Sunday, 30 October 2011

Anti Squatting, Pro Squatting - just cant trust politicians on either side...

Politicians - Blue or Green - just can’t trust them eh?

Anti-Squatting: Weatherly and co misleading on squatters, citing issues *already* covered by existing law:

Pro-Squatting: Brighton Greens – cite house empty for 30 YEARS to support confiscating properties empty for 6 MONTHS.

As Weatherly has also said he would happily remove protesters from St Pauls himself, I assume he prefers protest by riot to peaceful occupation… Next election, he is toast...

Cameron - the advertising man. All talk and no action (OK - lies).

From the UK Governments e-petition site, as instigated/created by one "David Cameron"

What are e-petitions?

e-petitions is an easy way for you to influence government policy in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be eligible for debate in the House of Commons.

See that bit 'influnce government policy'? Well here is what David Cameron said about the e-petition on a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU.

At Prime Minister's Questions, he said he shared MPs' frustrations with how the European Union worked but would oppose calls for a vote on whether to quit the EU as it was "not our policy".

See what he did there?

First says petitions are there to influence government policy, then justifies a three line whip against a petition (the EU Referendum) before the debate has even taken place becuase it is 'not government policy'.

Do I need to spell it out again? I'd guess not... but... Cameron says 'petitions are to influnce government policy' then says "I'll three line whip this because is isn't government policy"

So does anyone need a clearer example of David Cameron as a bare faced liar? Or can we all agree on that?


Since posting this blog entry I have used to ask my MP this very question, I have also registered a complaint with the advertising standards authority.

Saturday, 29 October 2011

Cameron agreed to SIX EU treaty changes - with no repatriation of powers...

Denis Cooper, on Conservative Home said...

Since the Treaty of Lisbon finally came into force on December 1st 2009, there have been no fewer than SIX piecemeal EU treaty changes put in the pipeline.

Firstly a protocol was agreed to sort out a legal pickle over the numbers of MEPs; that was quietly approved by Parliament through Part 2 of the European Union Act 2011:


"There are four more treaty changes which have to be ratified by all 27 member states in addition to the ESM revision. They are Croatia's accession treaty, which must be ratified by 2013; the Irish protocol, which persuaded the Irish Republic to vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty; the separate Irish amendment to the Lisbon Treaty, which allows every member state to keep their European commissioner; and the Czech protocol which persuaded the eurosceptic President Václav Klaus to sign the Lisbon Treaty. Cameron will not use any of these treaty changes to repatriate powers."

Hang about, what's this "in addition to the ESM revision"?

Oh, that's the other EU treaty change, the radical EU treaty change agreed by EU leaders on March 25th through European Council Decision 2011/199/EU:

which the government, and for some reason also the mass media, like to pretend never happened.

Although Hague did have to lay a statement before Parliament on October 13th:

admitting its existence and denying us a referendum on it; and on Monday a question from Mark Reckless MP forced Cameron to likewise acknowledge its existence, Column 36 here:

"Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): The Prime Minister tells The Daily Telegraph today that we should use any treaty change to shore up the euro to get powers over employment and social policy back, yet on 25 March, he agreed to precisely such a treaty change, but did not ask for anything in return.

The Prime Minister: I have to take issue with my hon. Friend. The very limited treaty change that is about to be debated in, and hopefully passed by, the House of Commons ... "

Except that it isn't a "very limited" treaty change; it's a radical treaty change, and one which Cameron stupidly and recklessly gave to the eurozone states - more accurately, really, to Germany and France - without getting anything substantive in exchange to protect our national interests.


Nice one Denis - thanks for the permission to repost.

Friday, 28 October 2011

IDS - standard collapse or a 'supposed' conservative EUSceptic

The changing face (thin mask) of Conservative party EU Scepticism
Cameron's desperate attempt to prevent complete conservative wipe out in the next EU elections

Conservative 'Champions' of EU-Scepticism

We have seen William Hague start as (probably) a genuine believer in the primacy of Westminster as the UK government and then gradually drift in to the standard EU phillia of our political class.

We have seen David Cameron talk tough on the EU (although whether 'cast iron' Dave was ever genuinely EU sceptic (or has any firm principles) is open to question) but when cornered revealed as an EU phile.

Now we have the supposed 'arch' conservative EU Sceptic - their new champion replacing the fallen Cameron and Hague - Iain Duncan Smith. Presented as the man who disobeyed John Major PM's three line whip on the 'Mastrict Treaty' but then went on to lead the Conservative party (the 'quiet man who rapidly fell silent').

The fall of the final 'Champion'

The story of IDS's Mastrict rebellion was stoked up in the press - the new EU hard man.

Then came the vote on having giving the people a referendum on the EU. IDS follows the party line (as a minister he had no choice! to do otherwise would have split the coalition!).

But we were reassured...

IDS lets it be known that he wanted to vote for a referendum, but couldn't - however if it happened again he would resign rather than go against his EU Sceptic principles:
IDS threat to quit: I won't vote against my Eurosceptic principles again

There are official denials of such a threat, but IDS refuses to support the denials ('Minister Coy over quit threat'):
(Note the BBC have removed their original report of this and replaced it to make IDS look less scheming than he was).

Then IDS admits he didn't support the referendum at all anyway, so any threat to resign was purely on being subject to a three line whip:

Finally realising how stupid, dishonest and unprincipled this whole episode make him appear - IDS now issues a blanket denial that there was ever any disagreement by himself at all!
(This is the story that the BBC used to airbrush out their 'IDS refuses to support Camerons claim of no threat to resign).


There are no EUSceptics on the Conservative front bench.

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

BBC Still not responded to my complaint - trying to conflate 'EU' and 'Europe'.

A few blog postings ago I blogged about a complaint I made to the BBC - I asked for a response, they haven't bothered, so I have just complained again.

The BBC continues to confuse 'EU' a political elite based in brussels, the 'Eurozone' a subset of contries that susbscribe to the EU and share the Euro as their currency, and Europe - the continent, its people, its countries, its languages and its cultures etc. For instance Stephanie Flanders on BBC Today this morning (26th October 2011)

I complained about this previously, asking for a response which you have failed to provide - I expect a response to this by return.

Original complaint:

The BBC persistently seeks to conflate the continent of Europe, its people, countries and cultures with the political organisation that is the "European Union".

i.e. On the Radio 4 Today program this morning the presenters (I won't call them journalists) constantly referred to the Conservative party conference not discussing 'Europe'.
What is is about 'Europe' that they should discuss? Its geology? Its population? No your lazy and misrepresenting presenters actually meant 'European Union' - its commission and other institutions.

Asking people what they think of 'Europe' is very, very different to asking what they think of the "European Union'.

I am sure the BBC are fully aware of this device to misrepresent public opinion on the European UNION, but by making an official complaint I hope to start the process of slapping the BBC back into line.

If they deign to reply I'll let you know what they say - if not, I'll get around to escalating it...

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Letter to my MP - calling to support EU referendum regardless of party whips.

Following the presentation of a 100,000 signature petition to parliament, there is to be a debate on whether the people of the UK should be given a referendum on our membership of the EU (European Union).

It has also been reported that Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour party leaders are against having a referendum (despite what they have said in the past), and that MP's may be subject to a party whip to vote against the referendum.

Accordingly I have written the following to my (conservative) MP.

Please read it then WRITE TO YOURS.

My Letter


There is soon to be a debate/vote on giving the people of the UK a referendum on the UK's EU membership.

Such a referendum would deliver on the promises that David Cameron made on behalf of the Conservative party before being elected - that the people of the UK should have a direct say in the constitutional changes that the EU is bringing about.

It would also deliver on the promise that Nick Clegg made when he instructed Liberal Democrats to vote down a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - he said it was 'because it is the wrong referendum, people want a referendum on in/out'.

More generally people feel that just as the Liberal Democrats were elected on a false pledge on Tuition Fees, the Conservatives have been elected on a false pledge of EU-scepticism.

Apart from the direct EU issues, all parties and MPs have professed to support calls for 'reconnecting' the public with politics. We have had a referendum on voting reform, what better way to continue this reconnection that with a referendum on another divisive (between politicians and public) issue?

And what better way to entrench the division between people and politics than vote down this referendum - a debate that has come about through a petition of 100,000 people?

The referendum question as proposed is not particularly good - giving three options, and being worded badly - but the principle of finally giving the people a say on this issue cannot be ignored.

I ask and hope that you will vote for a referendum on this issue, regardless of any instructions from you party.

Yours sincerely,



Thank you for writing to me about the Motion regarding a referendum on Britain's continued relationship with the EU.

At present, this matter is very much in flux because of ongoing discussions in Westminster. Although I am in Brighton today, undertaking constituency visits, I am in touch with colleagues in Parliament regarding this matter on a frequent basis.

Please be assured that I shall vote for the best outcome for our country as a whole.

In the meantime, I have carefully noted your comments and request that I vote to support a referendum.

I will keep in touch as matters develop.

Kind regards.

Reply after Vote


I wanted to write to you regarding the EU referendum debate.

I have received many emails and letters espousing both sides of the argument. I am only too aware of how important this is.

I believe the EU has become a huge, overly costly, bureaucratic organisation fundamentally lacking in both democracy and accountability to the many millions of people who pay for it through their taxes and who are bound to live by its rules.

However, I must emphasise, the Motion that was put for debate and a vote yesterday was three-pronged and badly timed as it was demanding an in-out referendum in the next Parliamentary Session. With Europe and the Eurozone in a financial crisis which is affecting our economy and those countries not even in the EU, I could not support such a motion as the most important thing in the short term needs to be financial stability and political certainty. I think it is also important to stress that notwithstanding its many failings I am a believer in working with, and co-operating with, our European allies especially as the Eurozone is Britain's biggest customer.

The Conservative Party manifesto for the last General Election which was voted for by millions of people, made it clear that we believed Britain should remain within the European Union but we should not be run by the EU.

The issue is we did not promise a referendum on whether we should stay or leave the EU. However, we did promise a referendum on any further transfer of power from Britain to Brussels and we have already delivered on that promise with our "referendum lock". We also made it clear that we will work to repatriate many of the powers we believe Britain has lost to the EU, particularly over social and employment legislation. The Prime Minister confirmed that policy yesterday, in the debate.

It is worth pointing out that there were two other amendments put forward for debate, which I was minded to support if they had been selected for debate by the Speaker:

"This House calls upon the Government to publish a White Paper during the next session of parliament setting out the powers and competences that the Government would seek to repatriate from the EU, to commence a renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the EU and to put the outcome of those negotiations to a national referendum.”

and the second motion that I could have supported is:

"This House believes that it was wrong for successive Governments to hand over increasing powers to the EU without seeking the approval of the British people in a referendum; believes that it was right for the present Government to introduce legislation which requires a referendum before the transfer of any further power in a in a new Treaty; and notes that by enacting this legislation Parliament has prevented such undemocratic transfers of power in the future. This House believes that the steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far and that the burden of EU legislation is suppressing growth in the UK economy. It calls upon the Government to negotiate to return powers that should reside with the UK rather than the EU, including in the field of social and employment legislation. Furthermore, this House:

- Calls on the Government to bring the EU budget under control and believes that anything more than a real terms freeze in the next EU multi-annual budget would be unacceptable;

- Believes that the United Kingdom should not participate in the Eurozone bail-out of Greece and insists that the Government avoid participation in any further Eurozone bail-out of Greece; and

- Believes that Eurozone bail-outs should be the responsibility of the Eurozone Member States.”

However, the Speaker, who has absolute control of these matters, did not choose to call either amendment. I was sorry to hear this when I was in the Chamber. Given my reasoning above, I decided to reluctantly vote against the Motion that was debated last night.

I want to assure you that I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter, and I will continue to keep you appraised of developments.

I hope the foregoing is helpful.

Kind regards,

Saturday, 15 October 2011

Screw faith, its religion that matters.

Why do faith schools tend to do better than non-faith schools?
Why do faith communities tend to be more ordered than non-faith ones?

Well the clue is in the name 'faith'. 'Faith' is used to all and every religion, and to make a distinction between religion and non-religion based things - and this puts the answer in plain sight.

The important thing about 'faith schools' and 'faith communities' is not 'faith' at all - in my experience, most people who classify themselves as having a religion are very dubious about the existance/form of what their 'god' is supposed to be. You hear "well I'm christian, but...", "my family is jewish", "I was raised a catholic".

The common thing about all these 'faiths' is a common set of rules - the religions themselves. A clear set of rules, set out, explained, examples given at great length, and a history that they have tended to favour 'well ordered' societies (those that don't, have - by natural selection - fallen by the wayside).

What makes these 'religions' as distinct from purely moral/social codes is that that final arbiter is cited as 'god' an external judge who has no reason to be anything other than perfectly fair.

I suggest the 'faith' bit is most relevant to children and newcomers - like training wheels on a bicycle or scaffolding around a new building - it supports the subject while development is taking place - but there comes the time when the scaffolding is irrelevant, the development is complete and will stand or fall on its own merits - the scaffolding can be removed or left it place, it makes no real difference.

In the end, broadly following the rules of any religion is as good (often better) than trying to follow any other set of moral/social rules - even if you don't have faith or believe in its god.

So a 'faith school' does better than a non-faith school even when very few people there actually have any 'faith' - it is simply that they have a clear set of rules that are well known, easily remembered and that participants have agreed to follow - rules which cannot be challenged on a whim nor need endless explanation - the answer to challenges is "it works" or "god says so", if you don't like it then 'goodbye'.

Clearly a common moral code works well for societies, simple tools like doing the 'right thing' because you are expected to behave as if your every thought/action is being observed (by a god) are useful. Its 'religious codes' that work - not faith.

If every one behaved *as if* they were being observed, there would be no need for CCTV cameras! Children can behave that way because they have the 'scaffolding' of faith in a god - adults because they see from experience that it make society a better place.

Monday, 3 October 2011

Complaint to the BBC: Use of the word "Europe" to refer to the "European Union".

I have just sent the following complaint of bias to the BBC.

The BBC persistently seeks to conflate the continent of Europe, its people, countries and cultures with the political organisation that is the "European Union".

i.e. On the Radio 4 Today program this morning the presenters (I won't call them journalists) constantly referred to the Conservative party conference not discussing 'Europe'.
What is is about 'Europe' that they should discuss? Its geology? Its population? No your lazy and misrepresenting presenters actually meant 'European Union' - its commission and other institutions.

Asking people what they think of 'Europe' is very, very different to asking what they think of the "European Union'.

I am sure the BBC are fully aware of this device to misrepresent public opinion on the European UNION, but by making an official complaint I hope to start the process of slapping the BBC back into line.

I'll let you know what they reply...

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Again UK again stands as a beacon of freedom in Europe.

Now the Euro project honeymoon is passed and the scales are falling from the eyes of the gullible who took it at face value the real story is starting to be told and recognised as the real truth.

The Centre for Policy Studies publication of 'Guilty Men' a short read by Peter Oborne and Frances Weaver not only tells it how it is, but tells it as it always was. Nothing material has actually changed, it is just the the truth of it can no longer be denied.

It is just as it was during the second world war, when the UK stood alone as an example to the peoples of other European countries.  An example that it is possible for the people of a country to resist the sweeping oppressive domination of Germany and their French collaborators.

The UK not only (again) has its share of appeasers, but has a strong fifth column that actively support the interests of the UKs enemies against the interest of the UKs people.

This time the enemy is the EU - not the people of Europe nor their countries, languages or customs - but those people who have been allowed to become their political leaders and the people and institutions who have actively supported them and opposed the forces of freedom.

The collapse of the Euro project is an opportunity to show that their previous arguments and assertions were nothing other than 'whatever was required' to bring all the people of Europe into subservience under the yoke of the EU.

The UK stands as an example to the people of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain etc that there is life outside the Euro - we are the physical proof of that, the proof that EU-apologists were so keen to destroy by taking us in to the currency.

The people of the UK are now close to having the opportunity of leading the oppressed people of Europe to freedom. Not just out of the Euro, but right out of the whole evil EU empire.

Freedom for the people of western europe, and real freedom for the people of the former eastern European states who thought they were getting freedom by leaving the USSR ,but just swapped one totalitarian politcal master for another - the EU.

This is the line between the people of Europe (including the UK) and their politicians - it is our own political class who have sought to enslave (just as most african slaves were first enslaved by other africans - our real enemies are within) - most people have not been as vigilant against this as they should have been, it is not too late, now is the time to push ahead and lead the way out of the EU.