Britannia Radio

18 Sept 09 Three Unanswered Questions     European Commissioners are supposed to answer written questions from Members of the European Parliament within two months.  Most do, most of the time – just.   Most of their answers are platitudinous self-justification.  The only purpose in asking these questions is to make a few back-room bureaucrats who draft the answers stop and think a bit about what they are doing to the people on whom they inflict their endless regulation and interference.   When I left the EP in June three written questions of mine remained unanswered, one for nearly six months, despite regular pressure for answers.  The bureaucrats knew by then they could ignore me as I would not be returning.   In January, I asked:   Migrants Should Return Home   Do not the current economic circumstances make an overwhelming case for the EU to discourage economic migration, both within the nation states and from other countries, and to promote the return of migrants to their home countries?   In the UK, tens of thousands of indigenous British are out of work and unable to find new employment because potential jobs are held by foreign migrants.  Is the Commission aware that this is particularly the case with the public sector, because the British government's staffing policies proactively encourage the employment of migrants at the expense of British subjects?     Does the Commission not recognise the potential for civil unrest in such circumstances?    As the depression worsens over the coming months, probably years, are the consequences not likely to become so serious that nationals should be encouraged - even obliged by the withdrawal of visas and permits - to go home and help sort out the mess in their own country?     In early April I asked these two questions:   Carbon Dioxide Myth - Mark 2   May I further ask, in response to written answer E-1089/2009, for the sources of the "scientific evidence" on which the Commission relies?  Does the Commission refute the "scientific evidence" that global temperatures have been in decline for more than a decade?  If so, on what basis?   Does the Commission further refute the "scientific evidence" that sea levels would rise no more than ten inches (which I am told is roughly equal to 24 centimetres) if all the land-based ice melted at once?  And does it not agree that ice at sea displaces its own weight, and its own volume when it melts?  In other words a total melt would have no effect whatever on sea levels.    May I draw the attention of the Commission to the scientific work of the Swedish geologist and physicist Dr Nils-Axel Morner, who has spent most of the last 35 years studying sea levels all over the globe with the best scientific equipment available.  His conclusion is that the scare stories promoted by Al Gore and other "climate change" fanatics are nothing more than that - scare stories.  An elementary knowledge of schoolboy physics tells us that the Al Gore scenario defies the laws of science and can be dismissed with absolute certainty.   Is the Commission aware of this recent statement of Dr Morner: "The sea is not rising.  It has not risen in 50 years"?    Further may I draw the attention of the Commission to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose latest report suggests a sea level increase of 17 inches (59 centimetres) by the end of the century?  Dr Morner puts it at nil to four inches (10 centimetres), and prefers the "nil".    Is the Commission further aware that Dr Morner has also pointed out that not one of the 22 contributing authors to the IPCC latest report on sea levels was a specialist in the subject?  Is it no surprise, then, when Dr Morner accuses the IPCC of "deliberate ignorance" on sea levels?     Passenger Rights Directive Will Destroy Jobs   Is the Commission aware of the consequences on rural bus and coach companies of the proposed EU Passenger Rights Directive?   The introduction of the concept of strict liability will encourage costly, spurious and inflated claims.  Is this what the Commission intends?  If not, how - lawfully - could they be prevented, and the costs and disruption to small businesses be avoided?   Does the Commission understand the cost and practical consequences of giving the right to every disabled person to be taken on every route?    The notion that an alternative means of transport must be provided by the bus or coach company if the present service cannot accommodate disabled people is potentially ruinous.    Have any of the theoreticians advising the Commission ever visited the country bus routes in rural Britain?  Have they the faintest idea of what they are demanding, and the actual costs involved?   Is it not the fact that such companies will effectively have to convert themselves in private hire taxi firms, complete with special vehicles solely equipped for the transport of disabled people using wheelchairs?  And where is the money to come from to provide such an expensive service that will hardly ever be used?   Does the Commission think that these unwanted impositions on small transport companies in rural Britain is wise, or necessary, especially when all small businesses are already struggling to survive commercially?  Does it care that companies will close and jobs lost?   Or is this merely yet more evidence that the EU is utterly out of touch with the real world?   PS:  My thanks to all those who spotted the currency conversion error in yesterday's posting.  Barroso's £110 billion annual budget is - of course - equivalent to 125 billion euros.   Fortunately the pound is still worth more - just!   To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com Click www.ashleymote.co.uk to visit the site now.