German Constitutional Court to rule on Lisbon Treaty

Germany's Constitutional Court is due to rule today on whether the Lisbon Treaty is unconstitutional under German law.

There is very little chance of the Constitutional Court ruling that the EU not-a-constitution is unconstitutional but they may take the opportunity to have a dig at not-a-communist Merkel handing over more German sovereignty to the European Empire.

The EU and 'City' Regulation

Despite the recent 'down-turn', Britain has by far the largest financial services sector in Europe. However, as a result of the latest EU agreements outlining financial services regulation, Britain will only have a small and ineffectual voice (as one of 27 members) in determining what precisely the new rules will be and how their supervision will take place.

The City of London has been pre-eminent as a financial and trading centre for more than 300 years, but as such it is dependent on the versatility of its fiscal and regulatory enviornment. As a result of this intrusive EU legislation, as well as the pending increase in the UK marginal tax rate to 51.5%, a significant number of firms are already murmuring and considering relocation to Switzerland or elsewhere.

The following article from 'The Times' confirms this handover of British financial regulation to the EU executive committee :

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6539207.ece

EU President Fires Warning Shot at Cameron

A Slithering snake in the EU Presidency pit has been disturbed from its lair by the Conservative leader David Cameron, who started making noises about a referendum for the British people shortly after seeing UKIP's popularity rise to astounding proportions during the European election. The new EU President says that "Cameron will struggle to implement his plans as prime minister on a range of issues, including climate change, unless he changes his Eurosceptic attitude and learns to work with European leaders".

The not so veiled threat comes hot on the heels of Cameron's breakaway Eurosceptic party. The Swedish prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt said that Cameron will "need" mainstream leaders. Loosely translated that means toe the line or you'll regret it.

It will be interesting to see if this will strengthen Cameron's resolve to put his money where his mouth is and forge ahead with the moderate Eurosceptic plan he conveniently stole from UKIP at the height of our Euro election popularity recently, or if he will do what some of us suspect he will do, and that is to use it as a vehicle to hoodwink the British people in the next general election, and then do as he's told once we're part of Europe.

Despite Cameron's rhetoric on Eurosceptism we must never forget that the Conservatives have been as much to blame for the position we are in now with the EU who are poised to take away our national identity, our freedoms, our culture, our right to self govern and our civil liberties, and that Conservative collusion goes right back to the days of Edward Heath.

I was somewhat concerned last night when I saw the headline “EU unites to warn Tehran over arrest of British embassy staff”, because it might increase support for the EU and it was my fear that the argument could be levelled that we need EU protection, in this ever more dangerous world, and I couldn’t think of anything at the time to argue against it, being as I am new to politics and still learning.

I turned to the UKIP Press office for guidance, and for the benefit of anyone else who has been troubled by this issue, I publish unedited their response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for writing to Nigel about the EU's posing as the defender of Britain and as "Europe's only hope of survival in a dangerous world".

The Iran-crisis (like the dishonest, and criminal interventions, in Iraq and Afghanistan) is derived from interference, in a sovereign nation's affairs, by the so-called "international community", which is actually the USA, the EU and a detachable rag-tag of fellow travellers.

The intelligence services of this "international community" - often posing as aid-workers, journalists, musicians et al - have been highly successful in engineering coups in countries (Georgia, Ukraine, Serbia etc) which opposed the "international community" and its plan for regional trade-blocs (like the EU) linked up to form an (inevitably totalitarian) one-world government.

There is undoubtedly a natural opposition-movement in Iran, but this has been magnified by foreign support, both on the ground and in the media. Consequently, the problems we are facing result from our slavish concurrence with the aggressive policies of the USA and the EU, and not from any reluctance, on the part of our EU-government (for that's what it is) to take part in them.

The EU's control of its member-governments' trade-policies does give it considerable clout in international affairs, but, even if that clout were being exercised in a desirable manner - which it certainly is not - this control of trade-policies would still be highly detrimental to the EU's subject states, which have all lost their voices at the WTO and can no longer conclude international agreements to their own advantage.

If the EU managed to get control of its member-governments' armed forces as well, this situation would become very much worse. Indeed, we would then enter the age of "continuous war", between collusive trade-blocs, which was predicted by George Orwell, as the only way to perpetuate a global dictatorship.

Naturally, our (EU-) government is attempting to cast the EU as a knight-in-shining-armour, in the current (and every possible) scenario, but this could backfire, because it demonstrates just how far Britain's autonomy, and therefore the sovereignty of its electorate, have been eroded by the EU, and how far our ability to "speak peace" to other nations is being destroyed by EU/US global aggression.

ENDS……………..

Why the Queen can do nothing to stop the EU from destroying our nation.

When people say that the Queen should stand up against politicians who have given away our sovereignty, (the mechanism to govern ourselves), and suggestions are made that what is happening is an act of treason, as have recently been made, may I remind them that it was Gordon Brown back in 2008 who placed the Queen is such a position that she had no choice but to sign away our sovereignty to the EU.

The Royal Family can do nothing to stop it now. It's worth going back to that story in order to understand why we are powerless to stop the destruction of the British Constitution, and why we are powerless to do anything about the horrendous pitfalls to come once we are converted into Europeans after the Irish say yes to the Lisbon Treaty, which it is widely believed they will.

Gordon Brown is the betrayor who signed away Great Britian as a nation in its own right. He signed away our culture, our liberties and forced the Queen into a position where she could not refuse. Never forget that, and I quote:

"Under a cloak of secrecy, the Government finally ratified the Lisbon Treaty earlier this week and committed the country to a new deluge of European meddling. In a sign of the Prime Minister’s personal embarrassment over the betrayal, the historic step was only made public yesterday – 24 hours after the covert ceremony had taken place"

"The instrument of ratification was signed by the Queen, who had no choice. Because Mr Brown had signed the treaty, she was constitutionally forced to follow suit".

This is the same Gordon Brown that said "It is not as though this is being imposed on our country. People will have the chance to put their views".


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/52947/Sold-out-to-Europe-Brown-makes-Queen-sign-away-our-sovereignty

Help Wanted in Norwich North !

UKIP's by-election campaign in Norwich North is in full swing. Today UKIPs substantial billboard and telephone kiosk advertising went up all around Norwich. All help is now required to fight a strong campaign which is going to be hotly contested by lots of candidates.

We have a great LOCAL candidate Glenn Tingle, who has a strong local and business profile in the area. He is a former Army medic and highly regarded international marathon runner.

Our campaign office is at... 166 Wroxham Rd , Norwich , Norfolk , NR 8DE

If yould like to help out or donate please contact the office at the address above or contact Pete Reeve, the Regional Organiser, on 07792290434.

NORWICH LIB-DEM JOINS UKIP AS BY-ELECTION CAMPAIGN HEATS UP

The campaign in Norwich North continues to hot-up with UKIP’s Leader Nigel Farage MEP and Norwich North by-election prospective candidate Glenn Tingle, signing up former Liberal Democrat county council candidate Corinne Russen. Corinne stood for the Sprowston Division in the election on 4th June 2009.

She has now joined the UK Independence Party having been impressed with the policies of the Party at the European Election. Corinne said: “I was surprised to discover that UKIP, with its agenda of fighting for British democracy and its genuine concern for the freedom of the individual is much more in tune with my views than the Liberal Democrats.”

Glenn Tingle, UKIP’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Norwich North said: “I am delighted that Corinne has joined us. I am sure she is going to be a major asset to the Party and, in particular, to my ‘Clean Start for Norwich North’ campaign. With our combined experience in local politics here in Norwich , we are going to be a formidable team. All we need now is for Gordon Brown to pull his finger out and set a date for the by-election.”

Quote - Unquote

Mikhail Gorbachev 1987

“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


David Rockefeller

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Sarkozy of France

"The project of our founding fathers is complete: the economic union is becomming a political union".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guiliano Amato, the former Italian Prime Minister.

"The good thing about not calling [the Lisbon Treaty] a 'constitution' is that no-one can ask for a referendum on it".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Valerie Giscard D'Estaing (the author of the rejected EU constitution) speaking of the Lisbon Treaty (widely regarded as the new version of the old EU constitution).

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text but will be hidden and disguised".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Trevor Colman MEP -2009

"Each pound that we receive from the European Union costs us three pounds".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Daniel Hannan - Conservative MEP - 21 June 09 - In The Telegraph.co.uk

"The proof is before our eyes. Our system needs, and our electorate demands, an early election. Yet we must be denied one for the sake of a treaty [The Lisbon Treaty] that three other countries have already rejected in referendums. How cheap our Parliament has become. How diminished our nation".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


UKIP Press Office - 2009

"Opinion-formers" have been actively identified, stalked and bought, for decades, and, although such people are a tiny minority in society, they are so placed, strategically, that the pro-EU élite is able to control society through them."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gerard Battem MEP - European Arrest Warrants (EAW) - October 2008

"...statements made on the Internet could result in the issuing of an EAW in a member state where it is a crime, and the arrest and extradition of a citizen from another state where the statements were made and where it is not a crime. If this involves information published on the Internet then it strikes at the fundamentals of free speech within nation states".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Google Hosted News - 20 June 09

"The European Commission is responsible for drawing up legislation that impacts daily on the lives of almost half a billion Europeans, as well as enforcing the measures already in place. Its president -- who like the commissioners is appointed rather than elected -- has significant leverage to influence legislative priorities".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


British Prime Minister Gordon Brown - Whilst denying the British a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty he contradictorily said:

"It is not as though this is being imposed on our country. People will have the chance to put their views".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


UKIP Press Office - 2009

"The degree to which the existing pro-EU political élite has succeeded in penetrating society's influential communication-nodes - including professional associations, churches, the trade-unions, big-business, the universities, local government and, of course, the media, using taxpayers' money and privileged partnerships to further those it favours, and eclipsing those it dislikes, by witholding such advantages from them - is quite staggering".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nigel Farage - Lisbon, the Myth of National Powers - 2008

"IT IS repeatedly claimed that the Lisbon Treaty will give national parliaments an increased and enhanced role in legislation. The truth is that it gives them only one power, and that is the power to complain about something they do not like. This has been called the "yellow card" principle – but all it does is allow an objection to be raised with the Commission when the complaint is supported by one third of national parliaments. And even then, the Commission does not have to listen".

http://www.ukip.org/content/european-issues/689-lisbon-the-myth-of-national-powers


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Trevor Colman MEP - Liberty and Governance - 2009

"We have had taken away from us, the ability to govern ourselves, without any hinderance. The ability to vote for the people who make our laws and the ability to get rid of them. All that has been lost because our politicians have given away what was not theirs to give away"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


UKIP Press Office - JUNE 2009

"UKIP's press-officers are keenly aware of concerted resistance, from the media, to any story, which might injure the EU and its supporters, or (above all) promote UKIP. Sometimes, the media even take our stories (if they are not too EU-toxic) and use them to promote the Conservative Party, by changing their attribution and even putting our quotations into the mouths of Tory-representatives!"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


George Orwell

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

EU Calls For Open, Independent and Accountable Governance of the Internet!

That's a bit rich, coming as it does from an unaccountable, unelected and self appointed regime like the EU Commission! How do they have the gaul? The EU is trying to get the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) organisation away from American government apron strings, and the Director of ICANN argues that there is already an International framework that works just fine.

However one might view this (myself I don't trust American governments as much as I distrust the EU Commision) I find it a bit of a nerve that the EU Commission uses words like 'open' when they themselves meet in secret, 'independent' when it is the EU that is hell bent upon taking away Great Britain’s independence and 'accountable' which is the biggest affront of all when one considers that the accounts of the EU have not been signed off in 14 years because of irregularities!

Devolving Power

Janet Daley, writing in the Telegraph, has an interesting article regarding 'power to the people', which can be viewed here.

Commenting on the inefficiency and impracticality of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to spend other peoples money - highlighting MP's expenses and the BBC in particular - Daley ponders whether this may be the catalyst to harnessing the public's anger, as Thatcher did against trades unions and 'Loony Left' local authorities.

She makes a telling point, encapsulating a hidden 'dig' against the Conservative Party, when she states:

"For public outrage must present an opportunity – if not an obligation – to an Opposition. If popular anger can't be channelled through mainstream politics, then democracy is useless."

If politicians are truly wishing to devolve power to the people, instead of mouthing platitudes, then it can only be enacted by a belief in what Hannan & Carswell call 'true localism'.

Under the present system local government is but a sham and it is for this reason that turnout at local elections is so low as people now seem to be aware that their vote counts for nought.

The allocation of monies to local authorities by the Treasury is made purely on assessing spending needs against the level of local services. Therefore a good local authority, able to produce a high standard of local services does not qualify for as large a Treasury 'handout' as one that is inefficient. Consequently voters are unable to reward, or punish, the behaviour of their local council as it is far from clear who is actually responsible, on top of which a local council has only limited control over its budget. Couple this with the situation that where councils employ the 'Cabinet System' of local authority government to implement central government dictats, a council of say 50 councillors incorporating a Cabinet of say 7, means that the remaining 43 councillors are, in effect, disenfranchised.

Without, in turn, sounding patronising one does wonder how many of the electorate fully appreciate the source of funding for local authorities and whether it is believed that Council Tax is the sole provider of that funding.

For 'true localism' - and local government - to work for the benefit of local people, the following needs to happen:

* Abolish regional development agencies, regional government offices, MAAs (Multi-Area Agreements) and transfer all their powers to local authorities.

* Abolish the Department of Communities & Local Government and pass their powers to local authorities also.

* Grant to all local authorities responsibility for all areas of policy which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, under the 1998 Scotland Act.

* Replace VAT with a Local Sales Tax or, to keep young Wadsworth happy, a land value tax.

* Make all local authorities self-financing.

Without central government grants and making local authorities self-financing, local councillors would have to stand on their record, thus allowing voters to judge them accordingly. As one of the aids to making local authorities self-financing, let us consider a local sales tax, which would be a charged just once at the point of retail. Local councils would be free to vary the rate levied, dependent on their spending needs. To take a local example, were Wiltshire to set a lower rate than West Oxfordshire, then West Oxfordshire may well find shoppers crossing county lines to spend their money, to the gain of Wiltshire and the loss to West Oxfordshire. It would, as a result, introduce something to this country that we have never previously experienced, namely tax competition which, in turn, must lead to a downward pressure on taxes. Tax competition would also force local authorities to accept what is known as the 'Laffer Curve'; that is, that setting lower tax rates might well net them greater revenue with the added advantage that business and trade may well be attracted to low-tax areas, thus broadening the tax base.

By the abolition of the Department of Communities & Local Government one immediately returns to local people control over what may be described as quality-of-life issues such as siting of mobile phone masts, siting of incinerators and local planning.

But why stop there?

All three main political parties, when discussing the NHS, treat this subject as if it were a 'sacred cow' - it is not. The NHS is a service provider and as such should be subjected to a review of, and the implementation of, an acceptable level of service and efficiency. Why not, for example:

* Allow patients to opt out of the NHS and instead pay their contributions into individual private health accounts, a proportion to be allocated to everyday healthcare and the remainder set aside for insurance against serious illness.

* Allow those who choose to remain in the system, or cannot afford to contribute to a private healthcare system, to remain within the NHS.

* Incentivisation for prevention of illness, rather than cure.

The last point may well introduce an effort by people to avoid developing habits and conditions that require expensive remedies.

How about social security?

For far too long governments have seen their social security budgets balloon with little effect on relative or absolute poverty. Millions of people have become trapped in a world of relative squalor and low expectation. In their publication, The Plan, Hannan and Carswell state: "....as long as you pay people to be poor, you will never run out of poor people."

Why not:

* Return responsibility for the relief of poverty to local authorities.

* Allow local authorities to determine eligibility for benefits

* Provide local authorities a bloc grant for social security and give local authorities discretion over the allocation of those funds

Consider: Person A may be a widow or pensioner who has fallen on hard times whilst person B may be a local 'layabout'. Would not a 'local' caseworker be more able to discern the difference than a government controlled 'service'?

Local authorities would be free to innovate and devise ideas and pilot schemes - those that work will soon be copied by other local authorities, thus benefiting the country as a whole. Many benefit cheats see their activities as 'cheating the system' rather than 'cheating their neighbours' - introduce localism and local accountability and benefit cheats really will soon seen to be 'cheating their neighbours'.

What about education? It is generally accepted that schools and the education system is failing and the reason is simple - too much government!

Consider:

Government decides how many schools there are in any area.
Government decides the rules which dictate where your children go to school.
Government decides what they learn and how they are taught.
Government decides who can teach and how teachers are trained.
Government decides the hours your children spend in school, how many hours are spent on different subjects, what they eat and how they behave.

So the Government has created a monopoly, as in the health service, thus giving parents little choice. A state monopoly means uniformity and that, in turn, creates mediocrity, hence the lowering of standards - and the government is surprised when parents opt for home education. Even then parents are not 'left alone', but subjected to 'innuendo', in the argument against parents providing home education; this being done by hints of the opportunity for 'child abuse'.

So why not introduce 'true localism' by providing parents with a form of 'credit account' - ie the amount of money that the education of their child, or children, would cost and allow the parents to spend that sum at whatever school they chose, being one that provided the type and level of education that the parents wanted?

Why not consider the question of law & order?

Contained within our Council Tax demands is a 'precept', which is passed to the local police authority. This is another example of public money being spent by unaccountable and unelected individuals who then decide, under Home Office 'guidance', their policing priorities. As this is 'your' money, should you not have a voice in how it is spent? Should not those spending it be accountable to those providing said funding.

Now were Chief Constables forced to stand for election by their local community - and this is another argument for each local authority having their own police force - then, each candidate could present their 'manifesto' for law enforcement. For example, should the voters in a local authority vote for a candidate that promises zero tolerance to crime, then that is what they will be given and if the elected Chief Constable fails to deliver what the voters require - they elected him and so can 'un-elect him' - would result in true local democracy in action!

It is worth reminding readers that all 'local' services are provided with your money, whether this is by payment of Council Tax or taxation in general and consequently you have a 'right' to decide how it is spent.

On the question of 'rights', whether this is in regard to 'local' democracy or democracy 'per se', bearing in mind the three main political parties wish to devolve power - power which they have 'assumed' in most cases - it is worth recalling the words of Aldous Huxley;

"Liberties are not given, they are taken."

UKIP IN THE MARKET FOR VICTORY

Walsall's historic market.

Walsall Council has been forced to do an embarrassing U turn over controversial plans to part privatise the town’s historic outdoor market.

Members of Walsall Council’s cabinet confirmed last night (Wednesday, June 23) that its joint venture market management model with Norton & Proffitt is no longer on the table.

The significant move follows a long running campaign by market traders and UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass who were completely opposed to the partial sell-off of Walsall’s outdoor market.

In May, Mr Nattrass joined market traders to stage a protest against Walsall Council’s bid to part privatise the market.

Now Walsall Council has halted the move and will now undertake a borough-wide markets review to look at ‘all options’ for their development and management.

Members of the cabinet also approved plans to instruct the submission of a planning application to facilitate the temporary move of Walsall Market to a prime site on The Bridge.

Mr Nattrass said: “I very much welcome the council’s decision – members of the council have at long last seen sense and listened to the market traders.

“It is our campaign that has forced Walsall Council to go back to the drawing board.

“The market is an important part of Walsall’s rich heritage. It is a tradition which stretches back to 1220 and it should be run by the people of the borough.

“The council should never have tried to push this part privatisation of the market forward. The whole sorry saga has been deeply distressing for the market traders who are a credit to the town.

“I now urge the council to urgently carry out its borough-wide markets review and I welcome the temporary move of the market to The Bridge.”

Karen Sands, from Walsall Market Traders Association, said: “I would like to thank Mike Nattrass for his support during what has been a very difficult time for the market traders.

“The move to The Bridge will be fantastic and will boost trade in the area. We did not want the sell-off and hopefully, following the markets review, it will never be considered again.

“Our campaign led to this U-turn – it is a victory for customer power and a victory for the town.”

UKIP Peer Clashes With Government over EU Summit Statement

In a debate in the House of Lords on 23rd June, the UKIP Peer, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, supported by independent Labour Peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, clashed with the Government over its statement on the recent EU summit. Lord Pearson chided Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, (for the Government) for suggesting that the European Parliament has any democratic legitimacy. Lord Pearson said: "After all, the majority of law which is now imposed on this country is proposed in secret by the European Commission and passed in secret by the Council, and this Parliament can do nothing about it".

Lord Pearson also challenged the Government on the issue of whether the new institutions being created by the EU to control financial services would have supremacy over the UK's Financial Services Authority. Baroness Royall did not answer the latter question and attempted to suggest that Britain's representation in the European Council and Parliament give European laws democratic legitimacy.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon exposed the serious weakness in her argument by pointing out that: "...even if the British Members (in the European Parliament) voted as a group, they could always be outvoted by over seven to one. Decisions that might be inimical to this country’s best interests could be passed, irrespective of the views of the British Government or the British people".

He went on to raise with the Baroness the very serious concerns expressed by Stuart Fraser, the chairman of the City of London Corporation’s policy and resources committee, in the Daily Telegraph (23.6.09), about the ceding of control over financial regulation to EU institutions.

Baroness Royall accepted Lord Stoddart's depiction of the way the European Parliament voting can work against British interests by saying: "that is what the European Union is all about. I do not deny that." She avoided answering Lord Stoddart's second point about control over regulation by saying that she had not read the relevant article.

For the full statement and debate click here

Extracts:

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I trust the noble Baroness will not mind if I suggest that she was perhaps a little disingenuous when she suggested that the European Parliament carries any form of democratic legitimacy. After all, the majority of law which is now imposed on this country is proposed in secret by the European Commission and passed in secret by the Council, and this Parliament can do nothing about it.

As to the Statement itself, perhaps I may put two questions to the noble Baroness. First, on the new European supervisory powers over our financial services, will the Financial Services Authority be supreme in those areas or will the new EU bodies be supreme? It really does not help to be told in the Statement that there will be no fiscal change, because if these new European regulations drive our leading City practitioners overseas, surely that will have a devastating effect on our financial and therefore fiscal position. Therefore, can she confirm who will be the boss in future—the British Government and the City of London or this new financial supervisory set-up?

Finally, perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness of the words of Mr Jens-Peter Bonde, the leading Danish politician, who has said that all the guarantees given to Denmark when Denmark was forced to vote again on the Maastricht treaty have been broken. All those guarantees have been broken. So, really, it comes down to the question of what is the status of this protocol. Let us suppose that there is not a treaty of accession for Croatia . Where will Ireland be left then? Surely the most monstrous deception is being practised on the Irish people and I very much regret that the British Government have gone along with It.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, on democratic deficits, I respectfully point out that 80 per cent of European legislation, I think, is now made by co-decision. As the noble Lord well knows, co-decision means that it is agreed not only by the European Parliament, in which we have democratically elected representatives, but by the European Council, which is made up of members of this Government. So there is a very strong democratic element in the way in which European laws are made. The European Commission only proposes.

As for the views of Jens-Peter Bonde, I have long known Mr Bonde and his anti-European views. However, he has always sent his children to a European school in Brussels . I think that that is an interesting point, since there seems to be something to do with the European Union that he likes. I note his views on Denmark but I have more trust in Europe and the institutions of the European Union than he does.

I do not think that there has been any kind of monstrous—I cannot recall the word that the noble Lord used.

A noble Lord: Conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lord Stoddart of Swindon : My Lords, first, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, pointed out that 80 per cent of decisions were made by co-decision with the European Parliament. I would point out that even if the British Members voted as a group, they could always be outvoted by over seven to one. Decisions that might be inimical to this country’s best interests could be passed, irrespective of the views of the British Government or the British people.

Secondly, I noted the reply of the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer. Has she seen that in this morning’s Daily Telegraph, Stuart Fraser, the chairman of the City of London Corporation’s policy and resources committee, said:

“We have lost the broader argument about ceding control of UK rules to the EU, though we are happy that some concessions have been made”.

He went on:

“We now still have a situation where binding arbitration dictated by Brussels could overrule the UK ’s Financial Services Authority”.

That is in direct opposition to what the noble Baroness and the Government believe. I would like to know whether the corporation has been consulting and whether the Government will listen to any representations that it might make.

I have one more question. The Commission believes that these changes can be brought in under Article 95 of the EC treaty on the approximation of laws to operate the single market. Is that so, or will Parliament have to ratify—and first discuss—the proposals, and then ratify any treaty that may be needed to bring these proposals into effect?

UKIP on 8% for general election

A Harris Interactive poll conducted for the Metro newspaper predicts UKIP to pick up 8% of the vote in a general election.

The poll shows the extent to which Liebour's support has been decimated with a 31% swing from Liebour to other parties.  According to the poll, 8% of people who said they would vote UKIP in a general election voted for Liebour in 2005, another 8% voted for the Lib Dims and 5% voted Tory.

With just under a year with which to campaign and expose the fundamental dishonesty of David Camoron's Conswervative & (European) Unionist Party, UKIP is already in a strong position.  The second Irish vote on the EU not-a-constitution in October will make the European Empire even more important an issue and the back-peddling that Camoron will have to do if the EU not-a-constitution comes into force before the election will be an enjoyable display of electoral suicide.

With the way Liebour has rigged the electoral system to enable them to gain maximum seats from a minimum of votes, we could see a hung parliament with UKIP holding the balance of power.  Watching Camoron sharing the front bench with "swivel-eyed loons" would be most amusing.

EU HORSING AROUND AGAIN

UKIP West Midlands MEP Mike Nattrass says Britain should not be saddled by new unnecessary EU rules banning horse owners from eating their nags.

The MEP said the ludicrous legislation is just the latest in a mounting number of barmy rules to be imposed on Britain by the European Union which is galloping away with the UK's sovereignty, keeping MEPs round the trough and treating voters like donkeys unable to Say Nay.

Aimed at continental Europe the Horse Identification Regulations, which come into force next month, mean that horse owners will have to sign a pledge not to eat their own animals or they will be dropped into the manure with up to two years in prison.

Mr Nattrass, who is a keen defender of animal rights, said "It is time to rein in the power of the EU and harness our right to stable government, by sending the EU to the knackers yard ”

“The EU should keep its nose bag out of our affairs, it is blinkered, knows nothing of our traditions and trots out endless ridiculous rules.

“You could make yourself hoarse opposing all this, show jumpers with certainly take a fence. Hay we should have a straw poll of horse owners.” he added.

Nigel Farage UKIP Leader said on TV "I would like to be a fly on the wall when they ask The Queen and Princess Anne to sign."

Mike finally added "We will get out of this daft and expensive EU but I dare not say 'Otherwise I'll eat my hat' otherwise they'll bring in a regulation stopping that!"

You can't make this stuff up ...

Forget about the recession, the swine flu pandemic, rising unemployment, banks collapsing, people trafficking and all those other minor issues, the European Empire certainly has its priorities right:

While on the subject of ridiculous suggestions from the EU, The Sun also highlighted a plan to protect the UK's zebra population...

The article read:

ZEBRAS will get a BARCODE to keep them safe from thieves as part of the latest EU crackdown, it was revealed yesterday.

The African wild animals are already born with unique black-and-white stripes. But under the new rule, every foal will be implanted with a microchip.

Using supermarket-type scanners, its barcode can then be matched to a "passport" number to see if the creature has been stolen.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: "I wasn't even aware we had a problem with stolen African wild zebras roaming the streets of our cities."

Defra was yesterday unable to say whether any zebras had recently been nicked but insisted the scheme would "reduce fraud and control diseases".

(Hat-tip: UKIP)

---

mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web