Tough Cheese

All wind and...

2008-06-28T13:55:00.003Z

Rule Number 1
You are our prisoner. Do not try to be free.

Rule Number 2
The Union will think for you. Do not think for yourself.

Rule No. 3
Economic arguments are not permitted. Wromantic But Wrong political dogma takes precedence.

We must meet a target set by the EU, which requires Britain within the next 12 years to generate 38 per cent of our electricity from 'renewable' energy sources.
At present, barely 1 per cent of this country's power comes from the 2,000 wind turbines already built - less than the output of a single conventional power station.
That is why, in response to the EU's requirements, the Government is today publishing its plans for a massive new drive to build thousands more turbines, at the staggering cost of £100 billion.
Here we are already into cloud-cuckoo land.
To comply with the EU's wishes, we would actually need to build at least 30,000 turbines.
Crazy: Brussels will not stop until Britain's coast and inland is dotted with thousands of wind farms.
In fact, as the Government knows, there is not the remotest chance that we can meet that EU target, which is why it talks about building only 10,500 new turbines - 7,000 offshore, another 3,500 across our countryside.
On its own figures, the Government is already implicitly admitting that we shall hopelessly miss our target. Of course, ministers do not tell us that.
But this is only the start of the madness.
There isn't, in fact, the faintest chance that we can meet even the Government's own much smaller target.
To build those turbines offshore alone would mean lowering 7,000 colossal steel structures into the seabed, each the size of Blackpool Tower, at a rate of more than two every working day between now and 2020.

Daily Mail

Oi! You in the dog basket!

2008-06-20T17:37:00.001Z

Ingrams of Eye and Oldie fame:

Typical was the story last week of B&B owners being told by health officers that new EU regulations ban animals from "food preparation areas" (by which they mean kitchens). The people in Brussels have apparently decided that a dog or a cat in the kitchen is a serious threat to health. They are supported, among others, by the principal environmental officer of West Dorset District Council, a Mr Will John, who described the typical farmhouse kitchen as "a high-risk area" and claimed that "most people" would agree with him on that point.

What most people would agree on is that Mr Will John is an idiot. But most people would also agree there is nothing much they can do about it or him. And it is that sense of powerlessness which, if they were given a chance to vote, would influence large numbers of them to vote "no", even it they knew it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

Follow the money

2008-06-19T10:35:00.006Z

With a tip of the hat to Mr Eugenides, this exchange in the House of Lords, just before their bought-and-paid-for Lordships passed the Lisbon Treaty for ratification.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I cannot disguise my disappointment that noble Lords in receipt of an EU pension did not, with the notable and honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, see fit to declare that interest in all our debates. I refer your Lordships to our debate on 19 July 2007 when we debated why they should have done so.

In summary, the reason why I and my Eurosceptic friends believe that noble EU pensioners should declare that interest in our debates is that EU pensions are perhaps unique in that holders can lose them if they fail to uphold the EU’s interests or bring the EU into disrepute.

Our case was unanimously supported by your Lordships’ Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, chaired by no less a personage than the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.

Then, again I think uniquely, that sub-committee was overruled by our Privileges Committee consisting of party leaders and various prefects of your Lordships’ House for largely spurious reasons.

It is against that background that no fewer than 12 noble EU pensioners have between them played a leading role in our proceedings. [...]

If we look at former members of the European Parliament, we have the noble Lords, Lord Dykes, Lord Inglewood, Lord Harrison and Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord who asked the question, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson....

[then] we come to the ex-Commissioners and ex-Commission employees: the noble Lords, Lord Brittan, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Kinnock, Lord Patten of Barnes, Lord Richard and Lord Tugendhat.

As I say, I would not have named those people, but I think it will help students who read Hansard in future to know that our debates have been influenced to that extent. There can be no doubt that this unseen hand has distorted the quality of our deliberations. I very much regret that.

I conclude with a word of advice to my erstwhile political friends in the Conservative Party.

Lord Kinnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I may ask him as a point of honour, since I have been listening to him from beyond the Bar, that when he expresses a desire to ensure that future students have an accurate understanding of what is going on, it is necessary to record, first, that I thought that he was a man of honour and would not give himself to sentiments such as those he has just expressed; and, secondly, that there is nothing that I have ever taken from anyone that would begin to influence the judgment that I exercise as a parliamentarian.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord would say that, wouldn’t he?

Noble Lords: Shame!

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, he may well believe it.

Noble Lords: Withdraw!

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: No, my Lords; I do not withdraw the fact that if one is in receipt of a pension that one can lose, it must influence the way in which one thinks and speaks.

Lord Pork of Barrel is 94. Apologies to Private Eye.

_________________

I have also posted this here.

Tax harmonisation - lies and illegality

2008-06-18T08:48:00.004Z

Mr Eugenides highlights the duplicity of our EU overlords on corporation tax harmonisation.

They delayed their plans to move ahead with this 'to avoid harming the Yes vote in Ireland'.

Now that the Irish referendum is over, they are going ahead with it even though the Lisbon Treaty - which facilitates it has not come into force and cannot, legally.

First they deliberately deceived us.

Now they are breaking the law.

EU gets its hands on Britain's defence capability

2008-06-04T21:02:00.005Z

Click on the image for the large version. It is a screen capture from the Conservative Party website (my highlights) although why it's on the Welsh page beats me.

"To raise taxes and to authorise war"

2008-06-04T13:37:00.011Z

I promise you that Peter Lilley MP is not on the non-existent payroll of Tough Cheese. His timing, however, is impeccable, don't you think?

_______________________________________________

Hansard - 3 Jun 2008 : Column 644

Bill: Members of Parliament (Pay and Responsibilities)

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Senior Salaries Review Body to take account of transfers of powers between Parliament and European Union institutions when making recommendations on the pay of Members of Parliament; and for connected purposes.

In virtually every occupation, it is recognised that pay should reflect responsibilities. If people receive more responsibilities, they get higher pay. If they move to a post with fewer responsibilities, they expect to receive lower pay.

The same should be true of Parliament. If, as is contemplated under the Bill that deals with the European constitutional treaty, this House hands over more of its powers to European institutions, MPs’ remuneration should reflect that diminution of their responsibilities.

If, on the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has promised, Parliament regains some powers, such as those over social and employment policies that were conceded in the Amsterdam treaty, that should be reflected positively when MPs’ pay is assessed.

This issue is important because Parliament is considering transferring a significant slice of its powers on energy, foreign policy, immigration and several other areas to European institutions under the Lisbon treaty.

A substantial transfer of powers has already occurred under previous treaties, and this House has ceded powers on a lesser scale to devolved Parliaments and to the judiciary under the Human Rights Act 1998.

The German Government estimate that more than 80 per cent. of German laws are now decided at a European level.

Our own Trade Minister has admitted that “around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from legislation agreed by Ministers in Brussels.”

I have heard hon. Members claim that only 10 per cent. of our laws are made in Brussels — a figure that they attribute to a Library paper, but that paper says no such thing.

It remarks that the number of statutory instruments laid under the European Communities Act 1972 amounts to about 10 per cent. of all the statutory instruments passed by the House, but points out that EU statutory instruments typically enact a whole directive, which is often the equivalent of an Act of primary legislation, whereas domestic statutory instruments implement regulations.

To compare the two is like comparing apples and pears, or rather pumpkins and pears given the disparity in their size. It also ignores the most plentiful fruit that comes from the European orchard—regulations, most of which are never considered by this House and which hon. Members find difficult even to obtain.

The total scale of EU legislation is enormous. Last year, the EU passed 177 directives, which are more or less equivalent to our Acts of Parliament, and 2,033 regulations, which become directly enforceable in this place, not to mention 1,045 decisions.

Even that huge tally ignores the extent to which our powers are diminished by our inability to do things that we would like to do because they would conflict with European law. When I was a Minister, officials would frequently say, “No, Minister, you can’t do that”, because something was within the exclusive competence of the European Union.

If the Lisbon treaty goes through, a further salami slice of powers will be transferred to the European institutions. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who served with distinction on the European constitutional convention and who knows more about the implications of the Lisbon treaty than almost anyone else in the House, except for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), recently told the Fabian Society:

“If the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified and devolution... continues apace, in fifteen to twenty years this House of Commons will have only two functions...to raise taxes and... to authorise war”.

She went on to say that we are making “fewer and fewer decisions that matter”
to people’s daily lives, and that she could not tell her constituents that the buck stops here.

Admittedly, declaring wars kept Parliament pretty busy under the previous Prime Minister, as does raising taxes under the current incumbent of No. 10. However, our constituents want us to wage fewer wars, raise fewer taxes and focus on the huge range of issues that affect their daily lives, over which they assume and hope that we retain the powers that they pay us to exercise on their behalf.

Few voters, or even Members of this House, fully realise how many powers have been, or are about to be, transferred elsewhere. There are three reasons for this.

The first is that Governments of all persuasions deny that any significant powers are being transferred.

The second is that, once powers have been transferred, Ministers engage in a charade of pretence that they still retain those powers.

Even when introducing measures that they are obliged to bring in as a result of an EU directive, they behave as though the initiative were their own.

Indeed, Ministers often end up nobly accepting responsibility for laws that they actually opposed when they were being negotiated in Brussels. They took the rap for costly and troublesome home improvement packs—which have added to the woes of the housing market—even though they were actually mandated by a Brussels directive.

Similarly, they took the rap for fortnightly bin collections, hospital reconfiguration and a number of other measures, even though they had all been triggered by directives from Brussels.

At first sight, it is odd that Ministers—who, in this Government, are not normally slow to blame others—should nobly defend and accept responsibility for Brussels’ legislative progeny, in whose conception they have often played little part. They prefer to claim paternity rather than admit impotence—the fate of the cuckold across the ages.

The third reason is that the transfer of power occurs not all in one go but by a process of salami-slicing, and it is easy to close our eyes to what is happening. As a result, there is a danger of Parliament sleepwalking into becoming little more than a provincial assembly.

If that is what is happening, we should be paid accordingly—just as district councillors get less than county councillors, and county councillors get less than Members of the devolved Assemblies.
I do not have a masochistic desire to see MPs’ pay cut, but I want still less to see our powers diminish.

The best way to prevent the latter might be to link pay to responsibilities.

I do not know any Member of Parliament who entered Parliament to become financially better off. None the less, just as the prospect of being hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully, so the prospect of finding our pockets a bit emptier at the end of the month—and having to justify that to our spouses—might wake up those who have shut their eyes to what is happening. If we do not face up to what is happening, we will find ourselves being progressively relegated to what Bagehot called the dignified part of the constitution.

As Tony Benn once rhetorically asked: “I wonder how long it took for the yeomen of the guard to realise that they were no longer part of the regular army.”

My Bill is designed to provide a wake-up call whenever we risk going further down that route, although I accept that it has little chance of becoming law in this Parliament. Those who support the transfer of power from here to supranational institutions should logically accept that our pay should reflect the diminution of our responsibilities. But, strangely, all the Euro-enthusiasts whom I asked to sponsor the Bill declined to do so without explaining why. Too many Members are happy to avert their eyes from what is happening, so long as they retain the prestige and emoluments that were appropriate to a fully sovereign Parliament. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

If any Labour Members oppose the Bill, I hope that they will come out and object to it here and now, rather than trying to dispose of it by subterfuge one Friday morning. I look forward to hearing them argue for having their cake and eating it. I doubt that they would convince many of their constituents that, unlike any in other occupation, MPs’ pay should be divorced from their responsibilities.

Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): [...] The right hon. Gentleman is making a political point about Europe, not a serious proposal for greater transparency in the pay of Members of Parliament and greater accountability to the public for Members of this Parliament. I hope that the Bill does not receive its First Reading.

The folliwng Members put their names to the Mr Lilley's Bill:

Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. James Gray, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. John Redwood, Ms Gisela Stuart and Mr. Charles Walker.

Appeal

2008-06-03T15:14:00.004Z

Please read the appeal at the top right of this blog..

Please help Stuart Wheeler if you can.

Please pass this message around.

Thank you.

So many needles, so many haystacks

2008-06-03T14:57:00.004Z

I would like to find a list of all British laws introduced in consequence of our joining the EU. Those pursuant to each Treaty, each Directive.

A tall order. Decades of the stuff.

But perhaps there are manageable sub-sets, if one knew where to find them.

Do you?

The aim would be to identify those which are of interest to the average voter, as opposed to the average lawyer. If you know what I mean. Cough.

Just to get us going

2008-06-01T21:46:00.002Z

Not specifics, this time, which is what I am hoping for, but just a little chunk of Blessed Booker to set the tone.

The area of policies controlled by our new government in Brussels has got ever larger, to include what should be many of the most contentious political issues of our day, such as the disasters engulfing our rubbish disposal, postal services, energy policy (see "Power blackouts only a foretaste of the real energy crisis to come" on this page), defence and immigration policies, employment laws, agriculture and fisheries, and our absurdly over-regulated industries, including finance and banking.

Tough Cheese

2008-06-01T16:02:00.019Z

It is estimated that something north of eighty per cent of Britain's laws and regulations originate in a European Union treaty or directive. I don't much like this idea. Tough Cheese.

I did not vote for the oligarchs of the Commission. Neither did I vote for some of the less than savoury members of some of the governments in other European countries. I cannot vote any of these people out. I don't want them legislating in my country, but they do. Tough Cheese.

I am legally bound to obey the laws they force my government to introduce, whether it wants to or not, and whether a majority in my country wants it - or hates it. Tough Cheese.

I am a law abiding sort of soul. But I really, really don't like any of this. Tough Cheese.

We can vote out our government if we want to. But there is nothing, NOTHING, we can do about a law that a majority of other countries in the EU wants to introduce, even if it goes against everything we hold dear. With a few, very few, exceptions (and the House of Lords thinks they may not survive the European Court) we have to accept it here, too. Tough Cheese.

Did I mention that I don't like this idea?

Almost worst than this, our own government will never admit, unless someone starts extracting their teeth, that a measure they are introducing has come from the EU.

Bad form, you see. It's not 'Don't mention the war'. It's 'Don't mention the EU'.

Well, Tough Cheese - this blog will mention it.

Tough Cheese will blog Alerts to EU interference in the governance of Britain - some of the ways in which Brussels is dictating to us. Just to let the buggers know that we know.

If you have details of any British law, regulation or quangoid measures being imposed from Brussels, please let Tough Cheese know. Keep it brief. Like this:

POST OFFICE CLOSURES
It's Brussels that's closing your post office.
We wouldn't have to close our rural post offices if we wanted to keep them open, if it weren't for Brussels making the British government remove the core money-making activities from the Post Office and put them out to tender. There's no way the PO can compete with cost-cutting comemrcial organisations, so bang go the services. With those profits gone there is no way your Post Office can survive, no matter how hard your local Postmaster works and no matter how devotedly you support the shop.

Restraint of trade? Employment law? Health and safety? Which British law covers it? Does the root of the problem lie in Brussels? Then send an Alert to Tough Cheese. But please keep it brief!

As for the Lisbon Treaty... Gordon Brown's despicable government has lied and lied and lied about it, despite our hearing with our own ears and reading with our own eyes the words of the leaders of most other European countries who all agree it is the Constitution - and celebrate the fact. They even say, in the clearest possible terms, that the Lisbon Treaty was designed to obfuscate in order to fool the peoples of Europe who objected to the Constitutional Treaty. You know, the one the French and the Danes threw out. The British government's denials in this regard are insulting.

Still, it's happening. We are governed by liars. For now. We move on.

_________________________________

Tough Cheese welcomes applications to become a Tough Cheese Blogger who can post Alerts without moderation.