Tell me I'm dreaming

What odds would you give the Conservatives being the largest party in Scotland? Pretty long ones I would expect. Having been a candidate for the blue corner myself on a couple of occasions in Glasgow I would confirm the suspicion. However this report in yesterday's Scotland on Sunday makes extra-ordinary reading. (sadly link is behind a subscription service)

"POLLSTERS are predicting that next month's European elections could result
in a historic three-way tie in Scotland...

The research suggests that, with the Conservatives benefiting from a revival
and both the SNP and Labour struggling to assert themselves, all three
parties are likely to end up with 25%.

The pollsters even believe that a Tory victory in Scotland on June 10 is
possible".

Ken Dodd new Commander of Abu Khazi Prison, Bagdad.

In a supriose announcement timed to coincide with an important college football match the Pentagon has announced a new Director of the Abu Khazi prison.
The spokesman admitted faults in the past. "Perhaps attaching live wires to the genitals of dogs was a bit much, as was the practice of failing to close the curtains while prison staff conducted sexual relations". He continued ruefully, "Well ok, the beatings with plastic pipes and the overt humiliation techniques were a bit much too, which is why we have asked Ken Dodd and his diddy men to take over control of the prison".
It is thought that though harsh, the application of the infamous tickle stick will not breach the Geneva convention.

Eu-Referendum flags up an interesting position from the leaders of Frankenriech,

Via AFP

Chirac and Schröder, on the other hand, seem to be content to inhabit their own private little planet. After their love-in today at the Elysée Palace, they came out beaming, to declare their confidence in the “project”.

"I can't imagine that the constitution, this important work of European unification, might not be approved" by parliamentary vote or referendum in EU member states, Schröder told a joint press conference, demonstrating that, in and amongst his other many failures, he was also a man of very little imagination.

It what rapidly became an epidemic of imagination failure, Chirac chipped in with the royal “we”, adding, "We can't imagine that such a situation would occur." Schröder then capped it all by saying that, "We must devote all of our energy to help ensure that these referendums pass”, which is a bit rich when neither he nor Chirac – yet – are having referendums.

So those great defenders of democracy and pluralism will be concentrating their political efforts on winning referenda in foriegn countries. Funny I thought there were rules, spoken and unspoken about that sort of thing. I take it they will be supporting the coalition in trying to create a democracy in a foriegn land, now they support political intervention abroad themselves.

Election notice
Belgium, like much of Europe is going through elections fro the old fifteen and the new ten in the EU it is the Euro version, and for some, in a desperate attempt to prop up sagging turnouts these are combined with local, regional and municipal. Belgium, despite elections being compulsory, is one of these and is holding its provincial elections simultaneously with the Europeans.
Today I wandered from Schaarbeek, where I work to the European Parliament, where I gossip. On the way I pass through the commune of St Jost ten Node (nobody is sure of the etymology of the Node). Dotted along the route are municipal election poster walls, put up by the commune specifically for election publicity. These are placed in areas of public gathering like market squares and so on. Over the last few weeks walking to and from my office I have noted that the predominant posters are those of the PS (Parti Socialiste – francophone) and MR (Mouvement Reformateur- francophone liberal). I as turned a corner into Place St Jost however I was left slack-jawed with shock. In front of me was parked a commune truck. Two council workers were pasting brown paper over the posters of the Vlams Blok (Flemish Independence party) and then covering the space with PS posters.
I stood there transfixed. Council workers pasting over one parties posters and replacing them with the governing parties posters, In Brussels, the capital of Europe. Now I know I am a cynical type, and from the tone of my previous writings I should have expected it. But to see taxpayer funded operatives acting in this way left me almost speechless.
Fortunately not quite. A young fellow heard my gasp and laughed at me. He was about 20 and had been born and brought up in Morocco, but he told me he had left a few years ago because he did not want to live in a country where “politics is medieval and there is no democracy”. He then laughed again and said, “but I came here to Belgium”. He continued, still grinning, but now more thoughtfully, “what I don’t understand “ is why you in the West, us in the West are allowing freedom and democracy to regress”.
He went on to talk about how two journalists he knew locally lived in council provided housing and therefore they, “auto-censured” what they wrote. One was from the national daily Le Soir and the other from the biggest fee-sheet Vlan. “there is no pointing going to the press to complain about the system, they are the system”.
You know, for the first time since I have been here in Brussels I thought I saw some hope, from a young Moroccan immigrant who had come to Europe for freedom.

At last.
It is official my duaghter is brighter than a goldfish. Well maybe. Last night she sat infront of a fish tank and was able to outstare the fishy denizens. Suggesting to me that her concentration span is now greater than them, hurrah.
There again the fish just might have been bored.

Falling of a log – It’s Miniature of Europe time. This time MacShame on business in the enlarged EU

Denis MacShane has had a hard time of late, and for that deserves sympathy. But when he talks drivel on the part of his master – the grinning ninny – then one has to take him to task. The ex-public school Oxbridge chappy is a former BBC producer and head of the NUJ is now lecturing business about seizing opportunity.

AND THEN THERE WERE 25... UK PLC TAPS INTO NEW EUROPE (07/05/04)

On 12 May, business leaders from across the UK will meet their counterparts from the new EU countries to ensure UK PLC benefits from the addition of 100 million people to the newly enlarged Single Market.

As businessmen they have never considered doing this before – but had to wait until the Government organised a meeting for them. The countless joint ventures that already exist pale into nothing after this tax-payer funded boondoggle.

The trade implications for both sides are so great that finance and foreign ministers from the UK and new EU countries will also be involved, including Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Patricia Hewitt as well as the President of Latvia Mrs Vaira Vike-Freiberga.

Oh I am sure that Footsie Chairmen are quaking in the face of such importance.

Europe Minister Denis MacShane said: 'The newly-enlarged EU will see an expansion of Europe's collective brainpower. The new EU countries have been responsible for a wealth of inventions, ideas and creative talent, from the Rubik cube to the car seatbelt to Chopin. By tapping into these new markets, all Britain's professions stand to benefit. We are already seeing many partnerships between Britain and the new EU countries in fields such as architecture, sport, the arts and science.'

Eh? So before joining the EU they had no brains? Didn’t know how to use them? I really cannot workout what he is suggesting here, but I guess I should let it pass and file it under ‘bizarre statements’. He sort of admits this by saying that we already dealing with theses strange ex-foriegners. Or did all these partnerships bloom since May 1st? Dunno.

'A Single Market of 450 million people offers more customers and suppliers for Britain's products and services. From clothing designers to environmental consultants, under EU rules, British entrepreneurs can trade on a level playing field across twenty-five countries.'

Again, it is if we were not trading with these guys before hand, what tommy-rot. I guess we don’t trade with Norway, Switzerland, the US, sod it anywhere apart from the EU. British business wants to trade globally, inside and outside the EU. That is what the WTO should be for, well should be if it isn’t continually scuppered by the EU’s refusal to play fair over agricultural products and the like.
During the day, at a FCO/CBI conference, delegates will discuss economic reform and the drive to make the Single Market the most dynamic and competitive in the world.
He he he. Oh yes the Lisbon agenda, the most competitive industrial zone in the world in 10 years, heh heh heh.

….drivel…
'London is the financial asset of all of Europe and the City looks forward to a two-way learning relationship that will bring greater prosperity and stability for all. The City believes this prosperity will be achieved through the integration of the new financial markets and the development of Europe as an efficient and competitive place to do business - and many here are working hard towards this.'

Hold on, isn’t that a red line you are breaking there. Now I know the Constitution wants the energy assets of the North Sea as a common ‘European strategic asset’, but wait a minute. I don’t remember anyone suggesting that London is anything other than London, the capital city of the UK. It is not, never has been and, I hope never will be a ‘financial asset of all of Europe’. Can anybody point me in the direction where that has been debated, agreed, suggested desired by anybody in the UK? Please.

I apologise for the length of this post, but the article that Jack Straw wrote in the Telegraph on Tuesday deserved a thorough going over so here goes,

'THIS IS NOT ABOUT TYRANNY, IT'S ABOUT FREEDOM AND SECURITY' (04/05/04)

For my generation, it was grimly taken for granted that Europe would remain divided between West and East, between freedom and tyranny. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, it quickly became clear that the countries of the East saw their future alongside us in the European Union.

What is odd here is the feeling that the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact just sort of happened. It didn?t. It happened because a few people at the helm of a few countries just would not give in to the ?inevitable? but were prepared to act. No European would have dared to go to Berlin and demand ?Mr Gorbachov, tear down this wall? in the way that Reagan did in 1987. Most of the Eadtern block countries see no alternative to the EU, this is true, but to say that they see their future in the current EU, that is overstating the case

They would not have done so if the EU were another tyranny. So I was surprised that The Daily Telegraph concluded its otherwise very informative series on the proposed constitutional treaty for the EU by saying it 'creates a tyranny that would imperil all that has been achieved since 1945'.

No tyranny would tolerate the freedom of thought, speech and action that the people and institutions across the European Union rightly and routinely enjoy.

Odd that. In the last couple of months the country most associated with the heart of Europe has in fact in a way that can only be described as tyrannically. Belgium. The way in which the Courts have been used to block freedom of political association, in the case of the Vlams Blok ? and please don?t think that because one disagrees with them then they should necessarily be banned. Me I think that the Green party is a danger to freedom and democracy, but I would never say ban them, I would just demand of other parties to beat them in argument and get their vote out. The problem in Belgium is that the Blok seems to be winning (at least in Flanders and Antwerp in particular, and the corrupt and venal; old parties have had to resort to the courts top have them banned. Then there is the case of the journalist Hans-Martin Tillack, about which I have written extensively. The arrest of this journalist on the flimsiest of evidence was done at such haste by the Belgian State, not because they had any hard evidence, but because an European Institution OLAF, demanded it. So Mr Straw thinks that ?Tyranny? would not ?tolerate the freedom of thought, speech and action that the people and institutions across the European Union rightly and routinely enjoy?. Actually Mr Straw, it doesn?t.

Here in Britain the debate about the substance of the draft constitutional treaty was being drowned out by understandable concerns about whether the British people would have a direct say in ratifying any treaty. Now that a referendum has been agreed, we can better make the case that the draft treaty is about practical reforms to make an expanded EU work more effectively, and to give greater powers to national governments and parliaments.

True, true Mr Straw, but why was that? Because your Government had set its face hard and fast against giving the people a say. You can hardly claim the credit for granting a referendum, when it had to be pulled from you like a dummy from a squalling baby.

It is not a constitution for a federal state. Were this an accurate description, I would certainly vote against it. But the arguments used to support this case are either a misreading of the text; or they assume that Britain's red lines will be breached in the negotiations; or they describe what is already in the treaties, on which our membership of the EU is currently founded.

Well what do you suggest it is other than a federal State. Oh I know the words ?United States of Europe? , were removed from the draft so as not to frighten the UK electorate, but come on who are you kidding. I won?t go into the Treaty in detail but just in the question of Veto rights and the concept of ?Loyal Co-operation? suggst that you should be voting no come the day.

I accept that the Government has a duty to explain more clearly what is in the draft treaty, because the polling shows how little is known about it. In fact working for greater public understanding is a national duty, because Britain's active role in Europe is fundamental to our national interest. We must tackle the central myth that we are negotiating away our sovereignty.

Like the myth that we are negotiating away Gibraltar?s sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be shared, either on has the power over one?s own affairs, or one doesn?t. End of story.

Take foreign policy. Our opponents make much of Article I-15.2 saying member states must support the common policy 'actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity'. But this is a direct quotation from the Maastricht Treaty, which has been part of British law for more than a decade. In that time we have maintained our own foreign policy, most notably this time last year when we were in major disagreement with several member states over Iraq. When we do choose to act jointly with our European partners, decisions are made unanimously, so we retain our veto. That will remain the case under any treaty which this Government signs and is reflected in the draft text negotiated - but not agreed - last December. This is a red line.

Hold on with that direct quote. That is quite true in the way it works. It is a direct quote from Maastricht but had been filtered by the time on Amsterdam ? which supersedes and renders obselete Maastricht. Thus it hasn?t been on the statute book for more than a decade. true. In the Amsterdam Treaty (Article J.13) It states ?In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned shall refrain from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision?. The last word on this newly defined principle, no less a guiding principle must rest with Jean Luc Dehane, former Prime Minister of Belgium and Vice President of the Constitutional Convention. "Federalism always presupposes loyal cooperation."

It is a gross exaggeration to portray the EU as a state with its own executive, legislature, judiciary, police, civil service, currency, central bank, taxes, army, foreign minister, embassies and flag. Yes, the union already has a bureaucracy in Brussels and a court, both of which have existed from the union's beginnings as the Common Market. So has the primacy of EU law.

Ok, so it has its own executive, check, legislature, check, judiciary, check, police, check, civil service, check, currency, check, central bank, check, taxes, check, foreign minister, check, embassies, check, flag, check. And what about a border policy, check, anthem, check, universities, check, coastal waters, energy reserves? The list is almost endless. So Mr Straw if it is gross exaggeration to describe the entity with all the above as a State, what on God?s green earth do you call it ? a Tonka toy?

How, for instance, could we ensure that the single market operates otherwise? I take it our critics are not arguing against the single market, which has greatly benefited Britain by ensuring that legal powers exist to prevent other EU countries from erecting barriers to free trade and for which Mrs Thatcher fought so successfully in the mid-1980s. Most member states have joined the single currency. Our decision will be subject to a referendum.
The key point missed by those who make the superstate argument is that the powers exercised by the union are freely conferred on it by the member nations. The draft constitution makes this even clearer, which ought to commend it to those who fear centralisation - Article I-9.2 states that 'the Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States'.

Aslo true, but a tad disingenuous, given that another 30 plus areas will move to QMV when a country can be outvoted, thus being forced to do something directly against the wishes of a member state.

On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, article II-51 says this 'does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task of the Union'. Our White Paper of last September made clear that we will make a final decision on incorporating the Charter in the light of negotiations.

No it doesn?t need to as this government has already transposed the Charter into UK law. (Including my favourite right of all, the right to good administration! (Chapter 5 Article 41)

The draft treaty has not been handed down on tablets of stone from Brussels, but is a live document still subject to negotiation by the democratically elected leaders of 25 sovereign nations. Britain's democratic Government still has substantial reservations, as we have said.

Whoa hold on there, but is it not you and your boss who laugh when the Tories talk about renegotiation. So what pray is the difference?

The main reservations ('red lines') were listed in paragraph 66 of the White Paper. Unanimity (that is, the national veto) must remain for Treaty change 'and in other areas of vital national interest such as tax, social security, defence, key areas of criminal procedural law and the system of own resources (the EU's revenue-raising mechanism)'. If we negotiate a treaty on those terms, the constitution on which the British public votes will not establish a tyranny, nor found a superstate.
It will make clear that we are members of a union of sovereign nations, whose legitimacy derives from its democratically elected governments; which is subject to scrutiny by 25 national parliaments; and in which power is shared only where the nations freely choose to do so.
We will not sign a treaty that fails to meet this standard. But we will enter the negotiations with confidence, because Britain is now a country with real negotiating clout as a result of this Government's policy of active engagement within the EU.
Britain as a successful nation state and a major player on the world stage has a strategic interest in being at the heart of Europe. Our prosperity and security depend on it. All of us who are committed to this must now get out and start winning the argument and strive for greater public understanding of the reality. We must have a debate based on fact, not myth. I strongly believe that this is an argument we can win.

In what way does our ?security and prosperity depend on it?? If it is security that we depend on the EU then we had better all dig holes in the ground and buy tin helmets. The EU was unable to sort out the former Yugoslavia without the Americans, if something really serious came along ? like say, the war on terror where would we be if we threw in our lot with a bunch of appeasing charlatans. If our prosperity depends upon it, Lord above Jack, just look at the economies around Europe and thank your cotton socks that you have a channel, nay gulf between them and us.

Now this stuff is odd
This evening at a friend’s opening, I discovered something that I must share with you. Belgium land of a thousand beers is also responsible for this. Yes, green banana gin. Now who says that the Belgians are uninventive?

At what point will they be asked to inform upon their parents?

This rather frightening message came through on a chat group of which I am a member.

Yesterday evening my daughter came home from school with an information sheet. The Headteacher and the School Governors are to implement a new library system. Instead of the usual ticket system, all the children are to be electronically finger printed. Though only one finger print is necessary, they aregoing to take two, just incase ;) It's to stop students using each others cards.

The Librarian states that he is, 'committed to complying with the data protection act.'

Fingerprinting schoolchildren in order that they can use the library!