Spot the difference

Between Item A
The Good Food Chinese Cantonese Takeaway in Kingsway, Kirkby-in-Ashfield.
and Item B
Baroness Scotland?

The Chinese restuarant has been busted,

The people - a 31-year-old woman, 37-year-old man and his 35-year-old fiancee - were found when Immigration officers went to the Good Food Chinese Cantonese Takeaway in Kingsway on October 16. The three were found to be from Malaysia and were all put on a plane to Kuala Lumpur on Wednesday.

A fourth man, a 20-year-old Chinese failed asylum seeker, was also found and the UK Border Agency is now taking steps to remove him from the country. The business was issued with an on-the-spot penalty notice and could face fines of
up to £40,000.

Whereas of course the good Baroness was described in glowing terms by Gordon Brown this week, thusly,

"At the same time you have the Attorney General who is the first black Attorney General and a very successful one at that."

Nobody died of passive smoking

Well that must be the way to read the response from the Commission to a question from Godfrey Bloom. The question was based on a link to an article by Dave Hitt I found on the Joe Jackson website.

The question went something like this,

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/08
by Godfrey Bloom (IND/DEM)
to the Commission

Subject: Environmental tobacco smoke

According to the Commission Green Paper 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level' (pdf) (COM(2007)0027), more than '79 000 adults' die in the EU per annum from the effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).

This claim is the driver behind the proposals by the Commission to bring in a binding directive later this year to enforce smoking bans in workplaces.

Given that the impact of such a directive will be considerable, both economically and
socially, could the Commission please name three or four people who have died from ETS within the European Union in the last two years?

Which is a bit cheeky but I think makes the point.

The answer finally arived on the Parliament's last working day before the summer recess,

E-3520/08EN
Answer given by Ms Vassiliou
on behalf of the Commission
(18.7.2008)

The Green Paper 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level" , refers to the estimates of mortality attributable to passive smoking in the EU reported by Smoke-free Partnership in Lifting the Smoke-screen: 10 reasons for a smoke-free Europe . These estimates are based on the international evidence on the level of risk posed by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and the estimated proportion of the population exposed rather than individual cases of deaths due to passive smoking. The nature of the epidemiological evidence on all risk factors, be they chemical or other, is such that it does not allow to identify the victims at individual level but only populations.

The Commission is now considering several possible policy options including a possible proposal for a Council recommendation as a follow-up of the Green Paper.

The Impact Assessment currently being carried out will provide a basis for the final policy choice. It will also provide further information on the impact of exposure to ETS on health.

That appears to be a No, I think, we cannot. Everything is based on nmodels and estimates. Not the real world. A pathetic answer that fails to deal with the fact that thousands of people will be amde jobless and a way of life, that is pub, bar and club culture will be destroyed. Why? Because they want to, not because they have any scientific evidence.

However the Commissioner's answer may in fact be something to do with a little known case at the Civil Service Tribunal. This, the junior partner of the European Court of Justice, gave a judgement on what is known as the Labate case.

The applicant, Mrs. Kay Labate, widow of former European Commission official Mario Labate, on her own behalf and on behalf of her husband's estate, contests the Commission's decisions refusing to recognise the lung cancer of her husband as an occupational disease.

Mr Labate was an official with the Commission for 29 years, during which time he was exposed, according to the Applicant, to a large amount of secondhand tobacco smoke. He was declared permanently invalid following the discovery of the lung cancer which subsequently led to his death. He submitted a request for recognition of the illness as an occupational disease.

Ah so they wouldn't want to admit to passive smoking being the cause of death or they would get by any number of claims. That would affect the Commission's own bottom line as the compensation paid could be punitive. Sure enough look at the Commission arguement,

While acknowledging Mr Labate's exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and finding no other cause for his lung cancer, the Medical Committee in its decision nonetheless stated that it could not establish with certainty the connection with his professional activities. The Commission accordingly denied the request, following the finding by the Medical Committee that the connection between the disease and Mr Labate's professional activities was not sufficiently established.

The judgement states quite baldly

"The claims for compensation submitted in the letter of 25 October 2007 by Mrs Labate are dismissed as manifestly unfounded"

So either we are all going to die of passive smoking (Ref. the upcoming smoking at work directive) or we are not(see Labate judgement).

This seems to be a case of the Commission having its cake and eating it, or maybe filling its pipe and smoking it.

When federalists fall out

Splendid piece in the Telegraph by Bruno Waterfield about the shenanigans at the Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday which may well result in smaller - particularly eurosceptic -groups being closed down after next year's European Elections. I witnessed it and though to be fair it was a debate about the Parliament's rules of procedure, I have rarely enjoyed a Committee Meeting like it. It was bums on seats stuff.

Richard Corbett's report was up for voting at 10.00, but from a quick count it became apparent that the little groups had got their act together and had the numbers to win. At which point the Chairman, Jo Leinen started a filibuster. He was abetted by other Socialist and Christian Democrats one of whom a Greek socialist named Costas Botopolous made the procedure transparent by saying,

"We must continue this debate, that will give us time to get more members into Committee for the vote".

Anyhow, after half an hour they though they had the numbers. Wrong call, the opposition including two UKIP MEPs (Graham Booth and Mike Nattrass) won by a single vote. This meant that legally the whole report fell and would have to go back to the drawing board. This in turn would mean that the report, scheduled to go to the full parliamentary plenary in July would not get its new first reading in Committee until after the summer recess, which would inevitably mean that it would not get its second reading in Committee until after Christmas, which would mean that it probably would not get to plenary in time to have an impact before the next European elections.

Therefore the rules governing the formation of groups would stay as they are and there would still be an effective Eurosceptic presence in the parliament. Not something that the elite want to see.

The net result of this was that Corbett himself was raging. I know Richard and can tell by the tone of his voice how angry and disappointed he was. I am not sure if he has ever lost any vote on one of his myriad reports on procedural tampering. This was lesse majestie of the first order.

So after some harumphing the only Tory in the room, Timothy Kirkhope, who is Vice-Chairman of the Committee came up with an oral amendment that would take out the figure of 30 MEPs need to form a group. Not a bad amendment as it happens, but irrelevant.

According to the rules if the report falls, then the report falls. What Kirkhope had done was to throw the federastic autocrats a lifeline. The debate continued slowly more and more socialists and Christian Democrats turned up.

Brian Crowley, the pro-European leader of the small UEN group was almost on his feet with outrage (given he uses a wheelchair no small feat in itself). Andrew Duff was slapping his hands together demanding to be heard. Hanne Dahl, Jens-Peter Bonde's replacement was being forthright in her opposition to the move. But Leinen and Corbett ploughed on, ignoring the rules of procedure and finally went to a vote. Crowley demanded that the Chairman justify this breach of the rule of law, Leinen just waved him away. Kirkhope meanwhile just kept on defending his amendment without, it seems realising that by doing so he was allowing the big two to escape their defeat. Of course seeing as (as has been pointed out by Richard North) this rule change is not about destroying UKIP or the small eurosceptic groupings but damaging the prospects of the Tories setting up a breakaway group, maybe this was deliberate on Timothy's part, he never having been a fan of Cameron's breached promise to leave the EPP.

The vote started, now an hour after it had started the big blocks had lumbered there members into position and were able to vote this through.

Today a letter was sent to the president of Parliament, authored by Andrew Duff and signed by representatives of the Greens, the Lib Dems, the UEN, the Ind/Dem and the Communists, I reproduce the text below. Interesting in the covering email Duff makes the point,

"I propose that we send the attached letter to President Poettering tomorrow
(Wednesday).

I can see no point in referring it directly to Mr Leinen for the AFCO coordinators".

Here is the letter in full,

"Mr Hans-Gert Poettering MEP
President
European Parliament
28 May
2008

Dear President,
We write, with regret, as the coordinators of the ALDE, UEN, Green, GUE and Ind/Dem groups about the conduct of the vote at the Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday on the report by Richard Corbett concerning Rule 29 (formation of political groups).

The key substantive reform (change of thresholds for the formation of groups), contained in Amendment 1 of the rapporteur to Rule 29(2), was rejected. It is our view that all the three remaining amendments (Rule 29(2)(a)), which referred to transitional arrangements when a group falls beneath a threshold, should not have been put to the vote.

Rule 151(1)(a) says that 'No amendment shall be admissible if it does not directly relate to the text which it seeks to amend'.

In this case, the text the remaining amendments sought to amend had been defeated in the initial vote. Moreover, Rule 151(2) says that 'An amendment shall lapse if it is inconsistent with decisions previously taken on the text during the same vote'.

At first, the rapporteur sought to change the figures in Amendment 3 to accord with the status quo. This oral amendment was objected to by us under Rule 150(6). Even though the Rules of Procedure were eventually applied correctly concerning the oral amendment, the chairman then moved to vote Amendment 3 by three split votes.
Rule 157(1) clearly states that it is only where 'the text to be put to the vote contains two or more provisions or references to two or more points or lends itself to division into two or more parts each with a distinct logical meaning and normative value' that a split vote can be taken.

Unfortunately, in this instance the split vote mechanism was simply used to circumvent the objection to the oral amendment by taking out the precise figures for the threshold. This made no sense because the text without the figures was meaningless. It was merely a second attempt to achieve the goal which had previously been defeated. This also, therefore, was an abuse of procedure.

In view of these unhappy events, we are asking you, using your powers under Rule 19(2), to refer back to AFCO the Corbett Report on Rule 29.

It is, of course, especially important that AFCO, which is the rule committee of the Parliament, is seen to be scrupulous in its respect of the Rules.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Duff (Lib Dem Leader)
Brian Crowley (UEN Leader)
Johannes Voggenhuber (Senior Green)
Sylvia Kaufmann (Communist)
Hanne Dahl (Eurosceptic: Ind/Dem)

Sir Bob Atkins takes the buscuit

Now I am not going to defend the actions of Tom Wise as reported in the NoTW last weekend, but the reaction of Sir Robert Atkins to his own inclusion in the article is extraordinary.

It appears he has taken legal advice on suing the Murdoch Sunday. Well good luck Bob, may the luck of the Dover's descend upon your pompous bonce.

So he says in in yesterday's Liverpool Evening Post, which seems to be a rehashed version of a note he sent to Con Home a day earlier.

Was he really upset about the article itself? Well it appears that he was disgusted that he was on the same page as Tom Wise, who though foolish is in many ways a decent cove.

The article gave details of how the Conservative member pays his wife, Lady Dulcie, more than £30,000 a year as his secretary.

And the newspaper also said Sir Robert paid his son James £2,513.23 a month in 2002.

However, Sir Robert is furious the story was placed alongside an investigation into "greedy Brit MEP" Tom Wise,

He defends himself thus,

"My son worked full-time in Brussels for a period after leaving university and was paid at the same – if not slightly lower rate – as other parliamentary assistants of his age and experience.

"He was head-hunted away on a much higher salary and ceased working for me in 2004".

Errr.. That isn't quite true is it Bob. I was working as a Tory Parliamentary Assistant at the time and you would have been lucky to make 2,513.23 in Euros, let alone in sterling - (According to the ECB figures that would put him on somewhere between 3,901 Euros pcm and 4,108 Euros. Slightly less than average, oh yes, are you sure? I only know of one person who was paid more than that, but he was employed by somebody independently wealthy and his money came from there, not the taxpayer. So that is a lie, and one that can be easily disapproved by any half competent lawyer.

Back then you were quite a cheese in the Tory delegation, and if I remember rightly James moved from your office into the Whip's office. The employment procedures of which are organised by, ahem senior members of the delegation. The job was well remunerated it is true, but it was in the gift of you and your colleagues. Then he was headhunted.

I wonder if was for his intrinsic abilities or for the fact that he was already very well connected with the Tory/EPP scene in the Parliament and the fact that his referees and godfathers were Sir John Major CH and Sir Christopher Gent? Dunno you decide.

Don't get me wrong I have no animus against James Atkins, he seems a friendly enough chap and a mainstay of the expat football and cricket community, but his father's arguments are bunk.

Then his excuses about Lady Dulcie. Well there does seem to be a discrepancy between what was reported in the Stern Magazine on 18th March 2004 by Hans Martin Tillack and what was reported in the NoTW. Stern has it that he was paying her 8,332 Euros per month (68,988 Sterling p.a.) whereas the NoTW only claims "over 30,000". Quite a lot over it seems.

I don't recall either Stern, or European Voice or indeed the European Law Review which repeated the claims being visited by Sue, Grabbitt and Runne.

The level of debate

From my periodic snarls of impotent rage you will no doubt gather that I sometimes despair about the level of debate in Brussels. Europeanism is a form of religion and as such it brooks no argument. After all, proof denies faith.

Dan Hannan has pointed out recently a number of times how it seems to be that those who favour ever deeper European integration are perceived as 'nice' whilst those who oppose it are perceived as 'nasty'. This attitude to apostates carries itself through no matter the empirical evidence. No matter how gentle, reasoned and indeed reasonable one may be holding contrary opinions are beyond the pale, whilst no matter how vile the calumny, if it is uttered by those who hold fast to the faith, it is brushed off as nothing. (see the YouTube video below)

So imagine my delight, surprise and yes anger when at the bar last night, as I was buying a round, those I was drinking with called over and told me that somebody had stuck something to my back. Below is the picture illustrated.

Now this is not something that has happened to me since I was doing my 'O' levels but it is a symptom of what we are talking about. I looked around the bar and the average age must have been 30-35. We are not talking children here. We are talking about the pub nearest to the European Parliament. Its clientele is a mixture of political staff, commission and other institutional officials, lobbyists and a smattering of journalists and other assorted Brussels' flotsam and jetsam.

The message is clear. To whoever stuck it to my back, I am a Nazi transvestite, (with it must be said a remarkably good body - Tim Curry eat you heart out). What it makes plain to me is that rational debate is not of much value, and my opinions are so far beyond the pale as to be ignored. After all nobody even bothers to debate with a Nazi. Their views and opinions can be dismissed out of hand as unworthy of consideration. Basic facts such as my belief system being one of individual freedom rather than state socialism is neither here nor there, I am as a Eurosceptic not to be accepted as a moral equal in any way. I am dismissible, not merely that but I am also a priori evil.

I guess I should be flattered by the fact that somebody bothered to find a photo of me scribble on a moustache, glue it to a club flyer and lie in wait for me. I must have made somebody uncomfortable.

But rational, empirical debate in Brussels? I am obviously in the wrong town.

Pot... Kettle

So the Boy Dave has fired all his load at the Prime Minister on the great transparency issue.

Could he then explain how it is that only 13 of his MEPs have come clean about who they employ as assistants with the Parliamentary assistant's allowance.

Furthermore could he tell the 14 who refuse to answer journalists questions to get off their sorry arses and realise that the public have a right to know?

Amendment 32 of the Corbett Report on the Lisbon Treaty

Was a simple amendment calling for people to respect the result of the Irish referendum. Looking at the roll call votes for this amendment tells us all we need to know about what British politicians do when they are away in Brussels/Strasbourg thinking that nobody is watching. Worse still is the voting on Amendment 34 which called for a referendum. Guess which party had no votes in favour, yup, the Tories.

-2a. Undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland.

Pretty non controversial you would have thought. After all everybody here in the Parliament reckons themselves democrats. So how can it be that the result of the vote was this...

129 in favour

499 Against

33 Abstentions.

And shall we have a look at the British MEPs who voted on the amendment.

Yes:
Batten, Farage, Knapman, Nattrass, Titford, Deva

No:
Attwooll, Davies, Duff, Hall, Ludford, Lynne, Newton Dunn, Wallis,
Watson, Atkins, Beazley, Nicholson, Purvis, Cashman, Corbett, Corbey, Ford,
Honeyball, Howitt, Hughes, Hutchinson , Kinnock, McAvan, , Martin David, Moraes,
Morgan, Simpson, Sinner, Stihler, Titley, Willmott,

Abstain:
Ashworth, Bowis, Bradbourn, Bushill-Matthews, Callanan, Chichester,
Dover, Evans Jonathan, Harbour, Jackson, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Parish,
Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Tannock, Van Orden, Hannan, Helmer, Wise.

So UKIP voted to respect the result of the Irish referendum. The Tories abstained (excepting the honourable exception of Nirj Deva). Labour and the Lib/Dems voted to ignore the Irish result.

This is truly a disgrace. Don't ever listen to people like Richard Corbett lecturing people about democracy without ramming the words down his scrawny gizzard. If a Tory pontificates about how much they want to hear the voices of the people show them this voting list.

The photo is of one of the Tory offices., They nicked the banner from UKIP. And despite this they abstained.

Update

Worse far worse than this is what happened when amendment 34 was voted upon, flagged up by Trixy,

Firmly believes that, since the choice involved will have a profound impact on the future, a European treaty should be ratified in all the Member States by means of a referendum, following a pluralist debate on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake

Again I would suggest that this is pretty uncontroversial amongst those parties that profess to believe in a referendum in the UK, so how did the votes go?

Yes: 85
No: 526
Abstain: 53

And who amongst the Brits voted which way?

Yes:
Batten, Booth, Clark, Farage, Knapman, Nattrass, Titford, Whittaker, Wise, Allister, Mote, Lucas

So that is UKIP, one Green, the former DUP and Ashley Mote,

No:
Attwooll, Bowles, Davies, Duff, Hall, Ludford, Lynne, Newton Dunn,
Wallis, Watson, Atkins, Beazley, Chichester, Karim, Nicholson, Purvis, Cashman,
Corbett, Ford, Gill, Honeyball, Howitt, Hughes, Kinnock, McAvan, Martin David,
Moraes, Morgan, Simpson, Skinner, Stihler, Titley, Willmott, Smith

So that is the Lib/Dems, Labour, the Ulster Unionist, one of the two SNP and five Tories including the delegation leader Giles Chichester.

Abstain:
de Brún, Hannan, Helmer, Ashworth, Bowis, Bradbourn, Bushill-Matthews, Callanan, Deva, Dover, Evans Jonathan, Harbour, Jackson, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Parish, Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Tannock, Van Orden, Evans Jill, Hudghton

Here we have Sinn Fein, the Tories - barring those who voted against one Green and the other SNP.

It isn't rocket science, this was a simple demand that there should be a referendum.

Five Tories! Including the delegation leader! Go on, count them. The thought that the rest of that shower, including sadly Hannan and Helmer abstained on what I thought was their party policy is an absolute disgrace. I am not sure how they will be able to face their hustings and party membership.

Update 2

Dan has responded to the criticism quite correctly,

I voted AGAINST the report Hagar refers to, the Mendez de Vigo / Corbett report, which supported the constitution. So did all but three Tory MEPs. I also voted IN FAVOUR of the various Ind/Dem amendments calling for ratification to be frozen until intelligible drafts of the treaty were available. And I voted IN FAVOUR of the motion calling for the wishes of the Irish people to be respected.

I am personally in favour of referendums in every country. But I don't believe it is up to the EU to mandate the form of ratification. That is for each nation to decide, according to its own traditions. Obviously, I'd like the Greeks and Finns and Slovaks to get the vote. But I'm not a Greek or a Finn or a Slovak, so it isn't up to me.

Good for the Goose?

Ihave been tardy in posting this film of proceedings in the European Parliament, especially as I helped find it and get it on to YouTube. (Or more accurately tried to find it and congratulated others in the Group for getting it together).



It shows all those great defenders of democracy who gifted the President of Parliament arbitrary powers over the proceedings in the chamber, you know those ones who created synthetic rage about Dan Hannan.

As he puts it on his blog today

You can see the Liberal leader, Graham Watson claiming that the sceptics’ behaviour “recalls the actions of the Communists in the Russian Diet and the National Socialists in the German Reichstag”. (Can this be the same Graham Watson who claimed that my own far more discreet reference to the Enabling Act “plumbs new depths in UK-EU relations and in the Tories’ approach to democracy in the EU”?) And you can see the Socialist leader Martin Shulz saying that the sceptics made him think of Adolf Hitler. (Can this be the same Martin Shulz who said I should have no home on the European Parliament?)

I’ve always been of the view that references to the Nazi era should be made, as the Common Prayer Book says of marriage, “reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly.” I’ve explained why before in this blog. Even so, I find myself attacked on all sides for making even the most tangential and qualified reference. So why does no one criticise the Watsons and Shulzes who habitually dismiss their opponents as Hiterlites?

Do watch the whole thing.

Tories surrender on Constitution

Now here is a fascinating email exchange. Every few months the heads of the UK political parties in the European Parliament are invited to have a session with interested MPs and Lords. This is organised by Dermot Scott who heads up the Parliament office in London.

From: SCOTT Dermot
Sent: Mon 2/4/2008 3:17 PM
To: CHICHESTER Giles; TITLEY Gary; DUFF Andrew; LAMBERT Jean; FARAGE Nigel; HUDGHTON Ian

Cc: TEMPLE-SMITHSON James; ALHADEFF Giampiero; ROYSTON James; PAGE Clive

Subject: Tripartite meeting 6 March, Westminster

Dear colleagues

The following topics have been suggested for discussion at the next Tripartite meeting of MEPs/MPs/Peers on 6 March:

Lisbon Treaty
energy package
Spring Summit/Lisbon Process
Western Balkans/Neighbourhood Policy

If we are, as usual, to reduce that to two main topics and one for general conversation over lunch, would the following meet you approval?

Energy package
Western Balkans

with the Treaty discussed over lunch.

I think the Lisbon process has been on the agenda fairly regularly, though of course the spring summit follows shortly after. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks

Dermot Scott

Dermot Scott
Head of Office, European Parliament UK Office
2 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AA

A perfectly reasonable request I would have thought.

This below is the response from James Temple-Smithson, who is the EPP-ED staffer based in Conservative headquarters in London as is one of the senior advisers to the Tory leadership on matters pertaining to the EU. His advice having spoken to Giles Chichester, Tory MEP leader is as follows.

Dear Dermot,

Thank you for your mail. Giles' view is that there is limited value in another discussion of the Treaty at this meeting as there will be little new to say, so he would prefer it to be dropped in favour of the Spring Summit which, as you say, will be more topical.

Best wishes,

James

Nothing new to say! What the ?==))(&(&!!!!

The treaty will still be going through Westminster at this time, either in the Lords or back in time for a third reading. Given that the Lib/Dems are falling out at this moment and that for the first time there seems to be a chink in the armour over a referendum, to not talk about the key European issue de jour is tantamount to absolute surrender. Yes the odds are against any significant change, but do you give up now. Even Mr Scott points out that the Lisbon Agenda has been done to death over the last few years. But Giles Chichester has decided to airbrush the incovienience of our liberties being sold down the river out of the equation. I cannot see Duff, or Titley out voting him on this. After all the Labour Party and the Lib/Dems would be delighted to sweep the Treaty under the table. But to have a Tory doing their work for them.

Nothing to see, move along.

Forked tongues

If you read this,

Sir - Britain's patio heaters, which some MEPs want to ban, produce around 22,200 tonnes of CO? a year (report, January 31).This is only 2,000 tonnes more than the European parliament is estimated to emit unnecessarily travelling from Brussels to Strasbourg every month.

Perhaps if the European parliament wants to improve energy efficiency, we should begin by ending this pointless monthly waste.

Richard Ashworth MEP (Con), Brussels

You would no doubt come the conclusion that I did. That is that Mr Ashworth voted against this daft proposal.

However you would be wrong, becuse if you go to the Roll Call Vote results for the Hall report (pg 54) you would find that Mr Ashworth, along with most of his Conservative and all of his Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues voted in favour of the report, and thus voted in favour of banning patio heaters.

Incidentally the Conservative Whip on this report was at sixes and sevens, Callanan, Deva and Sturdy voted against Syed Kemal abstained and a few failed to register to vote. Most peculiar.

My guess is that he wrote the letter to the Telegraph, failed to read his voting list, or at least failed to understand it, went down to the chamber and voted as he was told.

Update

Chris Booker has picked this up in today's Sunday Telegraph,

Tory MEP is hoist with his own canard
When smoking was banned in English pubs last July, many landlords realised that the only way to keep a good many of their customers was to install patio heaters.
As the Irish discovered when they introduced a smoking ban, the only pubs that didn't lose business were those that bought heaters, allowing smokers to continue their wicked habit in relative comfort outside. English publicans accordingly spent £85 million following suit.

But then up jumped Friends of the Earth to demand that, since these heaters give off carbon dioxide, they too should be banned. This naturally made a huge impression on the greenie Lib Dems, with the eventual result that last Thursday one of their MEPs moved a motion in the European Parliament calling on Brussels to ban patio heaters.
So imbued are MEPS with a priggish desire to save the planet that 526 voted for the ban, with only 26 against.

In a letter in next day's Daily Telegraph, a Tory MEP, Richard Ashworth, pointed out that the amount of carbon dioxide saved by banning patio heaters in the EU was only slightly less than the amount emitted every year by MEPs themselves, as they engage in the laborious farce of transferring the entire European Parliament every month from Brussels to Strasbourg. Apart from the car, train and plane journeys of the MEPs, this involves a convoy of some 60 trucks trundling 100 miles between the two cities and back again, loaded with trunks-full of parliamentary papers.

Mr Ashworth will doubtless have won plaudits from Telegraph readers reading his letter over the marmalade, for such a telling comment.

But any who then bothered to examine the list of those 526 MEPs who supported this absurd ban might have been surprised to see among them the name of Mr Ashworth.

Frenchy speaks with forked tongue

Who said this in May 2004?

I belong to the Gaulliste family which, wrongly or rightly, has always regarded the popular referendum as one of the most important expressions, indeed the most important expression, of Democracy.

And this in March 2005,

President Jacques Chirac chose the referendum. It was a good decision. A decision which will make it possible each one of us to take our responsibilities by expressing our opinion. To give a say to a sovereign people seems infinitely less risky to me than to try to advance Europe without asking the opinion of those who live it daily. If the European Constitution is, as I believe it to be, a major stage on the slow and patient construction of the Union, no one could understood and even less admit that a vote for all is not held

The same man who said this in November 2007,

"A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."

Harvey's law strikes again.

Egotism and the death of democracy

Sometimes when reading the thoughts of those over here I am well and truly shocked,

Now that the treaty has been agreed upon by the politicians, the question is how to take the process forward and get it actually ratified and put into force. Many argue that the way forward is to have referendums in the Member States to let the people decide on whether they approve the treaty or not.

I think that is a bad idea. The truth is that people have no clue what they are voting on. It is safe to say that close to a 100% of those who would be voting have not, and will not, even read the treaty. The vote would thus not be based on substance but on ideological views far removed from the reality of what is happening. Why would you want people to decide on something they don't know anything about?

There is a good answer to that question. A referendum might be the only way to ensure some sort of a check on the powers of the national and EU governments. Absent a referendum, the politicians can decide on what is good for us and force us to accept it. What we get is a chance to kick them out in a few years at election time if we think they did a bad job which might not be sufficient.

The problem is, as I noted, that we are not competent to vote on it. I for one still haven't studied more than little bits of the darn thing, and don't feel like I could vote yes or no. Given these circumstances, I trust the people I have voted for to make this decision for me. Whether I made the right decision in voting for them, time will tell.

There is of course a simple solution to this bloggers dilemma. Do not vote. However to state that because one does not feel competent to vote thus nobody should do so is egotism on stilts. It is akin to listening to a plutocrat calling for higher taxes for everybody. Nobody stops said plutocrat from putting a greater proportion of their cash into the Treasury, but to call for all to be penalised is arrogance.

My own favourite version of this mindset is the example of Tim Wetherspoon who lobbied for ages to introduce the smoking ban in pubs. I remember hearing him going on about on the Today programme and when it was pointed out that as the owner of well over 100 pubs he could introduce a ban himself he replied along the lines of, "If I do that unilaterally, then I will lose custom to those who do not introduce a similar ban. That is why the ban has to be across the board". Admittedly they did introduce the ban early, but only after the legilstion was already on its way.

It is all part of the same selfish, self important attitude that so disfigures our society. That which I am must necessarily be right and others must be forced to do as I do.

Not in a pluralistic democratic society sunshine, but there again, we are not in a pluralistic democratic society.