EU regulation: licensed integration
Saturday 19 January 2013
 According to the report, people with licences for life must trade them in for a new licence by 2033. Belgium, France and Cyprus are still issuing paper licences at this time and will not be compliant with the directive by tomorrow, the Commission said. France said it will be compliant within six months, but it is not known when Belgium will be compliant. But the main event is that, by this means, drivers are forced to apply for a document with the ring of stars emblazoned on it. The excuse for this, according to Siim Kallas, EU commissioner for transport, is that: "Traffic police across Europe are currently expected to recognise more than 100 different types of paper and plastic driving licence". Of course, even if there was an excuse for a "little Europe" license, there is no need for the ring of stars. Strangely, there is an EEA version (see page 253), which Norway uses. And although it is standard EU format, so that the poor little europlods can recognise it, it doesn't have the dreaded EU symbol. All that goes to prove what we already know – that the EU is trying to impose a cultural identity on us. And it also provides another very good reason why we should decouple from the EU. Standardisation – to an extent – we don't mind. But we can do without the baggage. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 19/01/2013 |
EU politics: nothing to offer
Friday 18 January 2013
 One past of the mystery, however, is solved by Polly Toynbee in the loss-making Guardian. There, she refers to the 1963 "Elysée treaty that founded the EU and celebrated an end to a century of three Franco-German wars". There is something of a cottage industry in fisking Polly but, to my mind, life is too short. The only thing to do with such a profound level of ignorance is to ignore it. Witterings from Witney is right. These people have nothing to offer. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 18/01/2013 |
EU politics: they just don't get it
Friday 18 January 2013
 Today's pride of place, though, goes to Gavin Barrett in an opinion piece in the Irish Times, discussing the possibility of a British exit from the EU. Here, Barrett acknowledges that a Norway-type relationship with the EU, with full access to the single market, is conceivable. But he then goes on to write: "Norway is effectively in a 'fax union' with the EU – accepting EU regulations without any say in their shaping – as the price for single market access". So pervasive is this myth that we even have the erudition of Conservative Home poured into the problem, with no expense spared. But not one commentator, any one of which might elsewhere glibly talk about "globalisation", shows any shred of understanding of the background to this issue, and quite how important it is. The fact is that the European Union is increasingly a backwater in world affairs. Take the time out to google "global governance" and then start doing some selective searching under the sub-head "United Nations". It is quickly evident that the action is no longer regional, in tiny blocs such as the EU, but on a global scale. Then, to get an appreciation of the sheer scale of the endeavour, look to the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, hosted by UNECE. Then look at a recent meeting agenda and you will be staggered by the volume of work and the amount of detail. There is no conspiracy here. The advocates and practitioners of global governance are entirely openabout their agendas. But, despite this, alongside the globalisation of trade, the globalisation of government remains almost invisible. It is almost as if people can't cope with it, and shut it out of their minds. The irony is that, by focusing on Brussels, and concentrating our energies there, we miss the bigger picture. Since the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 January 2009, the EU assumed a legal identity. With that, we see the EU joining a huge number of international organisations, such asCodex Alimentarius, where it now represents Member States in discussions. Increasingly, therefore, membership of the European Union means that we have no direct say in global trade negotiations, while independent countries such as Norway retain their influence and have, effectively, equal status with the EU, on international bodies and in negotiations. Very much under the horizon, what is happening is that the globalists now want every country to join in a regional bloc, so that the number of delegates (and voices) can be reduced, and the "unfair" advantage that independent countries have can be removed. After all, they argue, it cannot be right that tiddlers such as Norway can have equal status with the EU and even the United States. With the compliance of their own political elites, such countries must be reined in. Unsurprisingly, therefore, globalists such as Obama would like us to stay in the EU. But that simply reflects a game the US has been playing for decades, and especially through the WTO, where it prefers to deal with trade blocs rather than messy groups of individual countries. A similar agenda drives the business corporates, who would also much rather see the world grouped into convenient blocs. Nationalism to them, is an anathema. World governance is very much their preferred option, and their view the break-up of regional blocs such as the EU with absolute horror. This, though, is where the debate needs to lie. It is invisible and unspoken because the politico-media bubble barely understands it and is frightened to talk about it. For, not only is this happening, it creates a world where not even the vestiges of democracy exist. Bizarrely, by contrast, the EU is a paragon of virtue – a blinding example of "democracy". And that illustrates just how bad it is getting. We need to wake up to the reality. We need to look at what is, and create our own agenda. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 18/01/2013 |
Posts
