Our impotence: Our pleasure

A little Q&A in the Lords on Friday illustrate this country's impotence in the Face of the EU. It also shows,
1) How far down the political food chain we have thrown away our ability to make decisions for ourselves
2) How Ministers and Government spokesman, rather than railing against their own inability to make or effect law, happily applaud their captors. It is political Stockholm syndrome writ small.

Lord Pearson asked,

To ask Her Majesty's Government why there is no requirement to label halal meat in shops and restaurants; and what steps they propose to take to inform consumer choice in this area.

Lord Taylor, The Tory whip responded,

The Government believe that people should know what they are buying in shops or when they are eating out. An amendment to require food labels to indicate whether an animal has been stunned before slaughter was proposed last year by the European Parliament in the context of proposals for an EU food information for consumers regulation. This proposal was not taken up, but in subsequent discussions a compromise agreement was reached that highlighted the importance of this issue and proposed that it should be considered by the EU Commission in a welfare context as part of the anticipated discussion on the EU welfare strategy.

The Government support this approach, as it will allow consumer information to be considered alongside measures to minimise the suffering of animals slaughtered without stunning. The Commission has recently published its proposed Welfare Strategy for 2012-15 and has confirmed it will be studying the issue of labelling as provided for in last year's agreement on the food information for consumers regulation. The Government welcome this approach and we look forward to receiving further proposals from the Commission. In the mean time we are considering how we can use domestic legislation.

Note that Taylor is suggesting that the Government would like to add Halal labels to products sold in this country, but, awwww, the European Parliament blocked them. Better still the Government is really chuffed that the European Commission has announced that it will be looking into the issue of labelling at sometime over the next three years. Wow, isn't that a pip!

A little bit of research into This Animal Welfare package brings up interesting results.

Footnote 16 in the study produces this,

See Feasibility study: 'Animal welfare labelling and establishing a Community Reference Centre for Animal Protection and Welfare', 26.012009 by FCEC.

This study is complete, done, over and not in the future (so the Commission have studied, rather than will study) but it has an Annex (Page 141 out of 143) in which it deals with the thorny problem. This Annex starts,

European legislation foresees that the obligation of stunning before slaughter does not apply to slaughter methods demanded by religious rites. Kosher and halal slaughter practices are therefore exempted from the obligation to stun.

It concludes,

Impacts of policy options on the present situation of religious slaughter depend on the content of animal welfare standards applied. A Community Animal Welfare Label or guidelines for the establishment of animal welfare and quality schemes would likely be based upon specific animal welfare indicators. If the requirement of stunning before slaughter was part of these indicators, religious slaughter practices not allowing to stun animals could be excluded from participation in animal welfare schemes. Under the option of mandatory labelling of welfare indicators, producers could be requested to indicate products as derived ‘from unstunned animals’, possibly leading to negative implications for actors of religious food chains as described above. Therefore, it is unlikely that this option would find the support of all religious minority groups concerned.

Thus I think we can safely assume that the situation ante is what is being offered here as to do anything else would be to risk attack from religious groups that matter to European politicians, that is Jewry and Islam, rather than those that don't such as Christianity.

Footnote 20 of the Strategy states the following

Recital 50 of Regulation (EC) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers (OJ L 304, 22.112011, p. 18) states that: Union consumers show an increasing interest in the implementation of the Union animal welfare rules at the time of slaughter, including whether the animal was stunned before slaughter. In this respect, a study on the opportunity to provide consumers with the relevant information on the stunning of animals should be considered in the context of a future Union strategy for the protection and welfare of animals".

Again, this call took place before the Study was completed. Thus it is redundant. So that rather neatly deals with Lord Taylor's substantive points. But his final comment bears thinking about,

In the mean time we are considering how we can use domestic legislation.

It would be instructive to know if the Government is serious about this, whether it has the right to introduce food labelling legislation (given that legislation in this area is an EU Competence).

HMG complacency over Commission staffing

Lord Howell yesterday dismissed the concerns of Lord Pearson, both as the fairness of the Croation EU accession referendum, but also the numbers and costs of new Croatian staff that will be employed.

how many Croatian nationals they estimate will take up posts in the European Union institutions following Croatian accession and what will be the United Kingdom's share of the cost of those jobs.

The Minister's response was brusque and failed to answer the question.

The UK supports the principle that nationals of all member states should hold posts within the EU institutions, and expects that the EU will actively support the recruitment of Croatian nationals after accession. We believe that this should be achieved without increasing the human resources available to the EU institutions or imposing additional costs on the EU budget.

We believe, he says. He might as well believe in faries.
Take a look at this press release from the Commission today about the employment of staff from Bulgaria and Romania the last two accession countries. In it the Commission fair boast about the fact that they have overshot their target by 23.%. At a time of austerity, these extra 228 recruits don'tcome cheap.

The Commission recruited 478 Bulgarians and 727 Romanians, exceeding its overall recruitment target by 23.3% - or 228 recruitments.

Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič said: "I am delighted we managed to identify and attract some of the brightest and best people from Bulgaria and Romania to come and work at the European Commission. Both countries have made a big contribution to European history and culture in the past, and they have much to offer today, as Europe continues to integrate."

If the Minister really thinks that in some way they won't impose extra costs, how are they to be paid for? By cutting UK and other country staff and thus his fabled  'influence' in Brussels.

Good day for UKIP's Lord Pearson

Lord Pearson, the UKIP leader in the Lords has had a pretty good day today.

Firstly there is this letter in the Guardian spelling out the infantility of arguments that 'If we leave the EU we will not be able to do business any more and millions will lose their jobs which is the basic pro-European, 'don't ask, don't question' line.

The letter from Charles Kennedy and others (30 January) confuses our membership of the EU with our access to the single market. We could retain the latter without the former because:
1. We have 3m jobs exporting to the EU but it has 4.5m jobs exporting to us. We are its largest client. 2. The EU has free-trade agreements with 63 countries worldwide and another 63 on the way, so why not with us, on satisfactory terms? 3. Switzerland, not in the EU, exports three times more per capita to the EU than we do. 4. Only 9% of our GDP goes in trade with the EU (in deficit), 11% goes to the rest of the world (in surplus), and 80% stays in our domestic market. Yet Brussels overregulation strangles all 100% of our economy, and handicaps our exports to the countries of the future. Leaving the EU would create jobs, and restore our democracy.

More interestingly is the list of signatories to the letter, all of them well aware that Malcolm is a UKIPper.

Lord Pearson (UKIP)
Lord Stoddart (Ind Labour)
Lord Palmer (Crossbench - and magnificently Convenor, Lords and Commons Cigar and Pipe Smokers' Club)
Lord Stevens (Conservative Independent)
Lord Vinson (Conservative)
Lord Willoughby (UKIP)
The Earl of Liverpool (Conservative)
Douglas Carswell MP (Conservative)
John Cryer MP (Labour)
Mark Reckless MP (Conservative)
Philip Davies MP (Conservative)
Austin Mitchell MP (Labour)
Philip Hollobone MP (Conservative)
David Nuttall MP (Conservative)
Kate Hoey MP (Labour)
Gordon Henderson MP (Conservative)
Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour)
Graham Stringer MP (Labour)

Secondly the Telegraph refers to all the hard work he has put in proving the inherent bias in the BBC programming over the EU issue by referencing the work of his thinktank, Global Britain.

An analysis by Eurosceptic think tank Global Britain found that over the past six years, just 0.04 per cent of the coverage on Radio Four’s flagship Today programme was devoted to the potential benefits of withdrawing from the EU.

How does one cease to be eligible for a pension?

I only ask because of this odd exchange in the House of Lords. Lord Pearson has been highlighting for a while how former EU officials and Commissioners are in reciept of an EU pension that has as part of its conditions a rule about not annoying the EU, or indeed harming its interests (though the way they are going that should disqualify almost everyone working in the Berlyamont now).

Any how he asked about our dear Deputy PM, for of course not only was Mr Clegg a fornmer MEP, (whose pension is not covered by the rule) but he was also a member of Leon Brittan's cabinet, and was thus an official (whose pensions are covered by the rule).

So he asked in November the following

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nick Clegg, receives a pension from the European Commission; and, if so, what is the annual amount of that pension, and whether the terms of that pension constrain his actions.

OK simple enough. To which Lord MCnally answered,

The Deputy Prime Minister does not receive a pension from the European Commission.

Well of course he doesn't thinks Lord P. He is still wet behind the ears, the guy won't hit pensionable age for decades. Lord P tried again, and the story gets, dare I say, odder,

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord McNally on 15 November (WA 140), whether the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nick Clegg, is eligible to receive a pension from the European Commission; if so, when that pension will become payable; what will be its annual amount; and whether the terms of that pension constrain his actions.

Stop wriggling dammit and answer the question.
The answer came back

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Whip, House of Lords; Liberal Democrat)

The Deputy Prime Minister is no longer eligible to receive a pension from the European Commission.

Eh? No longer. So he was, and now he isn't? And when did he decide to forego that pension, and why?

Pearson probes, HMG wriggles over the FTT

Lord Sassoon has given what looks like a pretty robust answer to UKIP peer, Lord Pearson's, question on the Financial Transaction Tax,

The Commission has put forward a proposal to introduce a financial transaction tax under Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Proposals put forward under Article 113 require unanimity in the Council of Ministers, giving the UK Government a veto over any such proposal. The Government oppose a European financial transaction tax.

In addition, the Commission has put forward a proposal under Article 311 to use revenues from its proposed financial transaction tax to part-fund the EU budget. Article 311 also requires unanimity in the Council of Ministers, giving the UK Government a veto over any such proposal. The Government oppose any new taxes to fund the EU budget.

But hold on a moment. What has the Government committed itself to. At first reading it looks like they will veto the FTT proposal, and if so there would be much breathing out in relief in the City.

But have they? I don't think so. Take a look again at what they say, and you can see that it is no such guarantee.

Essentially Lord Sasoon has said,

"We oppose the tax, we have a veto".

or in other words,

"I want to go to Brighton, I have a car". 

That the Minister would like to go to Brighton, and that he has a car is of no importance, what we want to know is if he will use his car to go to Brighton.

By not specifying his use of a car to take him to Brighton, when it would be very easy to do given he is possesion of a fine pair of wheels, one must suspect that the Government has no intention of using it. What is more, from the way that they have behaved in the past, one must come to the conclusion that they might well to go to Littlehampton instead if their continental friemnds persuade them to.

Labour spots a problem

But of course they see the ripple, not the wave,

Ivan Lewis MP, Labour’s Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, commenting on speculation that former Conservative MP, Chris Patten, is set to chair the BBC Trust, said:

“We note the rumours which are circulating about favoured candidates for the chairmanship of the BBC Trust.

“At a time when the independence of the BBC is threatened by the ill concealed hostility of David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt, it is essential that the new chairman is above accusations of political bias.

“If the Conservative led government is serious about new politics, no appointment should be confirmed until the favoured candidate is scrutinised by the DCMS Select Committee.”

As I have pointed out before it is not his Tory Party affiliation that is the problem, that is after all above board and widely proclaimed and known, and will thus be easy to spot, but it is the fact that he has a pension from the EU, a pension which he could loose if he does anything that the Comission decide is harmfuil to the interests of the EU that is the problem.

Looking at the Government's attitude to this I see no desire to ensure openess,

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that no one in receipt of a forfeitable pension from the European Union is appointed as chairman or a trustee of the BBC.
Baroness Rawlings (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)
Ministerial appointments to the BBC Trust are made on merit under a fair, open and transparent process which is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Applications are assessed against the specific selection criteria advertised in relation to a position as and when it falls vacant.

Lord Pearson stands down as UKIP leader

A formal statement has gone out from both the Party Chairman and Lord Pearson himself,

Paul Nuttall,

It has been announced today that Lord Pearson of Rannoch is to stand down as Leader of the UK Independence Party.

The Party would like to thank Lord Pearson for all his hard work and endeavour during his time as Party Leader. Lord Pearson took on the leadership six months before the General Election and guided the party to a 50% increase in our share of the vote.

Lord Pearson will remain a UK Independence Party peer and will continue to both represent the party in the House of Lords and raise funds for the cause.

On a personal note, I am saddened to see a Party Leader stand down, whose vision to restructure and professionalise the party I share.

However, I am pleased that Lord Pearson will carry on working tirelessly to help this country extricate itself from the European Union.

The National Executive Committee will meet as soon as possible to appoint an interim Leader before a leadership election will be held following the Annual Party Conference, which will take place in Torquay from 2-4 September 2010.

Lord Pearson's statement,

I took over as leader of UKIP last year to see the party through the General Election, and said I would then consider my position. We increased our vote by 50%, and have many exciting plans for the future. But I have learnt that I am not much good at party politics, which I do not enjoy. I am also 68, and need to give more time to my wider interests. These include the treatment of people with intellectual impairment, teacher training, the threat from Islamism and the relationship between good and evil - not to mention my dogs and my family.

So it is right that I should stand down on September 2nd, early in the Parliament, to give a younger leader time to be established before the next election, which may come sooner than we think. There is no shortage of talent in UKIP, and the new leader will have my full support. I will continue to do what I can to raise funds for the party.

UKIP has never been more important for our freedom as a self-governing democracy. We have a coalition government which supports every new power grab by Brussels: supervision of our financial services; an EU diplomatic corps; new police and surveillance powers; bailing out the folly that is the euro.

Much of this is illegal under the Treaties, but that has never worried Brussels or the Luxembourg Court, which now make most of our national law in a secretive process over which Parliament has no control.

History teaches us that trouble lies ahead when a regime is free to break its own laws with impunity, when it is supported by a puppet court, and when its people are powerless to get rid of it. That is what the European Union has become, and the only way out is the door.

Now the British people are to be allowed a referendum on how they elect their MPs, but they are denied the referendum they were promised on whether those MPs should govern the country; on whether we should remain ensnared in the tentacles of the corrupt EU octopus, or be set free to enjoy the fruits of democracy and free trade.

UKIP must go on telling the truth about “Europe”: how we cannot control immigration if we stay in the EU; the madness of throwing £6.7 billion a year in net cash down the Brussels drain when we face savage cuts at home; the terrible suffering in developing countries caused by the Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies; that only some 10% of our GDP goes in trade with the EU, yet its dictats strangle 100% of our economy; that leaving the EU would create jobs, not lose them.

UKIP deserves a better politician than me to lead it and show the country how liberating and enriching life would be outside the EU. I am confident that one will emerge.

Personally I am saddened by Lord Pearson's departure. I like and respect the man, but I know that he will continue fighting the good fight in the Lords and elsewhere.

In the meantime this makes the Party Conference look even more fun.

Press coverage
Telegraph,
Guardian,
Mail,
Independent,
PA,
BBC,
Sky,
New Statesman
New Europe

Lord Pearson's response to the Wilders' ban

Would this have happened if Mr Wilders had said ‘Ban the Bible’?

Our western society, and indeed the majority of peaceful Muslims, are being intimidated far too much by violent Islamists. On this occasion, the British government is guilty of appeasement.

We do not agree with Geert Wilders that the Koran should be banned – even in Holland where 'Mein Kampf' is banned. We don’t want it banned but discussed – particularly by the majority Muslim community; and specifically as to whether it may promote or justify - or has promoted or justified - violence. We are therefore promoting freedom of speech.

Geert Wilder’s 'Fitna' film (available on the web) is not a threat to anyone. It merely suggests how the Koran has been used by militant Islamists to promote and justify their violence.

They react in fury and menace to our intention to show the film and have boasted that their threats of aggressive demonstrations prevented its previous showing in the Mother of Parliaments. This was not the case – the event was postponed to clarify issues of freedom of speech. The threat of intimidation in fact increases the justification for the film to be shown and discussed in Parliament and by the British and international press.

Indeed, any alleged threats associated with Lord Ahmed of attempts to prevent the showing of the film would themselves be a confirmation of the film’s message and the need for it to be shown.

The subsequent action by the Home Office to try to deter Mr Wilders from coming to the UK has, we believe, been rightly condemned by the Dutch foreign minister, and is a further example of the appeasement policies of the British government in giving in to the threats of militant Islam.

We intend to show and discuss the film with members of the British Parliament and the press as previously indicated, with or without Mr Wilders.

The press conference remains booked:

“The Koran and Freedom of Speech”

A screening of Fitna (2008 – 17 mins) ?

Q&A with Geert Wilders MP (Holland) ?

No. 1 Abbey Gardens

Thursday 12th February,

6:00 – 7:00pm