- 23-10-2011, 17:44 #11Night time is really the best time to work. All the ideas are there to be yours because everyone else is asleep. ~Catherine O'Hara
RayC is a pig fucker.RayCbums goats.RayCsuckshorses. Earth is RayC's sockpuppet and P.Maitra is a fat goat sucker.
- 23-10-2011, 17:50 #12
- Join Date
- Feb 2004
Politicians need the EU for a second home when they leave National politics.
Better wages and far higher Pensions.
To qualify they must never attack the INSTITUTION when in National power.
Just can't stop feathering their own nest, or remove ones snout from the trough.
- 23-10-2011, 17:56 #13
But it would be just like stopping pigs from snorting the trough.
If we left the EU we could have free trade with the rest of the World, and of course we may not be considered the Dustbin of Europe.
I would vote any party that would 100% take us out of the greedy EU.
Last edited by True2Blue; 23-10-2011 at 17:58."Tell off for equipment check" !
- 23-10-2011, 18:10 #14
Jets you say?
"…Exposed: EU chief's private jet, plush hotel and cocktail bill
José Manuel Barroso racked up €249,000 on air travel, as UN debated climate change
James Ball and Caelainn Barr
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 June 2011 22.00 BST
European Commission president José Manuel Barroso and 35 others spent €28,000 at a luxury New York hotel during their visit to the UN climate change convention in 2009. Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters
The office of José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, racked up a €249,000 bill for private jets during the same period he attended the 2009 UN convention on climate change.
Barroso's jet bill for the nine-month period is just a small part of €7.5m worth of trips on private jets chartered by EU commissioners over the last five years, uncovered in research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
The commission declined to comment on the specifics of the spending on private jets, other than to confirm €249,000 was a private jet spend for 2009 for the president's office, but refused to say whether he took such a jet – which releases around 55 tonnes of carbon dioxide each transatlantic flight – to the convention itself.
The bureau found that Barroso and 35 others spent €28,000 at the luxury Peninsula New York hotel during the visit to the UN climate change convention. This figure was confirmed by the commission.
The research also uncovered public money being used to fund a €75,000 cocktail party at a science conference – Discovery 09 – which was "filled with wonder like no other ... with trendy cocktails, surprising performances and top DJs", as much of the EU was in the grip of recession.
The commission funded €300,000 worth of events described in internal documents as cocktail parties in the same year. At least a further €1.2m was spent on hotel and conference costs in 2009, including stays in San Diego, Prague and Balmoral.
An additional €20,000 was spent on gifts for commission guest speakers since 2008, including cufflinks, fountain pens and Tiffany jewellery.
The findings will further raise tension in negotiations over the commission's bid for a 4.9% budget increase next year, which the British government has already vowed to oppose.
The examples of commission spending have also drawn criticism from EU parliamentarians in other countries. "It is extremely disappointing to see how easily the commission spends the EU taxpayers' money on private jet travel and luxury hotels," said Martin Ehrenhauser, an independent Austrian MEP who helped uncover details of the spending.
The study also showed the continued lack of transparency in how the commission spends its money. More than €42m of transfers to "natural persons" – individuals, whose names the commission keeps private – were found between 2007 and 2009, though these had fallen from €27m in 2008 to just over €1m in 2009.
However, a further €381m was spent on "confidential" activities, which the commission refuses to disclose for security reasons. The degree of confidential spending in 2009 was more than double its 2007 level, at €221m.…"
Corrupt EU piggies you say?
Why no-one can touch Europe's Human Rights judges
By JACK DOYLE
Created 7:39 PM on 19th October 2011
Another day, and another outrage from the European Court of Human Rights – but not of the traditional variety.
Instead of rapists allowed to stay in Britain because of their family life rights, or compensation for terror suspects, or indeed votes for prisoners, we have an intriguing little tale involving the wife of one of the Strasbourg judges.
She is one Gabriela Barsan, married to the Romanian judge on the court, Corneliu Barsan, and herself a senior judge in Romania’s appeal court.
Untouchable: The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
As ME Synon noted on Monday, Mrs Barsan has been accused of accepting bribes including jewellery, free flights, and use of a flat in Paris for her son from a businessman.
In return she, prosecutors say, swung the delicate scales of justice in the direction of said businessman. A straightforward case of alleged corruption, you may think.
But no. After the Romanian authorities raided the couple’s house in search of evidence, Mr Barsan claimed the search was unlawful as both he and his wife were covered by his diplomatic immunity.
Immunity: President of the European Court of Human Rights, Jean-Paul Costa
This blanket protection against prosecution – invented by the post-war Vienna Convention – was designed to protect persecution of genuine diplomats working in hostile countries.
It was not designed, one would imagine, so the wife of a European human rights judge could claim immunity from investigation for alleged offences completely unrelated to his work.
Today we have the final word on the subject from the President of the court, French lawyer Jean-Paul Costa. (As an aside: neither he, nor Mr Barsan, has ever sat as a judge in their home country, and both come from that noble tradition of ‘academic law’).
Does he accept there is no immunity for Mrs Barsan? Must Romanian justice be both done and seen to be done? Well, in a word: no.
In a statement released by the court tonight, Mr Costa throws his full weight behind the Barsans. He states: ‘Immunities are an essential component of judicial independence under the rule of law and attach to judges of every international court.’
‘In the specific context of the European Convention on Human Rights they must operate so as to allow judges to carry out their duties in accordance with the independence and impartiality required of them by that instrument.’
‘The Court is concerned that in carrying out a search in the home of the Romanian judge as part of an inquiry concerning allegations about his wife the rules on immunity may not have been respected.’
‘Immunities extend also to their spouses and minor children.’
He is now asking the Romanian authorities why they ignored this ‘essential component of judicial independence’ and conducted the search without asking the permission of the Strasbourg court.
We are yet to hear their reply. Hopefully, they will do what many of our European neighbours find the best response to edicts from the Strasbourg Court: simply ignore it.
Read more: Why no-one can touch the European Court of Human Rights judges | Mail OnlineWarning, this post contains some flash photography.
- 23-10-2011, 18:27 #15
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
I have to post this again, the wise, prescient words of Enoch Powell :- Enoch Powell on the European Union (1 of 3) - YouTube
Its well worth listening to, Now, nearly 40 years later we have seen just how corrupt the EU is, unable even to have their own budgets audited & approved, where Britain has always been a net contributor, costing us Billions! Where the faceless bureaucracy produce thousands of laws and regulations affecting all aspects of our everyday lives without a by your leave from us. Where Politicians are blackmailed or cowed into compliance with all its wishes, as to dare oppose or criticise its affairs, would lose all their, very lucrative, pension rights!
We desperately need a man such as Enoch today, not the bunch of gutless selfserving idiots we have in Westminster today!!
- 23-10-2011, 18:36 #16
I am slowly, after a long lifetime of being a law-abiding citizen, beginning to understand that maybe anarchists have a point. If a tranche of unelected people have power over the peoples of sovereign countries with rights that give them what in effect is carte blance to lie, cheat, thieve, purloin and lord it over us, then the only recourse to honest change and true democracy is perverely, revolution.
- 23-10-2011, 18:42 #17
- 23-10-2011, 19:46 #18
If Sarkozy keeps this up,it may actually happen.
Nicolas Sarkozy tells David Cameron: 'We’re sick of you telling us what to do' - TelegraphOlder,but no wiser.
- 23-10-2011, 20:00 #19
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Leaving the EU would be a bloody headache at best. So many of these gutless career politicians have vested interests in
Europe. Osborne and Clarke are both members of the orgy of Europhiles that is the Bilderberg Group, But lets not go to much into
My innitial responce is "let it collapse in on itself", however, at what cost to britain will this happen.
Funnily enough, I think top Europhiles are just as clever as the top Eurosceptics, but their intellgiance has corrupted them
into thinking that they are our guardians, and must protect us with their superb interllect. However they have an inept
understanding of basic human nature. All the Europhiles I know are socially innept.
On your question to on where we would vote, it will be a complete landslide.
Last edited by cadethopefull; 23-10-2011 at 20:08. Reason: mong spelling
- 23-10-2011, 20:00 #20
I think the truth is that nobody really knows what the consequences of either staying in or pulling out will be.
If we stay then in the short term it will be same-old-same-old, negotiations, winning some fights, losing others, banging our heads against the undeiably dodgy and unelected parts of it but still enjoying lots of advantages.
However, if we over commit, no-one knows where the whole edifice is heading or what it will be like in, say, 50 years time. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
But equally, no one really knows the consequences of leaving - the whole anti argument has the very familiar flavour of winning the war but having no real plan of what to do afterwards.
People talk blithely about joing EFTA but it's a tiny little niche for Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstien and Switzerland and I can't see a single reason why they would want to let a monster economy like ours in.
If we pull out we won't have to pay in anymore, but equally we won't be getting anything out, and our farmers will be battling against the CAP funded competition, as well as facing the inevitable export tarrifs to the EU.
The worst of all possible worlds would be if all our export trade and dealings with the EU had to comply with EU rules which we no longer had any role in shaping.
If our rules start to diverge fron the EU then their manufactuters will have to start making two versions of everything, one for the EU and one for us, with the obvious bad results.
We may be excluded from bidding for major contracts in the EU because we are no longer subject to their standards and rules, and they would be free to start a trade war with subsidies for Air France and the like to compete unfaurly with BA etc.
I'm not saying all the above will come true, just that it might and that no-one can say it won't.
Given all the doubt and uncertainty, I say stay in, keep trying to bend as much of it as we can to our will and re-negotiate as much as suits us, while reserving the right to bang out if something goes completely tits up - which it hasn't yet.
Last edited by Micawber; 23-10-2011 at 20:17.'Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear'?