As of Monday 19th January 2008 Ken Clarke will be back in the Conservative Shadow Cabinet. Iain Dale has the scoop here.
The next 10 days will be very interesting. There is going to be something of a backlash amongst Conservative voters, and David Cameron will come under fire for this decision. Ken Clarke has seven, maybe ten days to land a big body blow on Peter Mandelson and/or the Labour Party. If he does this, David Cameron's decision will be vindicated.* If not, then the recent poll results which have been showing an overall Conservative Majority will likely slip back, as the anti-Ken voices from within the Conservative Party get louder. Mandelson and Brown will be prepared for his return, suspect they have some counter punches lined up already.
This is not, in my opinion a clause 4 moment for David Cameron. This is not the Conservative setting a new direction, or casting of the burden of unpopular ideology. This is the moment however that the Conservative Party was honest with itself and who they are and what they stand for. Most have suspected since David Cameron accession that he is Pro-EU at heart and wants to lead Britain from inside the EU. I would rather he were more open about this so that it can be debated, rather than a closed issue which will, in the long run, cause greater frustrations and factions within the Conservative Party.
If I was still a likely Conservative voter, and held my previous concerns, this announcement would definitely send me over the edge…. However, paradoxically, now looking in without a sense of voting allegiance it could be a good move for the Conservatives. The only thing, politically speaking, that I want more than to withdraw from the EU is the complete defeat of the current Labour Government. If Ken Clarke's return ensures that The Conservatives move from narrow election majority, to comfortable majority then it may help put more Conservative MPs in Parliament and may subsequently ensure that I get what I want, an open, national debate on continued EU membership.
Of course, there is the chance also that Labour will on Tuesday announce that they are taking the UK into the Euro, then the Conservative party might possible implode into full scale civil war... and my head would explode from the excess rage surging through my brain.
*Provided that Ken Clarke does not then go off and rattle the Tories by a) Standing on a platform with Gordon Brown & Peter Mandelson to promote the Euro or the Lisbon Treaty. B) declares publicly that ‘smoking does not cause cancer’ or C) launches another ill-fated leadership bid. (If I have missed any, please add to the comments…)
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Is Your Number Plate Illegal?
Back in September 2001 the ‘Display of Registration Marks’ act was passed by Parliament to standardise the format of number plates. The legislation looked at the font and size of the plates to make them readable to humans and to machines, such as speed cameras. All of the specifications followed on from, and are within the specifications set out in EC Council Regulation 2411/98. Within the legislation it was decreed that the only national emblem permitted on UK number plates is the 12 star ring of the EU, with two letters to denote the country of registration, i.e. GB.
At the time this met with public outrage, and a number of news outlets and newspapers carried this story. A lot of people had purchased cars and personalised plates in the years prior to 2001 that had the Union Flag, or St George Cross, Scottish Saltire, or Welsh Dragon. Under the law, display of any symbol other that the EU Flag carries up to an £1,000 fine. Furthermore, it is an MOT failure for the car. The legislation allows as an alternative that no symbol be carried, meaning that the choices are no symbol or the EU symbol.
In December 2001, John Spellar the Minister for Transport announced that after overwhelming public opinion and because of calls from the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament that the law would be reviewed. In the meantime police were not to prosecute people for having emblems other than the EU flag. The legislation was to be changed to ensure that motorists would not be prosecuted, and the laws were to be devolved to the Scottish and Welsh legislatures. In fact the statement says "The Government has decided to legislate to allow the voluntary display of national flags and symbols on vehicle number plates. It is what the people of England, Scotland and Wales have asked for and strengthens their feeling of national identity.
Fast-forward to January 2009 and the revised law has not been made through Parliament, and these powers have not been devolved. The law still stands ultimately at European level. EC Council Regulation 2411/98 says – Member States are required to recognise number plates that confirm with this regulation. However, this format is recognised as optional in Finland, Sweden and the UK. If it is optional, why has the law not been changed in the UK?
The DVLA V796 form makes no mention of the UK’s various symbols being allowed. However, some websites that advertise personalised number plates state that they are allowed to use the Scottish Saltire or the Welsh Dragon see Here and Here. However, this site states that only the EU flag may be used where a national emblem is requested.
This whole situation is another example of the UK being overzealous in the interpretation of EU laws, how frustrating and unnecessary these decisions can be. It is the UK Government, not the EU, that has chosen legislate so as to make illegal number plates carrying our national emblems. The UK Government has made the requirement that the EU flag be shown where an emblem is placed, or no emblem be allowed at all. It has done so not at the insistence of European Commission regulation, but chose to do so, on its own initiative. The subsequent announcement to revise the law can be held up as another example of the Labour Government making announcements to quell popular distain that they never had any intention of honouring.
I hope that no one has been prosecuted, fined or met with a MOT failure because of this debacle. If you have, I think you should definitely take this up with your MP, and that you have a strong case for financial and legal recompense.
I personally, will never identify myself with this EU creation of nationhood. I consider myself English and British, as do most people in England. Continued attempts by the EU and the UK government to impose a Euro-nationalism are offensive and dangerous. It is shocking that we can ask people to go represent our nation by fighting in wars for us, by representing us on the field of play in sports and at the Olympics, by representing the UK abroad in trade, in commerce, as an ambassador; only to have that representation upon our vehicles deemed so outrageous that it warrants a fine, and road unworthiness.
I attribute the existence of this and of other perplections of EU association directly to the absence of regular and involved national debate in the UK about our continued membership and its implications.
At the time this met with public outrage, and a number of news outlets and newspapers carried this story. A lot of people had purchased cars and personalised plates in the years prior to 2001 that had the Union Flag, or St George Cross, Scottish Saltire, or Welsh Dragon. Under the law, display of any symbol other that the EU Flag carries up to an £1,000 fine. Furthermore, it is an MOT failure for the car. The legislation allows as an alternative that no symbol be carried, meaning that the choices are no symbol or the EU symbol.
In December 2001, John Spellar the Minister for Transport announced that after overwhelming public opinion and because of calls from the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament that the law would be reviewed. In the meantime police were not to prosecute people for having emblems other than the EU flag. The legislation was to be changed to ensure that motorists would not be prosecuted, and the laws were to be devolved to the Scottish and Welsh legislatures. In fact the statement says "The Government has decided to legislate to allow the voluntary display of national flags and symbols on vehicle number plates. It is what the people of England, Scotland and Wales have asked for and strengthens their feeling of national identity.
Fast-forward to January 2009 and the revised law has not been made through Parliament, and these powers have not been devolved. The law still stands ultimately at European level. EC Council Regulation 2411/98 says – Member States are required to recognise number plates that confirm with this regulation. However, this format is recognised as optional in Finland, Sweden and the UK. If it is optional, why has the law not been changed in the UK?
The DVLA V796 form makes no mention of the UK’s various symbols being allowed. However, some websites that advertise personalised number plates state that they are allowed to use the Scottish Saltire or the Welsh Dragon see Here and Here. However, this site states that only the EU flag may be used where a national emblem is requested.
This whole situation is another example of the UK being overzealous in the interpretation of EU laws, how frustrating and unnecessary these decisions can be. It is the UK Government, not the EU, that has chosen legislate so as to make illegal number plates carrying our national emblems. The UK Government has made the requirement that the EU flag be shown where an emblem is placed, or no emblem be allowed at all. It has done so not at the insistence of European Commission regulation, but chose to do so, on its own initiative. The subsequent announcement to revise the law can be held up as another example of the Labour Government making announcements to quell popular distain that they never had any intention of honouring.
I hope that no one has been prosecuted, fined or met with a MOT failure because of this debacle. If you have, I think you should definitely take this up with your MP, and that you have a strong case for financial and legal recompense.
I personally, will never identify myself with this EU creation of nationhood. I consider myself English and British, as do most people in England. Continued attempts by the EU and the UK government to impose a Euro-nationalism are offensive and dangerous. It is shocking that we can ask people to go represent our nation by fighting in wars for us, by representing us on the field of play in sports and at the Olympics, by representing the UK abroad in trade, in commerce, as an ambassador; only to have that representation upon our vehicles deemed so outrageous that it warrants a fine, and road unworthiness.
I attribute the existence of this and of other perplections of EU association directly to the absence of regular and involved national debate in the UK about our continued membership and its implications.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
My Thanks to Guido Fawkes
As you may have seen in the comments of a previous post, Guido Fawkes has posted a link (repeated here) to get into view Wikileaks available files.
Thank you Guido.
Thank you Guido.
Daniel Ellsberg Video
Wikileaks is still unavailable. The page that everybody is being referred to offers some videos to watch that Wikileaks recommends. I started one, and was only going to watch the first few minutes, but it was very interesting. The video is of Daniel Elllsberg giving a talk to staff at Google. Daniel is famous for two things, firstly for the Ellsberg Paradox, secondly for being the person who leaked the Pentagon Papers to various newspapers in the US.
Because I found it so interesting I am streaming it here as well. It is long at 1:03:54 but covers some very interesting subjects about Government (mostly the one in the US) and Executive Powers. For example, having watched this I have just learned that the US Government does not actually have an Official Secrets Act.
Hopefully Wikileaks will be available again soon and that something more sinister is not taking place. They have, after all been taken offline before by a court in California.
Because I found it so interesting I am streaming it here as well. It is long at 1:03:54 but covers some very interesting subjects about Government (mostly the one in the US) and Executive Powers. For example, having watched this I have just learned that the US Government does not actually have an Official Secrets Act.
Hopefully Wikileaks will be available again soon and that something more sinister is not taking place. They have, after all been taken offline before by a court in California.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Wikileaks Overload
After having blogged that UN Reports Leaked To Wikileaks late last night I thought I would take some time to have a look through some myself tonight. But, I can't access the site, as it seems it is overloaded with people trying to get at these reports.
Still nothing in the MSM about this. This could potentially be the political story of 2009 and no one seems to be reporting or writing about it.
Still nothing in the MSM about this. This could potentially be the political story of 2009 and no one seems to be reporting or writing about it.
MPs Expenses
It was announced (in hushed tones) that MPs will not be forced to publish the receipts for their expenses after all. This is of course disgraceful, and is a thumb in the eye of campaigners for greater openness from our MPs. It will make it a lot easier for MPs to siphon of Tax Payer Cash, increasing the likelihood of misappropriation. More worryingly it would seem the Freedom of Information Act can be, (or at least will be,) circumvented without debate in Parliament.
MPs seem to think they above everybody else.
Trying to slip important news like this out smacks of contempt of the voters; Jo Moore’s previous statements seem to have been taken by MPs as guidance rather than as cautionary. It is amazing that a Party that repeatedly demonstrates that it does not understand the fundamentals of Open Democracy, is charged with defending it.
One of the biggest costs to the tax payers from MPs is that of Second Housing. MP’s that are from Constituencies that are beyond a reasonable commute to and from Parliament can claim their mortgage payments on a second house back from Tax Payers. I would like to propose an altogether fairer and cheaper alternative.
Those MP’s that require weekday accommodation should no longer be able to claim mortgage repayments, but they should be free to reclaim the cost of renting a council house from within The London Boundary.
Council Housing is cheaper per month, than I would imagine the mortgage payment on an Islington Town House. There are other benefits. As it would be reclaimed, the MP would need to assure that they can afford the initial payment in the first place. Also, living among ordinary families and people who are struggling to make their bills, MPs will have a greater appreciation for the day-to-day trials facing the population. Standards of Council Housing would likely soar in the coming years.
It will also be harder for claims of £1,600 for window cleaning and £1,920 for a Pergola (whatever the hell that is?) to be slipped through. If the Kitchen is not up to scratch, don’t charge the Tax Payer thousands of pounds, call the council and they will get someone out.
Actually, I would expect such a recommendation would be more likely supported by a Labour Government, rather than a Conservative Government. I wonder if they will take me up on the idea?
MPs seem to think they above everybody else.
Trying to slip important news like this out smacks of contempt of the voters; Jo Moore’s previous statements seem to have been taken by MPs as guidance rather than as cautionary. It is amazing that a Party that repeatedly demonstrates that it does not understand the fundamentals of Open Democracy, is charged with defending it.
One of the biggest costs to the tax payers from MPs is that of Second Housing. MP’s that are from Constituencies that are beyond a reasonable commute to and from Parliament can claim their mortgage payments on a second house back from Tax Payers. I would like to propose an altogether fairer and cheaper alternative.
Those MP’s that require weekday accommodation should no longer be able to claim mortgage repayments, but they should be free to reclaim the cost of renting a council house from within The London Boundary.
Council Housing is cheaper per month, than I would imagine the mortgage payment on an Islington Town House. There are other benefits. As it would be reclaimed, the MP would need to assure that they can afford the initial payment in the first place. Also, living among ordinary families and people who are struggling to make their bills, MPs will have a greater appreciation for the day-to-day trials facing the population. Standards of Council Housing would likely soar in the coming years.
It will also be harder for claims of £1,600 for window cleaning and £1,920 for a Pergola (whatever the hell that is?) to be slipped through. If the Kitchen is not up to scratch, don’t charge the Tax Payer thousands of pounds, call the council and they will get someone out.
Actually, I would expect such a recommendation would be more likely supported by a Labour Government, rather than a Conservative Government. I wonder if they will take me up on the idea?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
UN Reports Leaked To WikiLeaks
Internal UN reports have been leaked on the Internet to Wikileaks, some of which reveal cases of international horrors involving UN staff. A translated explanatory page states that there are hundreds of reports and that they are listed as "strictly confidential."
The documents are already said to contain details of rape, forced pregnancy, arms trafficking, exploitation of raw materials, theft of relief supplies, fraud, corruption, and allegations of unlawful activities against a UN representative.
The leak has been made possible because of the availability of Wikileaks on the Internet, which allows whistle blowers from all around the world to safely and securely leak information that is of relevance and interest to the public.
Wikileaks are publishing the documents from their site. Which can be found here.
Given the volume of the documents and the massive amounts of information contained within, it is likely to take journalists and interested parties some time to read and review all of the published documents. I wonder if this will make the Main Stream News, or if this will get brushed under the carpet.
The documents are already said to contain details of rape, forced pregnancy, arms trafficking, exploitation of raw materials, theft of relief supplies, fraud, corruption, and allegations of unlawful activities against a UN representative.
The leak has been made possible because of the availability of Wikileaks on the Internet, which allows whistle blowers from all around the world to safely and securely leak information that is of relevance and interest to the public.
Wikileaks are publishing the documents from their site. Which can be found here.
Given the volume of the documents and the massive amounts of information contained within, it is likely to take journalists and interested parties some time to read and review all of the published documents. I wonder if this will make the Main Stream News, or if this will get brushed under the carpet.
What Is The Hurry?
There have been a few opinions in the blogosphere in the last week or so urging David Cameron to have his re-shuffle and be done with it. Where as I understand points being made and that it seems that Cameron is dithering a bit.
I say, why hurry?
There has been some good opinions and debate heard because of this speculation. The MSM does not deem much going on in Westminster to be sexy enough to write about, so we are getting re-shuffle stories.
When the talk moves to Osborne and the Shadow Chancellors job the points made are that Osborne is a good operative, but perhaps not best suited to this particular position. We See instead that the real big beast here is John Redwood, who is doing such a good job in a proxy-shadow chancellor role, especially through his Blog and newspaper work that David Cameron will probably feel safe enough to keep Osborne by his side as Shadow Chancellor.... until elected at least. The Tories are the party with a selection of people who can speak well on the economy. Point being, David Cameron could be viewed as making The Economy his top priority, so much so that he has placed his most trusted and valued advisor in the role to help shape that vision.
Discussion over William Hague has reminded Conservatives that they do have candidates who can play well in the North of England, and that there are people in David Cameron's circle that are not of the Bullingdon Club. Hague is is allowed to speak on EU Sceptic issues (If perhaps not as often as some would like to hear.)
Ken Clarke's heralded return reminds the Conservatives where they were in the 1990's and that if they do attain power they strive to rebut the arrogance that comes from holding office. I shudder at the notion that Ken Clarke could one day be making key decisions on the EU and The Euro - however, he is a conservative and they will get attacked on Europe forever more until the Conservative Party can find a way to talk about it without imploding. Having Ken at the table can remind the top team of the what they can and can not do because of the EU, and how they can avoid stoking the EU debate in the wrong direction. [Though i acknowledge, this is pretty much on Kens terms and for as long as he decides he wants to do that].
I do not share the opinion that Ken Clarke is "The Big Beast", I do not find him a convincing communicator, and I feel he serves as a reminder of a bitter past. Better then that he can talk to those issue directly. He also can bring in support that no other Tory can, something that might tip the balance between a hung parliament and a Conservative Government. As long as Ken Clarke is on board, and David Cameron is honest about the extent Ken Clarke can reach in terms of Ministerial position it may work.
The point to all this is that some of these issues in the recent past would have been very negative talking points in the MSM and the debate would possibly have made the Conservatives look bad to floating voters (EU, Economy, Party Inclusion, Ministers in the Lords etc...). That has not happened. David Cameron has stalled on the proposed re-shuffle, but he isn't having his hand forced on decisions, there is no real question of indecisiveness, only the fear of being perceived as such. Imagine how this would all be playing out in the media if it was Gordon Brown stalling over a re-shuffle.
It also shows that Conservatives do not know how to spin. The official line should be that David Cameron is wading through an extensive list of impressive CV's to determine, in his estimation the very best shadow cabinet available and one in which the people of the UK deserve. This is going to take a little time. The current shadow cabinet is functioning so well that the leader feels no need to make decisions in haste. There, simple really.
I am myself still an undecided voter, but the I just feel it was worth mentioning that the Conservatives are appearing more and more as an electable, desirable party.
I say, why hurry?
There has been some good opinions and debate heard because of this speculation. The MSM does not deem much going on in Westminster to be sexy enough to write about, so we are getting re-shuffle stories.
When the talk moves to Osborne and the Shadow Chancellors job the points made are that Osborne is a good operative, but perhaps not best suited to this particular position. We See instead that the real big beast here is John Redwood, who is doing such a good job in a proxy-shadow chancellor role, especially through his Blog and newspaper work that David Cameron will probably feel safe enough to keep Osborne by his side as Shadow Chancellor.... until elected at least. The Tories are the party with a selection of people who can speak well on the economy. Point being, David Cameron could be viewed as making The Economy his top priority, so much so that he has placed his most trusted and valued advisor in the role to help shape that vision.
Discussion over William Hague has reminded Conservatives that they do have candidates who can play well in the North of England, and that there are people in David Cameron's circle that are not of the Bullingdon Club. Hague is is allowed to speak on EU Sceptic issues (If perhaps not as often as some would like to hear.)
Talk of Alan Duncan's position has reminded Conservatives of a few matters. Firstly he serves as an example of inclusion within the party. Secondly that inclusion is not trumpeted, and points are not attempted to be made off of Mr Duncan's personal business. His position was secured of professional merit, not to pad out the party manifesto or meet a quota. Thirdly, Mandleson's return, in the Lords requires someone to shadow him exclusively. And fourthly, how quick public opinion, especially at the grass roots of the Conservative Party will turn if personal attacks are conducted via the media.
Ken Clarke's heralded return reminds the Conservatives where they were in the 1990's and that if they do attain power they strive to rebut the arrogance that comes from holding office. I shudder at the notion that Ken Clarke could one day be making key decisions on the EU and The Euro - however, he is a conservative and they will get attacked on Europe forever more until the Conservative Party can find a way to talk about it without imploding. Having Ken at the table can remind the top team of the what they can and can not do because of the EU, and how they can avoid stoking the EU debate in the wrong direction. [Though i acknowledge, this is pretty much on Kens terms and for as long as he decides he wants to do that].
I do not share the opinion that Ken Clarke is "The Big Beast", I do not find him a convincing communicator, and I feel he serves as a reminder of a bitter past. Better then that he can talk to those issue directly. He also can bring in support that no other Tory can, something that might tip the balance between a hung parliament and a Conservative Government. As long as Ken Clarke is on board, and David Cameron is honest about the extent Ken Clarke can reach in terms of Ministerial position it may work.
The point to all this is that some of these issues in the recent past would have been very negative talking points in the MSM and the debate would possibly have made the Conservatives look bad to floating voters (EU, Economy, Party Inclusion, Ministers in the Lords etc...). That has not happened. David Cameron has stalled on the proposed re-shuffle, but he isn't having his hand forced on decisions, there is no real question of indecisiveness, only the fear of being perceived as such. Imagine how this would all be playing out in the media if it was Gordon Brown stalling over a re-shuffle.
It also shows that Conservatives do not know how to spin. The official line should be that David Cameron is wading through an extensive list of impressive CV's to determine, in his estimation the very best shadow cabinet available and one in which the people of the UK deserve. This is going to take a little time. The current shadow cabinet is functioning so well that the leader feels no need to make decisions in haste. There, simple really.
I am myself still an undecided voter, but the I just feel it was worth mentioning that the Conservatives are appearing more and more as an electable, desirable party.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Has Belgium Actually Ratified The Lisbon Treaty?
The Internet is a wonderful tool. I have just discovered a new blog called Free Europe. The very first article is - Belgian EU-treaty Ratifications still pending?
It seems that Notre mot à dire/Onze Zeg who are a cross-spectrum alliance of Dutch, French and German speaking democrats from Belgium are disputing whether this has actually happened. Certainly, as far as the general populous of Belgium, The EU and even Wikipedia are concerned, Belgian ratification is a done deal. The group are insistent that ratification has not taken place, and refer to this. (Unfortunately for me, the linked site is not in English, so I am going to struggle to tell you too much. If you are able to verify or discredit this post then feel free to do so in the comments.)
Belgian ratification is dependant upon an agreement between the Federal Parliament and all Regional Parliaments. This has apparently not been completed, and the intra-government agreement is incomplete, thus Royal Assent can not be (and has not yet been) officially granted.
Belgium does not have a functioning government at the moment. One was put together with the intention of ratifying Lisbon, but it quickly fell apart once that was [thought to be] done. Perhaps they were too hasty to disband?
On 9th December 2008 the validity of the Flemish ratification was challenged in the Federal Court, and on the 11th December 2008 the question whether the ratification process without referendum is fair to the people of Belgium.
I have done a few Internet searches, and I can not find anything on an English language site that challenges the assertion that Belgium has finished ratification and deposited the documents in Rome. Certainly it would be hugely embarrassing if the home of the EU could not complete ratification, and may fuel even more splits in the Belgian establishment.
So is this a political scandal, or a naive blogger putting his hopes before the facts? If the court challenge is successful ratification may be pending a referendum, it would be interesting to know if any time constraints are thus applied; especially if that makes the prospect of a promised referendum from David Cameron's Conservatives a real prospect after a UK General Election.
It seems that Notre mot à dire/Onze Zeg who are a cross-spectrum alliance of Dutch, French and German speaking democrats from Belgium are disputing whether this has actually happened. Certainly, as far as the general populous of Belgium, The EU and even Wikipedia are concerned, Belgian ratification is a done deal. The group are insistent that ratification has not taken place, and refer to this. (Unfortunately for me, the linked site is not in English, so I am going to struggle to tell you too much. If you are able to verify or discredit this post then feel free to do so in the comments.)
Belgian ratification is dependant upon an agreement between the Federal Parliament and all Regional Parliaments. This has apparently not been completed, and the intra-government agreement is incomplete, thus Royal Assent can not be (and has not yet been) officially granted.
Belgium does not have a functioning government at the moment. One was put together with the intention of ratifying Lisbon, but it quickly fell apart once that was [thought to be] done. Perhaps they were too hasty to disband?
On 9th December 2008 the validity of the Flemish ratification was challenged in the Federal Court, and on the 11th December 2008 the question whether the ratification process without referendum is fair to the people of Belgium.
I have done a few Internet searches, and I can not find anything on an English language site that challenges the assertion that Belgium has finished ratification and deposited the documents in Rome. Certainly it would be hugely embarrassing if the home of the EU could not complete ratification, and may fuel even more splits in the Belgian establishment.
So is this a political scandal, or a naive blogger putting his hopes before the facts? If the court challenge is successful ratification may be pending a referendum, it would be interesting to know if any time constraints are thus applied; especially if that makes the prospect of a promised referendum from David Cameron's Conservatives a real prospect after a UK General Election.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Farewell George, You Will Be Missed
With one week left until George Bush finally departs the White House, here is a brief look back at some of his memorable moments.
A New Approach To Euroscepticism
There was me preparing to start beating the drum in recent days about the EU, and the need for a new dialogue. Then I saw this over at Coffee House earlier today.
The Tax Payers Alliance and Global Vision will be launching a new campaign on the EU. Have a read.
It is exactly the type of initiative that I will be eager to read up on.... So expect updates and links from this blog in the future.
The Tax Payers Alliance and Global Vision will be launching a new campaign on the EU. Have a read.
It is exactly the type of initiative that I will be eager to read up on.... So expect updates and links from this blog in the future.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Guantánamo Closure?
Reports are leaking tonight (UK time) that President-Elect Obama is ready to give the order to end the detention of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay in his first week of office. This is of course a campaign pledge, and will be well received world wide.
I would personally like to see these captives put to a fair trial in the US. This is of course dependant on available evidence, and an acceptable process being in place. Where no evidence is available then these detainees must be released. We will likely see a scenario whereby a group of individuals currently classed as dangerous by the US government will be released back to their home countries within weeks.
The tragedy of this whole situation is that The US has detained people without due process, which has been an awful example to set. There are rogue nations in this world it is right that the world community looks at these nations and signals its concerns. Those messages have been blunted by a lack of vision and convictions on behalf of the outgoing administration in the US.
If Western Society wants to hold up our society and ways to the developing and oppressed to act as a beacon of hope, we must ensure that those ideals are untainted; for the message is seen not as one of hope, but one of hypocrisy.
I would personally like to see these captives put to a fair trial in the US. This is of course dependant on available evidence, and an acceptable process being in place. Where no evidence is available then these detainees must be released. We will likely see a scenario whereby a group of individuals currently classed as dangerous by the US government will be released back to their home countries within weeks.
The tragedy of this whole situation is that The US has detained people without due process, which has been an awful example to set. There are rogue nations in this world it is right that the world community looks at these nations and signals its concerns. Those messages have been blunted by a lack of vision and convictions on behalf of the outgoing administration in the US.
If Western Society wants to hold up our society and ways to the developing and oppressed to act as a beacon of hope, we must ensure that those ideals are untainted; for the message is seen not as one of hope, but one of hypocrisy.
My EU Scepticism
I blogged earlier here, mostly to link to Rupert Matthews piece on ConHome.
Part of the reason I wanted to start my own blog, was because I wanted to understand and influence peoples opinions on the the EU through debate; and to be able to reach a wider audience than I could just by posting on various MSM sites. However, I am under no illusions of this particular blogs reach.
So let me tell you this. My EU Scepticism began whilst I was studying at University. In an economics assignment we had to look at the proposed single currency. At the time, Britain had not all together ruled out of participation. I had in my teens been enthused by the idea of European Co-operation, and putting in place economic structures across the EU to rival the USA. It became clear through actually looking further than the news headlines that the UK would need to give up monetary and economic independence to be a participant. The price of participation was and is too high.
It is my belief that the more you read into the subject of the EU, the harder it is to like and appreciate it. It did not take long for me to recognise that the European Project was a one-way implementation whereby member nations gave up more and more to a central legislative, executive and judiciary. I find myself outraged some times at the extent of sovereign control that has been assumed by the EU over the UK without the UK populace having been consulted electorally. Power, is supposed to emanate from the people, not be accumulated centrally for control of the people.
The secretive and subversive manner in with the EU has gained control over the lives of the people of Europe should not go unquestioned. But it mostly has. Successive Conservative and Labour Governments have practiced subservience to the EU. Hardly inspirational is it? Make no mistake, it is not just the EU, it is Westminster.
Eventually, most ordinary people grow to dislike the EU. It is by realising this that we can account for the UK position (at home). Broadly, those who oppose it are largely people who have looked into it, who have been stung by it.
Those who actively support the EU are largely career politicians, and/or people who see professional & personal economic benefits. There are also those who see the potential for enforcement of a socialist state. The don't knows, in UK polls typically out-number the people in favour of the EU, especially when a hard question is asked such as for or against continued membership. These undecideds are the people that need to be awakened to the points in this particular debate, people have a remarkable capacity to form opinions when those opinions are deemed to matter.
My EU Scepticism started with and has grown since that project. I would very much like to hear why it is you are for or against the EU. I am also interested in what you think the UK should do on The EU, on Lisbon and on the EURO.
Part of the reason I wanted to start my own blog, was because I wanted to understand and influence peoples opinions on the the EU through debate; and to be able to reach a wider audience than I could just by posting on various MSM sites. However, I am under no illusions of this particular blogs reach.
So let me tell you this. My EU Scepticism began whilst I was studying at University. In an economics assignment we had to look at the proposed single currency. At the time, Britain had not all together ruled out of participation. I had in my teens been enthused by the idea of European Co-operation, and putting in place economic structures across the EU to rival the USA. It became clear through actually looking further than the news headlines that the UK would need to give up monetary and economic independence to be a participant. The price of participation was and is too high.
It is my belief that the more you read into the subject of the EU, the harder it is to like and appreciate it. It did not take long for me to recognise that the European Project was a one-way implementation whereby member nations gave up more and more to a central legislative, executive and judiciary. I find myself outraged some times at the extent of sovereign control that has been assumed by the EU over the UK without the UK populace having been consulted electorally. Power, is supposed to emanate from the people, not be accumulated centrally for control of the people.
The secretive and subversive manner in with the EU has gained control over the lives of the people of Europe should not go unquestioned. But it mostly has. Successive Conservative and Labour Governments have practiced subservience to the EU. Hardly inspirational is it? Make no mistake, it is not just the EU, it is Westminster.
Eventually, most ordinary people grow to dislike the EU. It is by realising this that we can account for the UK position (at home). Broadly, those who oppose it are largely people who have looked into it, who have been stung by it.
Those who actively support the EU are largely career politicians, and/or people who see professional & personal economic benefits. There are also those who see the potential for enforcement of a socialist state. The don't knows, in UK polls typically out-number the people in favour of the EU, especially when a hard question is asked such as for or against continued membership. These undecideds are the people that need to be awakened to the points in this particular debate, people have a remarkable capacity to form opinions when those opinions are deemed to matter.
My EU Scepticism started with and has grown since that project. I would very much like to hear why it is you are for or against the EU. I am also interested in what you think the UK should do on The EU, on Lisbon and on the EURO.
Can Britain Leave the EU (2) ?
The second part of MEP Rupert Matthews analysis is here.
It is another interesting piece. I certainly did not get the impression from the Lisbon debates that The Constitutional Treaty allowed for the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs to also head up The European Defence Agency, and thus have right of initiative to propose EU-led military operations. More worryingly the power for the EU to deploy EU troops in ANY EU country without the approval of the national government.
Please read the whole article, as it is yet another eye opener.
There is not a whole lot remaining that the Nation States of the EU can decide upon, independently. The above provisions, have been ushered through as a part of Lisbon under the guise of being a revising treaty of previous EU treaties. One day the people of the EU are going to wake up and rise up against the EU. The EU no longer needs to worry. From this year it will control our armed forces, our nuclear arsenals, our seat on the UN, they have the capacity NOW to control any aspect of their lives that they chose, soon they will have the muscle to enforce their laws.
2009 is THE LAST CHANCE for people of the UK to make a peaceful yet forceful statement to the politicians of the UK. The time for real consultation of the electorate has been and gone. We need to start demanding that more is said and written about the EU. If you find the contents of the Lisbon Treaty unacceptable, then you (like I will, again) need to write to your MP and MEP to register your disapproval. By the combined voracity of our arguments, we CAN force the UKs absorption into the superstate to the top of the political agenda; where the issue belongs.
There will be a General Election in 2009 or 2010. This is the Election where meaningful changes to our relationship can be made, before that relationship finally and irrevocably tips into that of absorbed region.
It is another interesting piece. I certainly did not get the impression from the Lisbon debates that The Constitutional Treaty allowed for the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs to also head up The European Defence Agency, and thus have right of initiative to propose EU-led military operations. More worryingly the power for the EU to deploy EU troops in ANY EU country without the approval of the national government.
Please read the whole article, as it is yet another eye opener.
There is not a whole lot remaining that the Nation States of the EU can decide upon, independently. The above provisions, have been ushered through as a part of Lisbon under the guise of being a revising treaty of previous EU treaties. One day the people of the EU are going to wake up and rise up against the EU. The EU no longer needs to worry. From this year it will control our armed forces, our nuclear arsenals, our seat on the UN, they have the capacity NOW to control any aspect of their lives that they chose, soon they will have the muscle to enforce their laws.
2009 is THE LAST CHANCE for people of the UK to make a peaceful yet forceful statement to the politicians of the UK. The time for real consultation of the electorate has been and gone. We need to start demanding that more is said and written about the EU. If you find the contents of the Lisbon Treaty unacceptable, then you (like I will, again) need to write to your MP and MEP to register your disapproval. By the combined voracity of our arguments, we CAN force the UKs absorption into the superstate to the top of the political agenda; where the issue belongs.
There will be a General Election in 2009 or 2010. This is the Election where meaningful changes to our relationship can be made, before that relationship finally and irrevocably tips into that of absorbed region.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
10 Downing Street Petitions
If you are a resident of the UK you can petition the Government on anything that you like. I am not sure that the Government takes these petitions too seriously.
Here are a few current petitions that you might be interested in signing (?)
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resist all calls for GCHQ to monitor all email and internet activity in the UK. Here. Deadline, 13 October 2009, currently 798 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Prosecute women who use false accusations to restrict fathers access to children. Here. Deadline 18th February 2009, currently 224 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to call a general election immediately. Here. Deadline 27 June 2009, currenlty 520 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop plans for the Privatisation of Security within HMRC. Here. Deadline 23 April 2009, currently 361 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap the t.v licence and force the bbc to fund itself!. Here. Deadline 02 March 2009, currently 234 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to order an INDEPENDANT and public audit of MP expenses and second home allowances. Here. Deadline 11 January 2009, currently 119 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Hold a referendum on Great Britain's further involvement with the European Union. Here. Deadline 06 February 2009, currently 97 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to repeal the law which stops protesting within one mile of Parliament. Here. Deadline 27 December 2009, currently 42 Signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Demand full publication of the report by European Union Auditors into alleged misuse of expenses by MEP's. Here. Deadline 29 April 2009, currently 38 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reintroduce the ten pence tax band urgently, in order to prevent low paid workers facing a painful increase in the tax they pay on their income. Here. Deadline 04 April 2009, currently 4,939 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resign due to gross financial incompetence in running the British economy. Here. Deadline 15 January 2009, currently 889 signatures.
There are plenty more here.
Here are a few current petitions that you might be interested in signing (?)
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resist all calls for GCHQ to monitor all email and internet activity in the UK. Here. Deadline, 13 October 2009, currently 798 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Prosecute women who use false accusations to restrict fathers access to children. Here. Deadline 18th February 2009, currently 224 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to call a general election immediately. Here. Deadline 27 June 2009, currenlty 520 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop plans for the Privatisation of Security within HMRC. Here. Deadline 23 April 2009, currently 361 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap the t.v licence and force the bbc to fund itself!. Here. Deadline 02 March 2009, currently 234 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to order an INDEPENDANT and public audit of MP expenses and second home allowances. Here. Deadline 11 January 2009, currently 119 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Hold a referendum on Great Britain's further involvement with the European Union. Here. Deadline 06 February 2009, currently 97 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to repeal the law which stops protesting within one mile of Parliament. Here. Deadline 27 December 2009, currently 42 Signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Demand full publication of the report by European Union Auditors into alleged misuse of expenses by MEP's. Here. Deadline 29 April 2009, currently 38 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reintroduce the ten pence tax band urgently, in order to prevent low paid workers facing a painful increase in the tax they pay on their income. Here. Deadline 04 April 2009, currently 4,939 signatures.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resign due to gross financial incompetence in running the British economy. Here. Deadline 15 January 2009, currently 889 signatures.
There are plenty more here.
Can Britain Leave the EU?
I would like to think so. I would like to think that public opinion will harden further in the next two or three years so that we could have a public debate on this very issue.
Rupert Matthews, Conservative MEP asks the question on Conservative Home. In his words, one does not needs to think Britain should leave the EU to find the debate interesting.
In case you are wondering if the British Public would support leaving the EU, I shall refer you to the results of the Referendum held in Luton, organised by ITV's Tonight Programme which aired on 20th October 2008.
63% of people in Luton VOTED to reject the Lisbon Treaty, and 54% VOTED to leave the EU altogether.
Rupert Matthews, Conservative MEP asks the question on Conservative Home. In his words, one does not needs to think Britain should leave the EU to find the debate interesting.
In case you are wondering if the British Public would support leaving the EU, I shall refer you to the results of the Referendum held in Luton, organised by ITV's Tonight Programme which aired on 20th October 2008.
63% of people in Luton VOTED to reject the Lisbon Treaty, and 54% VOTED to leave the EU altogether.
EU to take control of North Sea Gas And Oil?
The Daily Express reported here that the EU is planning to take control of Britain's North Sea Gas and Oil reserves, as well as Dutch resources.
The EU Logic is that because there is a danger of energy supplies being severed from Russia they must act to ensure European Energy Security.
Despite this story making the front page of yesterdays Daily Express, I have not seen reference made on the TV news, and I did not spot this yesterday on The Times, The Independent or Telegraph Websites. (Bloggers for UKIP have their take here). So Bravo to the Daily Express for not only writing about this, but for giving it some prominence.
This is the latest in a really ridiculously long line of infringements upon the British, and of teh EU over Europes Nation States. It is telling that the EU obviously feels that there will be no significant opposition from The UK and The Netherlands. The mindset of our EU Masters is that anything that falls within the EU borders is theirs to control, should they feel they want to.
Is this what your MP's and MEP's are telling you? The Lisbon Constitutional Treaty according to the Labour Party was not to grant additional powers or facilitate further seizing of assets or sovereignty. It was a "tidying up exercise" But then again they lied about giving people a referendum on it, so why not lie again at the extent of the Treaty's powers.
What are the people of the United Kingdom going to do about this? My guess is absolutely nothing. The people of this country have largely become sheep. The game is that Politicians and Media decide what people should care about, if they don't TELL YOU to be worried, you are not. I am not trying to be sanctimonious, but I CHOOSE what I care about. This country would be less of a walk over if more people did the same.
We are still paying these people through our taxes, I think we need to be a whole lot more demanding about what we are getting for our money.
The EU Logic is that because there is a danger of energy supplies being severed from Russia they must act to ensure European Energy Security.
Despite this story making the front page of yesterdays Daily Express, I have not seen reference made on the TV news, and I did not spot this yesterday on The Times, The Independent or Telegraph Websites. (Bloggers for UKIP have their take here). So Bravo to the Daily Express for not only writing about this, but for giving it some prominence.
This is the latest in a really ridiculously long line of infringements upon the British, and of teh EU over Europes Nation States. It is telling that the EU obviously feels that there will be no significant opposition from The UK and The Netherlands. The mindset of our EU Masters is that anything that falls within the EU borders is theirs to control, should they feel they want to.
Is this what your MP's and MEP's are telling you? The Lisbon Constitutional Treaty according to the Labour Party was not to grant additional powers or facilitate further seizing of assets or sovereignty. It was a "tidying up exercise" But then again they lied about giving people a referendum on it, so why not lie again at the extent of the Treaty's powers.
What are the people of the United Kingdom going to do about this? My guess is absolutely nothing. The people of this country have largely become sheep. The game is that Politicians and Media decide what people should care about, if they don't TELL YOU to be worried, you are not. I am not trying to be sanctimonious, but I CHOOSE what I care about. This country would be less of a walk over if more people did the same.
We are still paying these people through our taxes, I think we need to be a whole lot more demanding about what we are getting for our money.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Economic Stimuli
The BoE has cut interest rates again by 0.5% to a base rate of 1.5%. Now I may be showing some economic ignorance here, but isn't this below where the ideal rate should be? It was a good move to start cutting the interest rates last year, in fact to my mind the cuts started a little late.
However, what benefit does the person on the street get from rates much below 3%? Not much unless you are on variable mortgages or rare products that track below 3%. Just the other day, the Tories announced a tax break for basic-rate savers this was well received, so why are we punishing savers with rates that are too low? The banks are now passing the rate cuts onto borrowers, not even the ones owned by the Government!
Sudden excesses in the printing money are like Guido says, Mugabinomics, and as such is the litmus test for any Governments level of desperation.
What do I think?
All of the world money is spinning around in Asia, we need to get some of it back over here. To do this we need to offer to the good people in Asia products and services that they want to purchase at competitive prices. Plans to stimulate the British Economy should focus on how we can grow our trade and presence in the emerging markets in the world. We should be looking to help British Companies that have the potential to do well in Asia help with grants and tax breaks. Why haven't we done this already? Probably because the UK no longer has any real ability to make trade decisions in the wider world, as this is a function of the European Commission. Could it possibly be that in times of economic depression the National Governments of the EU no longer have the executive means and independance in which to implement necessary changes to domestic economic policies?
So, why not just address this issue instead of sending the printing presses into overdrive and punishing those people that showed the wisdom to save instead of borrowing excessively? Probably so Mr Brown can tell the world that this way is better than being a “Do-Nothing Tory”.
However, what benefit does the person on the street get from rates much below 3%? Not much unless you are on variable mortgages or rare products that track below 3%. Just the other day, the Tories announced a tax break for basic-rate savers this was well received, so why are we punishing savers with rates that are too low? The banks are now passing the rate cuts onto borrowers, not even the ones owned by the Government!
Sudden excesses in the printing money are like Guido says, Mugabinomics, and as such is the litmus test for any Governments level of desperation.
What do I think?
All of the world money is spinning around in Asia, we need to get some of it back over here. To do this we need to offer to the good people in Asia products and services that they want to purchase at competitive prices. Plans to stimulate the British Economy should focus on how we can grow our trade and presence in the emerging markets in the world. We should be looking to help British Companies that have the potential to do well in Asia help with grants and tax breaks. Why haven't we done this already? Probably because the UK no longer has any real ability to make trade decisions in the wider world, as this is a function of the European Commission. Could it possibly be that in times of economic depression the National Governments of the EU no longer have the executive means and independance in which to implement necessary changes to domestic economic policies?
So, why not just address this issue instead of sending the printing presses into overdrive and punishing those people that showed the wisdom to save instead of borrowing excessively? Probably so Mr Brown can tell the world that this way is better than being a “Do-Nothing Tory”.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
I'm Twittering Too
I am not really one for jumping on the bandwagon when a new trend emerges. None the less, if it still counts as new, I am now on Twitter. I couldn't get daniel1979 as this was gone, so for Twittering purposes you can follow me there as danny1979.
You may have already noticed, but there is an automatic feed to the top of this blog.
You may have already noticed, but there is an automatic feed to the top of this blog.
An Understanding Of Israel
If you are following what is going on, please also read this by Danny Finkelstein of The Times.
Is Tintin Gay?
Saw this on the Times and had a bit of a chuckle. Annoyingly not sure who to credit as Matthew Parris is listed in the header, and Hugo Rifkind at the end. None the less, the author has turned their Gaydar on in Tintins direction...
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article5461005.ece
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article5461005.ece
Monday, January 05, 2009
Tory Tax Cutters
I am very happy to hear today that David Cameron has unveiled a multi-billion pound tax cut today. These measures will have very little direct impact on someone like myself, I am on basic-rate but have little savings, and I am nowhere near being a pensioner.
But it is the message and direction that I am happy with. I have stated before on here that I am an undecided voter, todays announcement alone is not enough for me – but it is a very welcome first step.
Why do I think so?
Firstly, there is clear blue water now between Conservative and Labour Economic policies. It was only a few months ago that the Conservatives were still pledging to match Labour Spending plans in the event of the Conservatives taking office, they were slow to drop this pledge, and some of their other messages about the Government’s economic policies did not register. It also gives the Conservatives something to hit Labour back with when they chant their mantra about “Do-Nothing Tories”
Secondly, it is a good tax cut. Unlike a cut in VAT which we know is to be reversed, and which pales in comparison to some of the price slashing on the high-street. And unlike a suspension of stamp duty, these cuts are intended to benefit the people they target, and will likely be passed on to stimulate the wider economy. Families on basic rate incomes will not have much savings, but what is nested in the year will be for Holidays, Cars, Furniture, White Goods, School Uniforms, or for security, when things in life go wrong. Families need help, and will still be looking spend on, but only if they can afford to these types of things. It is likely to be struggling parents that have been loyal to Labour in the past decade that will decide the next election.
It should not be forgotten also that there is a large ex-pat community some of whom are living on savings interest that will also find this announcement appealing, many of whom are ex-pats because of a wider disapproval of the current government, but will be voting when the election comes.
I also welcome the increased threshold for pensioners. When a person reaches the end of their career they should not have to be worried about their incomes, this should be the time in which they enjoy life. MPs Pensions have sky-rocketed in the last decade, disproportionate to those people that they work for. It is right that Pensioners benefit early on for initial tax benefits.
The thing I like the most though is this line.
“We need to make a really big change: from an economy built on debt to an economy built on saving. From a country and government that has lived beyond its means to one that lives within its means.
“But Labour’s recession policy actually increases debt and undermines savings.”
This is the sensible Conservative statement Tory supporters have been waiting all of Mr Cameron’s reign for. I believe it will be well received across the MSM and the blogosphere. It is a hard statement for Labour to argue against, and as such Conservatives will be making sure this statement is repeated again and again.
But it is the message and direction that I am happy with. I have stated before on here that I am an undecided voter, todays announcement alone is not enough for me – but it is a very welcome first step.
Why do I think so?
Firstly, there is clear blue water now between Conservative and Labour Economic policies. It was only a few months ago that the Conservatives were still pledging to match Labour Spending plans in the event of the Conservatives taking office, they were slow to drop this pledge, and some of their other messages about the Government’s economic policies did not register. It also gives the Conservatives something to hit Labour back with when they chant their mantra about “Do-Nothing Tories”
Secondly, it is a good tax cut. Unlike a cut in VAT which we know is to be reversed, and which pales in comparison to some of the price slashing on the high-street. And unlike a suspension of stamp duty, these cuts are intended to benefit the people they target, and will likely be passed on to stimulate the wider economy. Families on basic rate incomes will not have much savings, but what is nested in the year will be for Holidays, Cars, Furniture, White Goods, School Uniforms, or for security, when things in life go wrong. Families need help, and will still be looking spend on, but only if they can afford to these types of things. It is likely to be struggling parents that have been loyal to Labour in the past decade that will decide the next election.
It should not be forgotten also that there is a large ex-pat community some of whom are living on savings interest that will also find this announcement appealing, many of whom are ex-pats because of a wider disapproval of the current government, but will be voting when the election comes.
I also welcome the increased threshold for pensioners. When a person reaches the end of their career they should not have to be worried about their incomes, this should be the time in which they enjoy life. MPs Pensions have sky-rocketed in the last decade, disproportionate to those people that they work for. It is right that Pensioners benefit early on for initial tax benefits.
The thing I like the most though is this line.
“We need to make a really big change: from an economy built on debt to an economy built on saving. From a country and government that has lived beyond its means to one that lives within its means.
“But Labour’s recession policy actually increases debt and undermines savings.”
This is the sensible Conservative statement Tory supporters have been waiting all of Mr Cameron’s reign for. I believe it will be well received across the MSM and the blogosphere. It is a hard statement for Labour to argue against, and as such Conservatives will be making sure this statement is repeated again and again.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
NHS Organ Donations
Just a month or so back there was some national press and some day time TV chit chat about changing the current laws on Organ Donations in the UK. The argument was on whether, when you die your organs should automatically become available should a patient need them. The idea being to reverse the Donor Card Scheme, so that instead of carrying a card to declare that your organs can be used, an individual should instead opt out of having their organs donated.
I seem to recall there were some impassioned pleas from those people who had lost family members due to a lack of available organs, and then they explained that if it was your loved one dying, and you knew that there was an available organ you would be just as insistent that those organs should be available.
It is a debate that has two contrasting and emotive viewpoints. I hear and understand the argument for a rule change here, but I respectfully disagree. To change the rules to the opt-out system is to grant the State control and ultimately ownership of our bodies and our organs. Initial opt-out schemes would inevitably become regulated as more people opted out and the debate that would follow would surely lead to opt-out based on prescribed criteria, not on an individual’s wishes.
I would also be personally distressed to find myself in an intensive care unit, after some hyperthetical unforeseen accident and tragedy; could I as a patient know conclusively that the medical practitioners charged with my care are doing everything possible to save my life? Is it possible that some Doctors would make decisions differently in the care of very ill patients based on the viability of organ donation?
Please see this article from today’s Times, by Health Editor Sarah-Kate Templeton. It seems that the organs from 50 NHS donors have been sold to foreign patients who have paid up to £75,000 for each private transplant all in the past two years. Some of these liver transplants took place in NHS hospitals, despite 8,000 Brits being on the organ transplant list, and 260 waiting for Livers.
The article makes known that 40 Patients from Greece & Cyprus received their liver transplants in the UK, paid for by their national governments. But donated Livers, deemed unsuitable for use on UK patients were also given to people from Libya, The United Arab Emirates, China and Israel. As the work is carried out privately, in NHS hospitals though, the surgeons who carry out the operations receive a fee.
Why is this allowed to happen? It is of course British Interpretation of European Law. EU Citizens are largely treated in the UK by the NHS the same as UK citizens.
It is probably evident that my understanding of the law is not up to that of NHS lawyers, and perhaps somebody could enlighten me here. Why are we selling organs when we have so many people here seeking replacement organs?
Where is the NHS (and by extension the Government) authorised to profit from the donations scheme. When I, agreed to donate my organs I was under the impression that they would be made available if required, to a British recipient, and that they were free to that person that needed them. I was not aware that having given my consent that they could be sold for a profit. I may be wrong, but I don’t imagine that the donor’s families received any of that money? Am I crazy, or was that not the expectation of others?? I would guess it is, as there is nothing here to suggest otherwise.
Don’t bother writing to your MP. I doubt this can be reversed in Westminster.
I seem to recall there were some impassioned pleas from those people who had lost family members due to a lack of available organs, and then they explained that if it was your loved one dying, and you knew that there was an available organ you would be just as insistent that those organs should be available.
It is a debate that has two contrasting and emotive viewpoints. I hear and understand the argument for a rule change here, but I respectfully disagree. To change the rules to the opt-out system is to grant the State control and ultimately ownership of our bodies and our organs. Initial opt-out schemes would inevitably become regulated as more people opted out and the debate that would follow would surely lead to opt-out based on prescribed criteria, not on an individual’s wishes.
I would also be personally distressed to find myself in an intensive care unit, after some hyperthetical unforeseen accident and tragedy; could I as a patient know conclusively that the medical practitioners charged with my care are doing everything possible to save my life? Is it possible that some Doctors would make decisions differently in the care of very ill patients based on the viability of organ donation?
Please see this article from today’s Times, by Health Editor Sarah-Kate Templeton. It seems that the organs from 50 NHS donors have been sold to foreign patients who have paid up to £75,000 for each private transplant all in the past two years. Some of these liver transplants took place in NHS hospitals, despite 8,000 Brits being on the organ transplant list, and 260 waiting for Livers.
The article makes known that 40 Patients from Greece & Cyprus received their liver transplants in the UK, paid for by their national governments. But donated Livers, deemed unsuitable for use on UK patients were also given to people from Libya, The United Arab Emirates, China and Israel. As the work is carried out privately, in NHS hospitals though, the surgeons who carry out the operations receive a fee.
Why is this allowed to happen? It is of course British Interpretation of European Law. EU Citizens are largely treated in the UK by the NHS the same as UK citizens.
It is probably evident that my understanding of the law is not up to that of NHS lawyers, and perhaps somebody could enlighten me here. Why are we selling organs when we have so many people here seeking replacement organs?
Where is the NHS (and by extension the Government) authorised to profit from the donations scheme. When I, agreed to donate my organs I was under the impression that they would be made available if required, to a British recipient, and that they were free to that person that needed them. I was not aware that having given my consent that they could be sold for a profit. I may be wrong, but I don’t imagine that the donor’s families received any of that money? Am I crazy, or was that not the expectation of others?? I would guess it is, as there is nothing here to suggest otherwise.
Don’t bother writing to your MP. I doubt this can be reversed in Westminster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)