situation around. Among other things, we would cut the duty on draught beers, real ale, cider and some lagers. We would introduce a Royal Commission to investigate beer pricing to sort out the current problems with wholesale prices which strongly disadvantage pubs.

“We would also cut business rates on community pubs and remove local authorities from the licensing process. Community pubs play a role in social cohesion through providing a comfortable environment for people to meet and talk. They are also a controlled drinking environment which offers a bulwark against the binge drinking problem.

“In regard to the smoking ban, we fully recognise its popularity in many parts of the community but UKIP would take a more flexible approach toward its enforcement in pubs, which would be allowed to have separate, contained and well ventilated smoking rooms as well as outside smoking areas using patio heaters. The EU ban on patio heaters is absurd as their impact on the environment is negligible and certainly not worth the loss of an important local amenity”.

To read the full UKIP policy: ‘Pubs and Smoking’ and to sign the Save the Pub petition, go to www.savethepub.co.uk UKIP will also be delivering special 'Save the Pub' beer mats to pubs all over the Eastern counties.

SWANSONG FOR AN EU-REALIST

By Jeffrey Titford MEP UK Independence Party - Eastern Counties

This is my last column for the East Anglian Daily Times as the European Election beckons and I am not seeking re-election. After ten years in the European Parliament, my second career, having already retired once, I have decided that it is time to stand aside and let younger candidates come through.

Writing these columns has been one of the great pleasures of my time as an MEP. The EADT is to be congratulated for being one of the very few newspapers prepared to carry regular material from the region’s MEPs. Instrumental in that has been the paper’s Political Editor, Graham Dines, who has always been very fair and even-handed in his treatment of UKIP, for which I am very grateful. My thanks also to the readers of the EADT, who I hope will have appreciated the independent views I have expressed.

What I have tried to do in my columns is to bring some realism to the debate about Britain ’s membership of the European Union. I have tried to blow holes in some of the empty, rose tinted rhetoric of those who see EU membership as some sort of sunlit upland that provides peace, security and secures our economic future. It provides none of these things but is quite happy to claim the credit for them, credit which belongs elsewhere to organisations like NATO.

In regard to economics, events are now rapidly catching up with a eurozone that has been built upon quicksand. No one cared very much about adhering to EMU entry requirements. Rules about national debts tended to be overlooked or excuses made in the rush to get countries signed up. Well the pigeons are coming home to roost right now. Consumer and business confidence in the zone have fallen to an all time low and many EU countries are on the brink of disaster, including, alas, Ireland , which is in a real mess.

These are tough times for us all but at least Britain , independent of the euro and in control of its own interest rate, is in a better position to ride out the storm. We have been able to cut our rate to try to stimulate our economy, whilst the eurozone countries have to sit and wait for the European Central Bank to decide what to do and hope that it will help their economy rather than that of their neighbour. They are trapped in the euro straitjacket and cannot act in their own best interests. Surely it is the first duty of any government, to act in the best interests of the people it represents? Is it not the case that in signing up to the euro, they have abdicated their most important duty?

A recent report produced by the Bruges Group puts the annual cost of EU membership at £4.64 billion per month, £1.07 billion per week, £152.8 million a day, £6.36 million per hour and an astonishing £106,117 per minute (net figures). EU membership was always grossly expensive but in the boom times, the cost could be overlooked or avoided, by its supporters. It cannot be overlooked any longer. With people losing their jobs and their homes, the expense and the huge regulatory burden it generates are no longer sustainable. We have to leave and soon.

Readers interested in more information about Jeffrey Titford MEP or UKIP can find it on www.jeffreytitfordmep.co.uk

Nothing like a bit of controversy

It seems I've rattled a few anti-UKIP cages with my post about the UK First Party yesterday.

Good.

There are more than enough turncoats running around claiming to be concerned UKIP members slagging off the party, its leadership and generally causing as much trouble and disruption as they can get away with. It's about time they found a channel for their obsessive, compulsive behaviour.

Perhaps now their insane and obsessive attacks on UKIP will be in the name of the UK First Party or, even better, perhaps they'll turn on their new party instead and let the grown ups get on with it.

And for the record - although it has been said more than once - this blog is nothing to do with UKIP and they have no control or influence over it.

Erm ... nice logo

No, this isn't the new UK Fuel logo for a new type of eco-friendly power station, it's the logo of the United Kingdom First Party.

The motto of the UK First Party is "Country before self" - a rallying call for fascists everywhere, very Musollini-esque.

Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race.

Now, it's important not to confuse the UK First Party with the British First Party, which is a different British fascist party, or the England First Party which appears to have borrowed half of its manifesto from Mein Kampf.

The UK First Party was co-founded by Peter Cole, the now ex-chairman of the UKIP Fenland branch which he dissolved when he set up his new party. Peter Cole has been in open revolt against Nigel Farage and the NEC for some time now.

The UK First Party blog gives an insight into what we can expect from them in the future. They are making much of the fact that Peter Cole is Tom Wise MEP's secretary and the fact that both Tom Wise and Ashley Mote might not think they're complete fruitcakes. According to the blog, Wise and Mote are both UKIP MEPs. They may have been elected as UKIP MEPs but they were both expelled from the party - Mote because he was charged with fraud and is currently on police bail and Wise because he was accused of fraud by the EU (over his secretarial expenses, incidently).

So while they are telling readers that they have the secretary of a UKIP MEP in their party and two UKIP MEPs that might support them, the truth is that two independent MEPs - one of which is a convicted fraudster - haven't laughed at them and the secretary of one of those independent MEPs is a founder of their party. Not exactly the coup they make it out to be!

The official leader of the UK First Party is Rebecca Faye Hilman and its treasurer is Tamsin Ruth Bowden and the registered address - 18 Falconers Mews in Swindon - is someone's house on a new housing development. The UK First Party doesn't have any registered emblems and bizarrely, they've declared themselves not to be a small party. Where they're going to find 10 grand to field a candidate in an EU election is anyone's guess.

The UK First Party has been compared to Veritas, perhaps a little unkindly. Veritas is, after all, still limping along in relative obscurity 4 years after Robert Kiljoy-Slick started it all off.

Yet Another Political Party?

It would appear that on March 16th another political party is to be launched. In an article by its founder, highlighting the deficit in our democratic system, he states:

"Everybody knows that the system is broken, everyone agrees that reform is required. However turkeys do not vote for Christmas. It seems that if we want to change the system we have to change the turkeys."

Interestingly the only comment to the article - at the time of writing this blog - perfectly encapsulates the reason why the LibDems earned the nickname 'LibDums!

Unfortunately the central idea proposed by Sir Paul Judge is flawed in that it would, in effect, create a 'rudderless ship of state'.

All three main political parties pontificate about 'bringing decision making down to the lowest level', yet seem to do precisely the opposite. At least the UK Independence Party does have a policy that would do just that and which can be read here.

If the electorate really are disenchanted with the present political parties then they do have an opportunity to 'change the turkeys'

Give your vote to the UK Independence Party!

Graham Watson says Ireland may have to leave EU if it votes No again

British MEP and leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament Graham Watson has warned that Ireland may have to leave the EU if it votes No for a second time in a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish Times quotes him saying, “It is very difficult to see any country being able to stay in if they have had two Nos from the people”. He also warned that, “It would be very difficult to get large companies to invest in a country that looked as if it might be leaving the EU. I think it would have a social impact as well and, of course, it would call into question the future of the EU agency that is based in Ireland”.

He goes on to say that the European Liberal Democrats (ELDR) would contribute money to the second Lisbon referendum campaign if Irish PM Brian Cowen’s party Fianna Fail asked for financial help. Fianna Fail last week announced it would join the ELDR before European elections in June.

Meanwhile, On BBC Online, as part of a series of viewpoints on EU issues, Open Europe’s Lorraine Mullally argues that the EU Lisbon Treaty “is bad news for Europe”. She notes that, “It is a myth that the EU Lisbon Treaty will strengthen democracy in Europe”, quoting the President of the German Constitutional Court, who has said the Treaty's provisions for national parliaments are “ineffective” and “impractical”, and the cross-party House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee, which said: “We doubt the significance of the 'greater opportunities' for national parliaments to be involved in any meaningful manner in the workings of the EU”. She also notes that judges at the German Constitutional Court have recently pointed out that the Treaty involves a clear extension of the EU's competences, with one asking “whether it would not be more honest to just proclaim a European federal state”.

How much more incentive do the Irish have to vote no again?

Yesterday in Parliament

Tucked away in prime ministers' questions yesterday (held by Harperson deputising) was a question from the redoubtable Ann Winterton . She asked for confirmation that:

… the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail stems directly from European Union postal legislation, which forced Royal Mail to divest itself of its most profitable business, thereby handing it over lock, stock and barrel to European competitors.

According to Ann, there was a sudden hush in the House - an embarrassed silence – almost as if someone had done something unmentionable in church. Then Harperson, dutifully briefed by her gifted civil servants, delivered her "non-answer". The "real reason", she said, was "the analysis in the Hooper report, which we commissioned as long ago as December 2007."

Now, this is an interesting response, as the Hooper Report tells us that the real reason for part-privatising Royal Mail is ... er ... European Union postal legislation, and also EU state aid rules.

Basically, says Hooper, Royal Mail needs to modernise, which requires considerable investment. But "that transformation would have to be carried out under European rules on restructuring aid." That in turn would "impose considerable restraints" and thus take time. But, unless Royal Mail can modernise faster than EU rules would allow, "a forced restructuring under European rules is highly likely."

That, concludes Hooper, "would be a costly and poor outcome for the taxpayer, for consumers, for Royal Mail and its employees." By contrast, he adds, "private capital is generally more flexible and more tolerant of necessary risk. It can be raised more easily, faster and for a wider range of purposes and does not come at the cost of competing public priorities."

Thus does Hooper recommend that "there should be a strategic partnership between Royal Mail and one or more private sector partners." And, while the precise nature of such a partnership is a matter for the Government to negotiate, at its core, "will be Royal Mail's obligations under the universal service, as required under EU and UK law." The UK law, incidentally, largely transposes EU law.

Why Royal Mail cannot fund its modernisation programme from its own resources is explained by Booker in his column . Here, the problem is Britain's keenness to comply with three EU postal services directives, designed to end national postal monopolies by 2010 and to promote "cross-border" integration of the EU's postal services.

Because of these, Royal Mail had to surrender the most profitable part of its operations, when bulk business mailing was opened up to rival firms. It still has to deliver business mail, for a knock-down price of 14p an item, while the 19 companies that bid successfully for the business of collecting and sorting them cream off all the profits. This was a major factor turning Royal Mail's profits into a £179 million annual loss, which means it has no money for its modernisation programme.

As to why other European postal services have not been similarly affected, Hooper himself notes that "the UK has been amongst the first countries in Europe to open the postal sector to competition." In other words, this is exactly the situation described by Booker.

So why was there such a deathly hush in the House? Well … the Conservatives are supporting the Government, against the Labour back benches, to get the legislation passed.

The last thing the Tories want is for it to be known that the privatisation programme is entirely driven by the EU, thus putting the party in a position of supporting EU rules. This, with the euro-elections coming up, would not conform with their new-found (and temporary) image as a eurosceptic party.

Thus we had the hush of anticipation, bolstered by a frisson of fear, in case Harperson gave the game away. When she did not – and, of course, she was not going to – there was a collective sigh of relief. Business continued as usual – in Europe and ruled by Europe … but this must never be admitted.

Responsibiity & Accountability

Whilst searching on another subject I have come across this from the Communities and Local Government website.

Laying the regulations, Local Government Minister John Healey said:

"Councillors' utmost concern should be to provide the best possible governance for local people, and in the run up to unitary transition this is more important than ever. These regulations will ensure that despite the change in local governance incumbent councillors will remain accountable for their actions and face the full consequences of inappropriate behaviour. Just because they will no longer represent their electorate, doesn't mean that they will be let of the hook if residents raise allegations about their past conduct once their post ends.''

On the basis that 'what is good for the goose' etc - does this principle also apply to Labour MPs and the Labour Government regarding 'let off the hook' in respect of their past conduct (Ratifying the Lisbon Treaty)?