The cards are finally on the table......

For many years, British politicians have been stringing the public along with grandiose ideas about the EU being a group of sovereign nation states, engaged in deep level cooperation and trade. The EU was an economic project, and there was no risk at all to British sovereignty. Even the layman with the faintest idea about the EU now knows that to be false, seeing as our lives are affected each day by EU legislation, and increasingly in more and more visible ways.

But even though we are all conscious of the loss of British sovereignty, those who dared speak the truth of the EU mission - political union and a European state (I politely decline to use the word "super" in relation to the project) were labelled as "little-Englanders," just plain stupid, scaremongers, and one of the most disturbing recent terms I've seen is "domestic extremist" - no joke!

Now that these bunches of extremists - those who plan to lead us all to war just because they don't want to be part of a political union - have been vindicated, nobody can be found to defend the status quo. They've gone and jumped on the bandwagon of "more Europe" - precisely the blind way of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. I am all for those who want more Europe, but I do not want to see it for the United Kingdom.

Now the extremists have been vindicated again. This time, there is no denying that they were right; there is no trying to avoid the truth by interpreting it in a different manner, or playing politics with words. The extremists told us that the plan is political union - this has been denied constantly and constantly. Many British ministers know the truth, but I also accept that some of those ministers who have spouted this lie over the years genuinely believed they were right - Margaret Thatcher for example. I think she genuinely wanted to see Europe as a group of nations that cooperate. She even made sacrifices to try and ensure that her interests shaped the Union. (I'm thinking of the Single European Act) But in the end her idealism was just too idealistic.

Why can't the truth be denied now? Why are the cards truly on the table? You might think it's because of what's just happened in Greece and Italy - the instalment of two EU puppet technocrat governments, but it's much simpler than that. And it's simplicity that is the hardest thing to deny. The cards are on the table now, and we must wake up, simply because of what Germany has been saying over the past couple of days:

1) As reported in the Telegraph on 17th November: (click here)

"The six-page German foreign ministry paper (A leaked German foreign office memo; my italics) sets out plans for the creation of a European Monetary Fund with a transfer of sovereignty away from member states. The fund will have the power to take ailing countries into receivership and run their economies. Even more controversially, the document, entitled The future of the EU: required integration policy improvements for the creation of a Stability Union, declares that the treaty changes are a first stage “in which the EU will develop into a political union”. “The debate on the way towards a political union must begin as soon as the course toward stability union is charted,” it concludes.

Is it still not rubbing in yet? Is there a way to deny these words? Is it just "enhanced cooperation?" Let's try some more....

2) Referring to treaty change, the Guardian reported almost a MONTH AGO (click here) that:

“The drive for this is coming, however, from Berlin. This is the real story of what is happening in the EU: Germany is emerging, unstoppably, asprimus inter pares. The dissension with Paris arises because Merkel simply won't or can't tolerate many of Sarkozy's ideas for resolving the sovereign debt crisis on political and constitutional grounds. The one-time "economic giant, political dwarf" is no longer afraid of exercising its political clout.”

3) Is it still not rubbing in yet? Let me cite one more interesting piece of information, this time from David Cameron. He's still taking the positively stupid line that this is a "great opportunity" to reform the EU, and the rather intensely stupid idea that he can reform it and mould it to British lines. Please cut the crap as of now. The plan is decided. It's political union. To be or not to be, that's the question? Thankfully we know the answer: No for the UK. The referendum will surely come when the necessary treaty changes to create this union are made - as it is now locked into British law. How will Cameron escape that? (Article here)

“Senior figures in the German government proposed radical changes to European institutions. In an interview with Le Monde newspaper, Germany’s finance minister Wolfgang Schauble called for continent-wide elections to vote in a president of the European Commission who would be head of a “European government”.

There you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. From talk of treaty change a month ago, to the plans for political union this week, things really do move quickly, and it's impossible to keep up with them. But I have spelled out my case - the cards are truly on the table. If anyone would like to refute these quotes, I'd like to hear from them. Otherwise, to me it's really clear - a European Commission at the head of a European Government, and German plans to change its own constitution (after bailing out the euro was deemed illegal) to create a stability union that will evolve into a political one.

Let's not forget of course, that with all these wonderful plans on the one hand, Cameron just reminded us (the same link as above) that:

“It’s the pointless interference, rules and regulations that stifle growth not unleash it,” the Prime Minister said. “The sense that the EU is somehow an abstract end in itself, immune from developments in the real world, rather than a means of helping to deliver better living standards for the people of its nations.”

The EU is not improving living standards. It is just interfering; it is immune from developments in the real world - well said. Political union is just another representation of this fantasy world. The truth is that people just don't want it. But the EU and most politicians are just not listening. It's only a matter of time until revolution and when European history is likely to repeat itself. Let's see for how much longer British politicians want to continue to string us along, as even the layman opens his eyes to the effective loss of sovereignty of the United Kingdom, without a single shot being fired.

Taxpayers are in debt because of their stupid Governments! Brown admits to "socialising the liabilities."

The problem I have with what's going on is that to ultimately save the Eurozone, it's taxpayers that will foot the bill. This has been the whole injustice all along. If anyone thinks that's dramatic, then look at what Gordon Brown just said at the World Economic forum. He stated that in his view this is still a banking crisis at its root, but if it has become a debt crisis it's because "we socialised the liabilities" - Let me find the full quote.........

""The European banks as a whole are grossly under-capitalised: they have liabilities far in excess of American banks. We have now got the inter-play with sovereign debt because we socialised the liabilities"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8768575/Gordon-Brown-fears-euro-crisis-worse-than-Lehman-as-1930s-beckon.html

To imply that there was no debt crisis before the banking crisis is misleading, and wholly incorrect. Brown also completely proves to us how taxpayers are paying the bill (socialising the liabilities) but now claims that is the reason for debt! What? I think the truth is closer to the idea that when you pile more sovereign debt onto countries that were already living in a debt bubble (most of the Eurozone since they believed that the € was their saviour and the end of all economic bust cycles, were offered cheap credit, and once you throw a socialist government into the mix you usually get indebted) then of course governments end up in the same mess as banks, who were only responding to lighter regulation by taking more risks.

50% hike in British rail fares? Thanks EU!

Below is the comment I made on the following Facebook post, from the EU Referendum Campaign:

https://www.facebook.com/eu.campaign/posts/124688387627241

Comment:

There are some really interesting comments being made here, and it makes a change to see a intellectual discussion that doesn't descend into name-calling, as can so often happen to comment threads of newspaper articles. I would like to state that BR was just another tragic case of an industry (and jobs) being destroyed because of EU rules, and let's not even mention the most criminal of policies - fisheries, and what it has done to the UK. I stand in agreement with the points that the destruction of our trade links with the Commonwealth was the prerequisite of entry (as was the subsequent domination of France in agriculture, because it suddenly became cheaper to buy from France than import from the Commonwealth) but that was always part of the plan. The beauty of it is that the French built their dominance on the back of subsidies AND by having the rest of Europe as their customers, not out of choice but because high tariffs made everywhere else expensive! Neat trick. I also agree wholeheartedly with the same-old European attitude, in particular France (and other countries) where they constantly disregard the rules without fear of consequence. In turn, they then abuse the law-abiding UK as they fearlessly buy up our companies. (Surprised EDF wasn't mentioned - remember when they charged us more to subsidise cheaper bills in France?) It's not protectionism I support, but a fair playing field - and that just doesn't exist! As I always tell my students, just try to buy a French supermarket or bank, and let's see what happens! Would love Tesco to go to France and sell apples from New Zealand or South Africa more cheaply than French ones! In conclusion, if the EU can't get it right economically, and then we consider the fact that politically it is corrupt and void of democracy, the case is getting stronger by the day to leave and reestablish our relationship with those countries that DO choose to be part of the EU, as people finally realise the Brussels effect on their lives. For years I've seen the way things were going, as I'm sure many of you have - and if someone would pay me to write about the EU I gladly would(!) but I leave you with a lovely link from yesterday's papers - pay attention to what the Italian Prime Minister is reported to have said. Thanks for reading.http://www.telegraph.co.uk​/finance/comment/ambroseev​ans_pritchard/8700782/ECB-​is-eurolands-last-hope-as-​bail-out-machinery-fails-t​o-resolve-crisis.html

Our New EU President and High Representative

It´s finally time to make a post on the post-Lisbon Treaty full ratification era, albeit one long overdue.

What´s the name of our new EU President again? Van Rumpey? Rumpole of the "new" Old Bailey? Oh, indeed not, damn, it´s actually Van Rompuy! How dare I begin my post with such an error and terrible example of British ignorance to the European project! Well, I might as well keep the error now; it sounds rather funny, and if we can´t keep our humour through these troubled and disturbing times, we have little else!

It has taken me some time to get over the shock of the sudden reversal of the Vaclav Klaus´s decision to fight the Lisbon Treaty. Granted, the overwhelming collective might of the 26 might have been too much, but I fear we lost a perfect and unique opportunity to expose this project for what it is. Not unless Vaclav Klaus is complicit to the project, as conspiracy theorists would claim. I won´t venture there but will try to stick to certain facts.

Let´s examine some of them. He is an ardent Euro-sceptic. He could have fought this until the day they impeached him, thereby exposing the project. Only he truly knows the reason for turning his back on his own principles. We can judge him for that hypocrisy only - in all other things he had no obligation, and thus I´ll reiterate, as I have done before, that we cannot blame Klaus for the fact that Britain has signed away even more of its sovereignty.

The deed is done. The Treaty of Lisbon amending previous Treaty texts, essentially bringing the rejected constitution into reality, comes into force on December 1st. Another sad day just around the corner - the good thing however is that being a Tuesday and close to final exams, I´ll be too busy preparing those and observing World Aids Day to worry too much about the Treaty entering into effect. I won´t need it splashed all over the papers in my face - I´ll quietly contemplate the defining moment; the death of large tracts of British political ideology and culture, in a more tranquil setting, from far far away.

Ushering in the Treaty, we saw the appointment of the new EU President and High Representative (a.k.a. Foreign Minister) yesterday. I am ready to comment on the whole saga. I am glad that those who argued for a Chairman´s role for the President as supposed to global showman won that argument. But to be honest there were evils to be had everywhere. Let´s mention them in turn:

a) By opting for a Chairman´s role for the President, this is surely, to borrow the wonderful headline from an article today in The Independent, the "path to least resistance." Typical EU strategy - condition people to getting used to the situation slowly; the big boys come later.

b) Choosing a President from a small country as supposed to a large one keeps smaller states in line. Belgium is most deserving, as the state that turned itself over to the EU from the beginning, and as the state that could become the sovereign EU if its national government continues along its current path of instability. Is it really crazy to imagine? Sovereign territory is all we need - Belgium would make the perfect Washington D.C., or Mexico D.F. This was a spontaneous thought that occurred to me late last night - and it certainly doesn´t hurt to consider all possibilities - let´s wait for the evidence to manifest itself.

c) The new EU President is a federalist - it couldn´t have been otherwise.

d) France and Germany showed that they still run the show behind the scenes. They got their man, unlike when they didn´t get their Belgian man Verhofstadt to succeed Prodi as Commission President in 2004.

d) The British position - Blair was impossible in the end because the UK is not a member of the Euro or Schengen area. What I find most curious is that there appears to have been the eternal assumption that one of the two jobs would go to the British. Why was this so? If the two jobs are to be shared between small and large states, why were contenders from other large countries not ever taken seriously? The British media spoke a foregone conclusion, and they were right to do so.

I personally believe that the perfect way to keep a Euro-sceptic nation glued to the EU project, especially when one considers the likely entrance of a Euro-sceptic British government in 2010, to be to appoint one of its countrymen to the heart of the project. Europhiles are now rejoicing at the increased British influence and voice at the heart of the EU; I actually see a woman who is committed to upholding the EUROPEAN interest, and shall not answer to any national government. Let´s not forget this overriding fact please. There is no such thing as national influence in Brussels - this can only come from the European Council composed of national leaders. Chairing the meetings of foreign ministers, she won´t be able to increase Britain´s influence - her job will be to influence Foreign Secretaries to the EUROPEAN interest. Point made. The glue is only one way - no increased voice gluing the EU to Britain, but plenty of glue keeping us from wrestling power back from Brussels without a tougher fight. The fact that she is Labour through and through makes the incoming Conservative government´s relationship with the EU even more challenging.

I believe overall that this is a Franco-German ploy to walk the path of least resistance, and to keep the British in line with a plum job. But to close this blog entry quite pointedly there are two remaining things to say - both are linked to this annoying concept known as democracy - but I´m sorry, it must be mentioned. First of all, there is now an unelected Commission, unelected President of the EU Council and an unelected High Representative with responsibility for an "External Action Service" as well as security policy. Do we need any more evidence of the loss of democracy in this project? My mind keeps going back to a comment I read earlier that to be undemocratic, the EU must in turn make its constituent states behave as such - well I think we´ve seen plenty of that since the rejection of the EU Constitution in 2005.

Finally, I´m going to quote from the book immediately turned upside-down and to my left side sitting on the desk. Entitled "The Great Deception: Can the European Union survive?" by Christopher Booker and Richard North, on page 543, in relation to the successful agreement of a European Constitution text, it is stated:

"These hundreds of pages wove the recipe for a system of government as complex as any the world has ever seen. It´s real ingenuity, as had been the case since the launch of the ´project´ half a century before, lay in the extent to which it left all the outward institutions of national governments in place, while hollowing them out from within. It was a system of government which, while preserving some of the outward forms of democratic accountability, through the presence at its centre of elected politicians and through the European Parliament, was in fact almost wholly unaccountable to the peoples in whose name it would be claiming to act."

The new European Constitution enters into effect on December 1st.

Thanks for reading.

Support Vaclav Klaus - say no to the Lisbon Treaty!

Have spent the past couple of hours this evening reading about the Lisbon Treaty Developments. What a joy to see a facebook group and an online petition - sign me up! We must show our support to President Klaus during this most tense and extremely challenging sitution.

The fact is Ireland said no - that is democracy. The fact is that most EU member states know that their populations would reject it. So avoid a referendum by doing a re-package - all whilst distracted and running to hide under the economic crisis umbrella.

Support Vaclav Klaus!!

Lisbon Treaty Developments

After hearing the Irish vote yes to the Lisbon Treaty on October 02nd, we are now seeing some very interesting developments in Europe.

The final country that needs to ratify the treaty for it to come into effect is the Czech Republic. Its Parliament has already ratified the document, but the President, Vaclav Klaus, is against the treaty and does not want to sign. Without his signature it cannot come into effect in any of the 27 countries.

This is a tense political situation because he is now facing pressure from the entire EU to sign - and there are reports that the Czech Government may force him out of office to enable the treaty to come into effect! This is absolutely incredible and the sheer thought that the EU would go to this level to get this document ratified sets an extremely dangerous precedent indeed. In actual fact, the very THOUGHT of it is as bad as the deed itself. Will the EU just not take no for an answer?

I am essentially pro-European but overall a sceptic. However I feel my Eurosceptecism barometer rising by the day and I don't know if I am beginning to advocate withdrawing from the Union altogether. I still feel that this would be extreme, however not too out of proportion with those extreme thoughts we hear coming out of Brussels today, as the Czech Prime Minister is "summoned" to Brussels for the second time in seven days.

I have been reading a host of articles today, and from what I can gauge I would like to congratulate President Klaus in his resolve. He wants to stand firm against this treaty and I believe that he is trying his very best to stall for time until a British referendum is possible. President, I thank you on behalf of the British people desperate for a vote on this issue, and for exposing this tyranny in the mainstream.

Klaus has also given us Brits the assurance that no election will now be called before the law demands it in May/June 2010, so no nasty early election calls from Brown to try and ride high on a brief wave of fake popularity.

However, us Brits need to heed Kalus's words when he said that it is unfair to expect him to do something when we had our chance and did nothing. He is right - we should have protested against this more vigorously.....to the point of forcing a vote of no-confidence in the Government! Why not? If so many are against it, why didn't we show it?

Two of the three articles I am referencing below to finish today's post are in Spanish, and one in English. The first discusses the background to the whole Klaus-stalling-the-Lisbon-Treaty-issue. The second look at the possibilities for B-liar to be President. Finally, the third references a VERY INTERESTING telegraph article written in June, where even the Irish Commissioner (who admitted in 2008 that he had never read the Treaty) said that given the chance, most countries would reject Lisbon. How much more do I need to say?

End of post, and may I stop banging my keyboard in frustration at this wholesale destruction of British democracy, and democracy in general........

1) How Klaus is stalling the Lisbon Treaty - Good luck!

2) B-Liar to be President?

3) Even the Commissioner knows that everybody would say NO!

The Gloves Come Off - Lisbon Treaty

The gloves come off in this unwinding story............two things are disturbing - first, how the pressure comes from Paris and Berlin more than anywhere else........second, talk of impeachment because he won't sign? I really hope that is not true.....the EU continues to show its ways.



EU Bully tactics yet again - click here.

Lisbon Treaty SECOND Vote October 2009...

I am blogging rather late on the whole Lisbon Treaty issue.

Aside from being busy, I wanted to give myself some time to absorb various perspectives from the press, as well as decide for myself my position given the vast range of commentary available.

However, the blatant fact is that I haven't been able to blog because I feel truly sickened by what's going on. Previous posts on the Lisbon Treaty remain consistent with this one - I am essentially against anything that puts substantial powers into the hands of the unelected. I feel that given British history, and its pivotal moments such as 1649 and the absolutist-wannabe James II in 1688, and the civil war and subsequent Bill of Rights in 1689, that RIGHTS evolved for good reason.

I have felt proud of the notion and idea that a Brit instinctively knows his or her rights - although that does not always mean literally. We have been comfortable with the idea that we didn't need our rights written down, documented, and in our face - rather offensive was the idea for anyone to tell us our rights - we just "instinctively" knew.

And so the question of rights yet again becomes a pertinent one. The Lisbon Treaty, with respect to my limited knowledge and understanding, (because I am not a lawyer) does indeed appear to seriously threaten what we consider to be fundamental English/British freedoms. I am worried for the future of trial by jury and presumed innocence until proven guilty, especially when coupled with some of the dranconian measures now in place across our wonderful democratic "EU" - NOT to even mention the attack on our own civil liberties from this Labour government.

I see here my most passionate political issues delicately intertwined. For the EU with the kind of powers it will assume under Lisbon is an attack on the British understanding and culture of civil liberties. On the one hand, I do blame the EU establishment. Their increasing political and economic power over this country does certainly bear fruit. However, the blame must be apportioned on the British government/political establishment, and the vast swathes of Euro-cash in which they swim. To cash in traditions that were justly fought for, could, as one newspaper put it today (05/10/09) be the "ultimate betrayal in history." However, I would beg to differ, and cite the complete destruction of civilisations (such as the Aztecs by the Spanish) as far more of a disastrous event. However, with the impact of Lisbon still unknown, I may well change my mind in the near future to come.

Casting my mind to the Irish, I don't wholly blame them. They made the decision that they wanted to. What saddens me is how they were completely manipulated into doing so. Crisis, burned economically into their hearts, threats of EU money running dry, scare tactics and horror stories - and the biased-ness of the entire media and political establishments - all perfectly combined into one nasty cocktail of scaremongering and fear tactics. And it worked perfectly - after all, what better way to control a country if not through economics? Make a crisis, and reap the rewards, depending on where you sit in the power triangle.

To reiterate, it is incredibly sad how our Irish brothers and sisters (yes, brothers - for the hostility in my eyes that is so famously stereotyped appears to me to be one-way, aimed AT the English, and yes, English not British) have given into this fear. Did we all forget the scaremongering the last time? The exposure that the Irish Commissioner in Brussels hadn't even read Lisbon? What really makes me despair in the idea of how the choice to say yes to Europe would reinforce Ireland's position in the EU, and free it of the "influence" of others - a blantant reference to the United Kingdom if there ever was one. In actual fact I concur with the idea that Ireland will become MORE irrelevant in the Union, probably labelled as the land of the Celts.

Overall, I must respect the decision of the Irish people, and if it is really true that such hostility remains towards the English, as well as the Irish political establishment, (I take Daniel Hannan's view on this) that the undemocratic EU is the only way out, then so be it. It was their choice to make, and the No camp did their best under estremely biased circumstances, with a political and media machine that they did well to survive with, let alone try to convince.

From one sad story to the next. The focus after all must be the United Kingdom. It is not the fault of the Irish that we were not granted a referendum, and anyone blaming them for our woes are terribly misguided. Grant the Irish their wish, lament the clear impact on our country, but the blame for this lies squarely with Brown. Lament the sick nature in which he turned up late to sign away the sovereignty of Parliament. Lament the shame to stand with his fellow European leaders in a photocall, where he would be standing on the side so they can airbrush him out after May 2010 from the official photo. Betrayal yes, and unforgivable.

The question becomes what to do now. David Cameron is quite rightly under pressure, and must spell out his position. But I believe that despite this pressure his approach is rational, if not extremely difficult to maintain. This really is a day-by-day battle now. Heaven knows the pressure on the Polish and Czech Presidents to sign the treaty already ratified by their Parliaments. I don't want to say the word "inev.." but the turn of events will certainly come to be historically significant. I believe that the media has highlighted the dilemma well - what will Cameron do if Lisbon is ratified in all states? It truly will become a choice of whether we stay in the EU, if Cameron wants to force a referendum.

But I believe that at heart that David is Pro-European (I believe many Tories are) but the idea of the EU (Please note, not Europe) has always been an economic one for the British, and resistance to Political Union is not unusual! So to read today about a possible change to the European Communities Act is a step in the right direction - after all, this is no different to the German approach that would require their Parliament to decide to veto EU laws coming into Germany. The problem, however, lies in practice............with EU law already established as superior, how do you override that? With Lisbon creating the mechanism to make changes without the explicit consent of member states, how do you override that? With news of an EU Common Security Policy, how do you override that? (a.k.a ID cards through the back door) With news of France and Germany wanting greater cooperation in the EU, do you just withdraw altogether and let this club be what it wants to be? Or do you sacrifice British sovereignty to maintain influence over the club? Many burning questions.

Finally, we must consider the international ramifications of Britain and Lisbon. The US is already cavorting with Russia, China and Japan - and openly talking of a G4. China and Japan talking about beginning the road to some form of Union - really? Who would they talk to in Europe? The signs are discouraging - the UK would completely be absorbed and lose international prestige and influence at the hands of an unelected EU President. Is this really in our long-term interests? Many say we should just accept the reality, but no, we create our reality with our decisions everyday, and Lisbon without proper consultation, education and a referendum decision, is plainly wrong.

I haven't even mentioned the impact on UK politics, where being governed from the Continent will surely spell the end of the Union - the Scottish and Welsh Governments may be pleased, because in line with the EU's principle of subsidiarity, they would be seen as the recognised powers in their "region" - and the UK Government an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy through which to govern - however they will just end up like Ireland - giving away power in the name of distrust of London, and becoming insignificants in somethin much bigger and more powerful than they are. However if it means that the Scots can make new songs to celebrate Europe Day in their own language - surely it's worth it?

I will stop writing on Lisbon right now, as I must return to burning the midnight oil. However I close with one thought and one interesting idea written in a national newspaper. My personal thought is that the world is awash with a history of the rise and fall of Empires - I see another one coming - why do we feel the need to consolidate, supposedly based on the common good, (or in the past by sheer imperalism and domination) just to reach critical mass, become too big, and blow apart in spectacular fashion? A thought I must invest more time in.......

The interesting idea I mentioned is that of riding on a train. We are passengers, and we were always asking questions to the conductor. He/She would always tell us where we were going, how long it might take to get there - there was a good relationship. Now with Lisbon, the reply would be to where we are going, "that is no longer your business, but ours." Of course I have interpreted the story for myself, and must find the relevant link, but the idea is poignant and struck me. No longer the UK's business, but that of an unelected President and his best friend in the unelected Commission.

God save the Queen for as long as the monarchy survives, for as long as the Union survives, and for as long as our relationship with our Commonwealth friends survives.

As the Sun says goodbye - why I ditched Labour.

So the Sun has decided to ditch Labour for the Tories. A long overdue decision, and simply a reflection of the once-again changing political times. I agree with the decision, because it is clear to me that Brown simply cannot live up to what he says he can - he mentions "policies," but the time has passed to make any real difference - and we are left with many of the same challenges as twelve years ago.

To give Labour some credit though, of course it is in the Sun's interest to back who they percieve to be the "winner" and I am slightly cynical as to the ultimate motive - more sales. But putting this aside for a moment, I really do hope that the primary motive of the newspaper is to reflect the collective feelings of their readership, and to present political reality as it is.

Labour was needed in 1997. Hopes were high - achievements have been made. But over the past few years - and particularly since the 2005 election - what a failure. I have a list I made more than a year ago listing what I percieve to be failures - and my attention has been brought to more. To get to the crunch however, my biggest three problems with this government remains their stance towards the EU, their endless attack on civil liberties, and the divison that devolution has created - all policies that might be right in principle, but certainly not in practice.

I personally decided to forget Brown and Labour the day he arrived late to sign the Lisbon Treaty - trying to do it out of the limelight, in such an underhanded manner that HE KNEW how wrong his decision was. This is the moment that people will not forget Brown, for its effects will be felt for years to come. My decision is not just based on the classic argument of sovereignty, but on the idea that what Lisbon advocates is simply not what we want as a people from the process of European integration!

Now we just have to wait and see what Cameron does when he refers to "making a decision at the correct time" in relation to if Lisbon will be ratified before he enters office next year.

The weekend, and a Monday dose of Civil Liberties

After the weekend just rushed by, where I spent most of it in bed and/or just feeling completely lazy, I have returned to work this week determined to keep this blog and up and continue to recount all kinds of experiences that cross my path!

The weekend was very nice, with much less work to do. Did some preparation for my Business English class - and these are going much better now that the last 20 minutes is essentially private in nature with fewer students.

Had a bit of a scare over the weekend when I saw a huge spider in the bathroom, late on Sunday night. I don't really want to say much than that, except that boy could it run - and it had to be killed with boiling hot water. Days like this just make me want to leave - I really can't stand it!

Returning to work today, it has been a nice day - clearing up odds and ends and making progress in my English class. Nothing beats a nice tikka masala at lunchtime too. I am sitting here now getting ready to finish work and go to the gym, but I wanted to share this article regarding the topic of Civil Liberties - one in which I have come to feel as passionately about as Europe. I do feel compelled to try and get involved somehow in the fight to retain civil liberties, as we learn more and more of how they have been supressed under this Labour Government.

The Assault on Civil Liberties

Perhaps it was inevitable, given the advances of technology, that we would lose what we consider to be "freedoms." But by and large this is an issue I feel more and more strongly about. Hearing shock-horror stories concering cameras, Big Brother, and the erosion of British legal principles such as Habeus Corpus just make me very afraid to come back and live in the United Kingdom. Some lament that the "Great" has gone in Great Britain, but this is too simplistic. What has gone is years of evolution that in many cases worked well. And for what? Terrorism? Unparalleled threats? Please!

This is the first post of many that I will bring up this subject. I shall consider it a new passion, as I consider Europe and the EU to be another political passion and issue that will always determine my vote. I leave this post just wondering to what extent it is true that the Left are actually the ones destroying these freedoms, leaving the Right to champion them! However, despite the tendency of the right to advocate less state intervention, I don't feel that they are necessarily as opposed to British civil liberties as they are portrayed to be...........the evolution of these freedoms that we have taken for granted took place under all political administrations after all.

Comments on the article most welcomed!

Sovereignty..........

-
It's very fitting that as I am about to lecture my students on the EU that the Daily Telegraph has started a new series of articles about it. Of course this is in the run up to the Irish referendum (Round 2) of the Lisbon Treaty. So the EU will be a topic I blog about regularly over the coming weeks......

This article has caught my eye as I was going to bed, and it seems a good a place as any to begin reflection.....

Is Britain still a sovereign state?

To think that I am discussing the impact of globalisation on sovereignty with my students, and I haven't even touched the mighty EU yet..........
-