Cllr. Gavin Ayling

I always get more excited about these things than most, but still - this is great:

Scientific American: Live Giant Squid Photographed for First Time

Just an excellent link: Justify This’ post. Mal treatment of young minds not only damages the children of today, but damages the chance of the generation that follows. We must hope that the withdrawal from Gaza makes the Palestinians realise that their future is bright if only they stop condoning, celebrating and participating in murder.

The 6 December has rarely been so important. This year, the 6th of December could mean a separation of the “most successful political party in the West” into a pro-Clarke party and an anti-Clarke party.

It is hard to see how the majority of members could reconcile having a Liberal Democrat (Ken Clarke) as party leader. People join political parties because they believe in the ideology of the party and the party leader personifies that ideology. I believe that Ken’s ideology is so far removed from that of the grass roots members, especially on the important topic of Europe, that a massive shift in membership loyalty would be inevitable.

David Davis remains the favourite and, despite what the BBC would have us believe, Ken Clarke is not the most popular in the rank and file of the party. People voted for IDS last time despite having never heard of him to avoid that prospect, so to suggest that now, given a likely excellent alternative, David Davis would not win with the membership, I hope, is fanciful.

Of course if the parliamentary party saddles us with a choice of Malcolm Rifkind or Ken Clarke then there will be serious membership repurcussions, but I doubt that will happen.

The most likely result, I expect, is that David Davis and one other will be selected for the membership to vote on. If the membership is offered David Cameron and David Davis, the choice becomes more interesting, but any other combination of David Davis and another should have a predictably pro-Davis result.

I have published this now, so you will be able to check my rather brave assertions on the 6th!

If you believe this, you’ll believe anything, but let’s hope they do actually act on it. The EU Commission has already withdrawn the proposed “Coffee packaging directive” which would have involved the EU in “standardising the size of package that coffee can be sold in”.

Well, that’s a start. Now only 20,000 directives to go.

The BBC today suggests that the North Sea “needs to be managed as a complete ecosystem”.

I have a better idea - stop Europeans fishing our waters at the expense of our fishermen. The UK had been managing fish stocks and there were sufficient fish for a long period. It is only since the Common Fisheries Policy allowed English fishermen to play second-fiddle to the Spanish that fish stocks started to suffer. Fishing is a tiny part of our economy, but it is an English and Scottish resource that should not be being plundered by the EU.

It is compelling to claim that there are any number of other reasons for the decline in fish stocks, sea temperatures being particularly ‘trendy’ as it fits with the let’s stop everyone from using their car philosophy. Unfortunately, whatever truth there is in global warming’s impact, it is negligible compared to the EU’s mismanagement of English and Scottish waters.

It is time the UK government withdrew (from the EU, I suppose you thought I’d say that!) from the Common Fisheries Policy in the first instance.

The BBC has more on this subject today, including an excellent In pictures.

• The American continent remains unenlightened; and
• Our government (spitting)

I welcome comments, I really do. That is why I will republish Asdaasda’s thoughtful words and explain clearly what is wrong with the EU.

Asdaasda said:

Asdaasda has every right to dislike people because of their political beliefs. I try not to unless these people are unable to talk about anything else. Hate is a little strong though.

Most people, rightly, do not support the EU and entry into the EU is not possible as we are already members. The EU is not the single market that was voted upon in the last and only referendum. Heath admitted that he lied (or mislead - potato, potarto) about the EU’s intentions. Still people pretend that the EU is a supranational organisation with no ambitions to be a country in its own right. This is false in the most vehement terms.

The EU is gradually adding new powers and structures. There is no good reason for this unless things are getting more integrated. If the EU should have those powers now, why shouldn’t it have had them in 1986 or 1992 when the Single European Act and Maastricht treaties were signed? If things are getting steadily closer to an EU nation, why should we assume that it will stop?

The EU is currently set up with several institutions. First there is the Commission which is made up of members appointed by the member states’ heads of state. The member appointed by the Queen (Tony Blair in reality), is Peter Mandelson. Previously it was Neil Kinnock; next I am sure it will be David Blunkett or Tony Blair (as other failed or jobless politicians). Officially Commissioners, as they are called, should have no loyalty to their home nation and should work for the benefit of the EU. This is a task that I challenge anyone to fulfil - there’s patriotism, loyalty and many other pressures that are far too great.

Second there is the European Parliament. The European Parliament is voted by proportional representation within regions approximately the size of German Lander. These regions are a lovechild of the Labour party which wants to split that troublesome English nation which insists on being eurosceptic. In the European elections in 2004, the results were 40 UK MEPs for eurosceptic parties and 36 UK MEPs for pro-EU parties. This allows for the fact that there are pro-EU Conservative members (though few) and eurosceptic Labour, Lib Dem, SNP and Plaid Cymru members. Aside from the celtic fringe, England voted for eurosceptic parties overwhelmingly. The UK is eurosceptic and England more so.

The last point Asdaasda makes is that us eurosceptics claim the EU is undemocratic. Let me address that. Bearing in mind that the Commission is appointed by heads of state (who in many countries, including the UK, are not directly elected themselves), they are subject to removal by the European Parliament. Unfortunately if the European Parliament, the only democratic institution in the EU thinks that a Commissioner should be removed, they must remove the whole Commission. This means that a single Commissioner who is dipping into funds and using for his own means, or who isn’t putting the EU first as his priority, can only be removed by Parliament if the Parliament thinks it is acceptable to remove all the Commissioners and all the upheaval that causes. After that, there is nothing to stop the head of state responsible for that Commissioner from reappointing them.

The Commission makes policy, the Parliament votes on it. No other country works with an unelected policy-making unit. No other country’s policy-making unit could afford to be politically aligned forever. Some activities of the Commission are wholly not subject to democratic oversight - the recent trade debacle is an example of this.

Third there is the Council of the EU. This is the heads of state (or their representatives in the case of Tony Blair for Her Maj) of the member states, who meet from time to time in Inter-Governmental Conferences (IGCs). These people are making decisions for their own country in many circumstances, but also trying to make a deal with wildly differing cultures and with countries with massive differences in their economy and aims. Rarely does a head of state from any country return to their country as a victor in these negotiations. Every IGC has resulted in further ‘integration’, ’standardisation’ and shift of power away from member states and towards Brussels.

Finally there is the European Court of Justice. This should not be confused with the European Court of Human Rights which is part of the Council of Europe (also not an EU institution). The ECJ does not provide any tangible benefits above the superior courts of each of the Member States. Any failure in member states’ systems for dealing with people’s judicial experience should not be dealt with by a further level of justice by a European-wide court. The highest court in England is the House of Lords. Whether you think this should be the case or not, the need for a further, higher court in Europe cannot be made. Elected governments (note, elected) could , if necessary, institute a highest court that suits a nation’s needs. A European Court only means that member states are no longer in charge of judicial process.

Financially, the EU is a complete waste. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) consumes nearly 50% of the EU budget (my money as well as yours) and pays “80 percent of the money going to just 20 percent of producers” (source). The amount of money spent on CAP (90 billion euros) could pay for A LOT. The rest of the EU budget is spent on other countries - the UK does not benefit financially from the EU regardless of trade-as-a-result considerations.

Other European Structures

• Council of Europe: I have never had the case for or against the Council of Europe made. It is not the European Union and should not be confused with it.
• European Court of Human Rights: This is part of the Council of Europe.
• European Space Agency (ESA): This is a non-governmental organisation which costs each European approximately £5 per year - an absolute bargain in my book. It works with the EU, but is vehemently not (yet?) an EU institution.

European Links

• Council of Europe
• EU
• Daniel Hannan MEP
• People’s No Campaign
• False Propaganda - let me know if you would like me to explain each point.
• Democracy Movement

Click here

My grandmother uses the words “Whim-wham for a mustard mill” to mean that a child is excitable and doesn’t sit still. The only other use of it on the internet says that it means something that is unidentifiable.

There is a similar saying on the internet: “Whim-wham for a goose’s bridle” that appears to be much more widespread but was used as the answer to an unwanted question:

“What ya’ doing?”
“I’m making a whim-wham for a goose’s bridle.”

Have any of you heard the earlier saying? I posted it here just so that it would be preserved as no-one I speak to has heard the saying except this guy.

Brighton is undergoing a major facelift. The excellent Regency Society has pages of information that should be browsed. The resurgence in building and development in Brighton must be close to comparing with the changes of the 1960’s. However, the 1960’s was not a good time for architecture. Despite leaving behind excellent buildings like Hove Town Hall, it also left us with the old Churchill Square and Embassy Court (b).

The image (a) shows the number of cranes over Brighton. Not just those involved in the Brighton Station area (before/ now), but in projects like 3 Old Steine and elsewhere.

a:

The number of building projects recently completed, in progress or due is just mind blowing for a reasonably small city. There is, City Park, 3 Old Steine, the buildings above the world’s oldest Aquarium, Brighton Marina’s waterfront (c) and future project (e), Brighton Station, Embassy Court (b) renewal, Hove Tescos, Brighton Library (f), King Alfred Leisure Centre, Black Rock Ice Rink, Brighton & Hove Albion Falmer Stadium, City Gateway, the replacement of the Brighton Centre and so many more that I’m stopping before my fingers bleed!

b:

c:

d:

e:

f:

Links:
My Brighton and Hove
Regency Society

Each year the NHS budget is £69,700,000,000. That’s over £1,000 per person and over £3,000 per working person in the UK.

As a coeliac, I take probably all of that £1,000 in prescription gluten free food. A quick estimate suggests I remove from the NHS £450 per year on flour alone (approx £7 per box), but even I, an unusually heavy user for my age, do not take out my whole family’s £4,000 per year ‘contribution’. If everyone younger than me, and most people a good deal older than me are not using the £1,000 amount, I have to ask who is getting good value from the NHS? There will be the occasional person who takes out more than their £1,000 in a given year, and the still rarer person who costs the NHS more than that for longer or even the whole of their life, but the vast majority of us are not going to be using that much.

Now consider that the NHS went into the red this year, and that it isn’t the world’s best health service at any rate, and you have to ask yourself whether we need to look again at how the NHS is run. The NHS is a just and necessary thing, the US model of “can’t pay, can’t stay in hospital” is sick and inhumane - I cannot see a situation where I would call for its removal - but there must be something done about spiralling costs.

Much of the NHS spend must go on medication. Medicines have been designed by profit-making companies for a long time and, though I have no evidence, I am sure there is an incentive not to cure people, but to treat them. How much profit is there in a drug that is taken once and cures someone of AIDS for example? How much profit is there in a drug that keeps an AIDS sufferer alive for decades? This problem has resulted in few cures for well-known ailments and many more treatments that must be taken for a long time.

Profits in pharmaceutical businesses are not evil in and of themselves, but the pharmaceutical industry cannot and should not be relied upon to create the cures of tomorrow and progress medicine. Maybe the best medicine for the ailing health service is a cost reduction exercise in the NHS, coupled with reinvestment of the savings in medical research for cures?

The Spectator magazine carried an article in 2003, which attacked the attack on profits, which I agree with, but we should not expect or accept that pharmaceutical businesses have our best interests at heart.

The following is a letter that I sent to Nazia Kosar, the Outreach and Events Manager at the FastStream Diversity Programme:

As we all knew, the constitution is not dead, it is just pending the EU citizens realising their mistake.

I quote:

(BBC News)

We all knew this, but the amazing thing is that they think the EU can create jobs (it’s excellent at destroying them), protect the environment (while stymieing technological advances that might reduce our reliance on oil and gas; and EU Serf’s post) and improve security (the Schengen agreement is great if it works at the external borders - and that’s a big if).

The EU is a political irrelevance. It is a hang-over from ‘old’ Europe where social protection of people living in non-meritocratic countries was the order of business. As the meritocratic advocates march on, the EU becomes more and more a hindrance to economic prosperity in Europe and contributes to the mistreatment of African traders forced to embrace so-called ‘Fair Trade’.