David Miliband the EU and the environment

As I mentioned the above minister for the first time that I can recall on this blog earlier today (then in connection with the future Labour Party leadership) it was odd to receive this paper by this co-founder of the CER a few moments ago. It is linked from here as a guide to where the federalists are now heading.

John Reid's speech and Cherie's blast batter Brown

Labour's Conference cannot be dismissed as froth. As the governing party and likely to remain so according to the resuming support in the polls after the recent slump, the identity of the next Labour leader is crucial both for the country, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the other members of the EU. My money remains on Tony Blair continuing possibly on the back of some emerging new international crisis most likely with Iran. Cherie's public expression of the untruthfulness of Chancellor Brown would tend to confirm this. If there is to be a new Prime Minister within the next year, few can now believe it will be Gordon Brown after his lacklustre speech and surly and brooding demeanour on the platform throughout the typically inventive speech by ex-President Clinton. The clincher was the much more accomplished offering by yet another Scot Dr John Reid. Incredible that England has been unable to produce a politician who appears to have any chance of attaining the highest office in the UK (except of course for the, as yet, too young and too cunningly ambitious David Miliband)

Bloomberg reports Cherie calls Brown a liar

The report from Bloomberg, now being denied from Downing Street, may be read from this link but states the following: Cherie Blair Leaves Brown Speech Praising Her Husband (Correct)

By Carolin Lotter and Robert Hutton

(Corrects auditorium to conference center in second paragraph.)

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Tony Blair's wife, Cherie, walked out of a speech by U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, accusing him of misleading the public about his relationship with the prime minister.

As Brown told the Labour Party conference in Manchester that it had been a ``privilege for me to work with and for'' the premier, Mrs. Blair left the conference center saying ``well that's a lie.''

Brown has been accused by Blair allies including former Home Secretary Charles Clarke of plotting to undermine his leadership. Blair has been in charge of the Labour Party for 12 years, since Brown stood aside to give him a clear run at the leadership.

Home Office Minister Shares Scandal

The Mail on Sunday has uncovered another financial scandal within the sleaze ridden New Labour government. The article is linked from here and the following is a brief extract: Although friends of Mr Byrne said the shares were worth very little, it was clear last night that, thanks to the firm's police contracts, they were in fact worth many times their original nominal value of £1,050, or just 5p each. If the company continued to grow and was floated on the Stock Exchange, their value could soar to millions of pounds.

Is Osama Bin Laden dead from typhoid

A French newspaper has leaked a French intelligence report that indicates the mass murderer is dead. Reuters report from Canada is linked here.

Louche Labour

On the eve of their party conference two items from today's papers dramatically highlight the sickening state in which the governing party now finds itself. The Times reports that meetings with ministers are being sold during the conference, read it here. Even more shocking is the report in the Daily Mail that army casualty figures are being concealed, linked here.

New York Times editorial calls for Blair's head

Read it from this IHT link.

EU divided on abandoning vetoes on Justice & Home Affairs

Britain clearly kept a low profile on this crucial matter, according to early reports from the Middle East, linked here. The following is a quote from that linked report: "Those states that diplomats most often named as being against the move included Germany, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Malta" Germany is reported to be opposed as it considers it will damage its chances of reviving the EU Constitution during its coming Presidency.

Patten to promote non-democratic EU Constitution revival

The man who shamed the nation by appearing to blub as the Union Flag fell for the last time in Hong Kong is now set to continue his role in the destruction of all the decent values for which that flag once stood by further promoting the advance of the corpoatist and increasingly totalitarian EU at the expense of the most fundamental basis of democracy: the right of the people to change their leaders without bloodshed. If that is 'playground' debate or opinion, so be it. Read The Times report from here.

Labour set to plunder public purse

The article from The Times says it all, reach it by clicking here.

Shadow Home Secretary's letter on Habeas Corpus

Rt Hon John Reid MP Home Secretary Home Office 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 19 September 2006 Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council, Tampere, 20-22 September 2006 I understand that the Finnish Presidency intend to launch a discussion next week on how to ‘make it possible for decisions on… police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters… to be made by qualified majority and together with the European Parliament’ (Finnish Presidency press release, 7 September 2006). This is clearly an attempt to transfer criminal law, policing and judicial co-operation from the third pillar of the EU Treaties to the first pillar, and to effectively implement Section 4 of Title III of the European Constitution. As you will recall, the Prime Minister has pledged that the UK will retain control over our own criminal law, courts and policing. He said: ‘we restate our agreement to justice and home affairs remaining outside Community competence’ (Hansard, 16 December 1996, Col. 617) The Government also pledged that: ‘we will insist that unanimity remain for… key areas of criminal procedural law’ (FCO, White Paper on the European Intergovernmental Conference, para. 66, 9 September 2003). However, in May, junior Home Office Minister, Joan Ryan, failed to give a categorical assurance that the veto would be retained. On proposals to move to qualified majority voting, she said: ‘we would have to consider very carefully the potential risks and benefits and the overall impact of such a move’ (Hansard, 6 June 2006, Col. 614-5WA). I am astonished that you are even considering such a move. To surrender the veto would directly contradict the pledge given by the former Foreign Secretary, that ‘there is no plan, proposal or intention to slip elements of the constitution through by the back door’ (Hansard, 6 June 2005, Col. 1004), and prove yet another promise from this Government to be completely worthless. Retaining the national veto over policing, our courts and our criminal laws is vital to the UK national interest and to the rights of British citizens. If you surrender the veto, and introduce part of the European Constitution by the back door, you will put those rights in jeopardy. I urge you to state publicly and categorically that the UK veto will not be surrendered. In view of the widespread interest in this matter, I am making this letter publicly available. David Davis Shadow Home Secretary

It takes a booster seat to get Boris irate on the EU

On the eve of our potential loss of the centuries old Habeas Corpus rights, it takes the issue of child booster seats to get Boris Johnson, ex-Speccie editor and present Tory MP for Henley, to get agitated over the implications of the loss of national sovereignty which has been underway for years. His column today is linked from here. Part of the article is quoted here:

I would resent this law badly enough as an infringement of my liberty to decide how to convey my own children in my own car. But the main reason why I am so angry is that this stupid and impertinent law was not even generated by the British Government. It wasn't some gentleman in Whitehall who decided he knew best about booster seats. It wasn't even the brainchild of the UK health and safety industry. It is, of course, an EU directive, which means that elected British politicians have been given neither the means nor the opportunity to contest it – or even to debate it.

This EU directive, 2003/20/EC, arises because a few years ago some lonely and bored European Commission official was persuaded (no doubt by the booster seat industry) that in some circumstances children under 135cm would be safer with booster seats.

So a directive was drawn up. Even if any EU government had dared oppose this "child safety" measure, that government could have been simply outvoted – while looking cavalier about the wellbeing of our little ones. The UK therefore apathetically connived in the exercise, and the directive was sent for "scrutiny" before parliament's European Scrutiny Committee.

Needless to say, there was no discussion or "scrutiny", since the huge volume of EU legislation makes this impractical. As it rubber-stamped the directive (and bear in mind that there is no way Parliament, at that or any other stage, could have said no) the committee did ask two questions. How much would these seats cost the average family, and how many lives would be saved?

Four years later, long after this directive has become irreversible, the Government has replied. They don't know how much it will cost, they say, but the measure "might save" the lives of 1.5 children per year. In the whole country.

To be fair to the ex-Brussels correspondent, who is more aware of the grave crisis being caused by the EU than he is prepared to let on, he sometimes gets things spot on. His column of 31st August on the NHS inequities between England and Scotland is still clearly making ripples. That piece is linked from here.

Remaining Smarties manufacture moved to Germany

German economic hegemony, here, continues with today's announcement by the Swiss Nestle of the loss of 645 jobs in York and the transfer of the last Smarties production to Hamburg, the Daily Mirror report is linked here. The headline:

GONE DOWN THE TUBES

Germans to make Smarties for UK as 645 jobs axed

Government economies continue to threaten our armed forces

Any who missed the Channel 4 News report on Monday regarding delays in fitting the fire suppressant foam in the RAF's Hercules aircraft can view the report from this video link. If ever this was a false economy (as well as reckless, inhumane and possibly negligent decision) can be quickly realised from these figures quoted in the news report. Each Hercules costs fifty million, retro-fitting the foam in the wing fuel tanks costs one million, we have forty aircraft - therefore the one lost costs more to replace than fitting the entire fleet with the foam potentially saving HOW MANY LIVES?????????

Finally some pressure on Habeas Corpus

The following letter is in today's The Times, (NB David Davies Shadow Home Secretary is, to his credit, a signatory) linked from here:

Keep control

Sir, On Friday John Reid will attend a meeting of his fellow EU home affairs and justice ministers. They will be asked to vote on proposals to remove the veto on issues currently under national control, including criminal law, criminal penalties and the judicial system. Without a veto on these matters, Parliament and the British Government would cease to have control of the fight against crime within our own borders. Worse, the road would be open for the standardisation of the legal system, which would threaten habeas corpus, trial by jury and a host of protections guaranteed in British law but mostly absent on the Continent. Unanimity is required in order to pass these proposals. For the good of democracy and freedom under the law, it is crucial that the Home Secretary exercises his vote against them. SYED KAMALL, MEP (C); JIM ALLISTER, MEP (DUP); NIGEL FARAGE, MEP (UKIP); GEOFFREY COX, QC, MP (C); MARTIN CALLANAN, MEP (C); ROGER HELMER, MEP (C); DANIEL HANNAN, MEP (C); DOUGLAS CARSWELL, MP (C); DAVID DAVIES, MP (C); PHILIP DAVIES, MP (C); DAVID GAUKE, MP (C); PHILIP HOLLOBONE, MP (C); RICHARD SHEPHERD, MP (C); BOB SPINK, MP (C); SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON, MP (C); ANN WINTERTON, MP (C).

A full explanation of the hugely important issues may be found by scrolling down to my post of last Friday, or by clicking here.

Australian Monarchist League Australians Protecting the Constitution ABN 50 476 001 156 P O Box 1068, Double Bay NSW 1360 Phone: (02) 9327 4582 Fax: (02) 9328 6274 Email: monarchy@westnet.com.au London Conference The Queen, the Realms and Europe" Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge cry God for England and Saint George” Shakespeare - King Henry V: Friday 27 October 2006 to Sunday 29 October 2006 inclusive. The Skempton Building, Imperial College, Kensington, London

In Cape Town on 3 February 1960, Harold McMillan, Conservative Prime Minister and Fabian Socialist sympathiser, foretold through his now infamous “Winds of Change Speech” his intentions to split asunder the hitherto close relationship of the British peoples spread across the Dominions. Despite the break-up which ensured, the Constitutions of fifteen other sovereign nations, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand, continue to depend on The Crown of the United Kingdom. It is therefore essential that the integrity of The Crown be maintained and it is to create an awareness of the potential danger imposed by the domination of the European Union over the Constitutional Institutions of the United Kingdom that the Australian Monarchist League is organising a Conference in London on the weekend of the 28 & 29 October. Obviously, the success of the Conference cannot be achieved without the involvement of those who are concerned about these issues and I earnestly urge you to support us by attending both days or even just one day. It is a horrendous task to organise this from the other side of the World and it is difficult to appreciate the differing sensitivities of individuals but I would ask for understanding in this regard and above all for an overriding support for what we are trying to achieve, which is to retain the integrity and sovereignty of our nations under The Crown of the United Kingdom. On Friday evening October 27, Lord Tebbit will be the Chief Guest at a 3 course Dinner at Queen’s Gate, South Kensington. The entrée is £75.00. (our cost is $65.00) The Conference will commence at 8.30 am on Saturday 28 October and will continue on Sunday 29 October. The cost for the Conference is £100.00 or for one day £50.00. Again these amount barely cover our costs. Separate dinners will be held on the Saturday and Sunday evenings. Mr Rodney Atkinson will be the guest speaker at the Saturday dinner and Mr Michael Shrimpton at the dinner on the Sunday evening. These dinners will be at an additional cost to be advised. Bookings & enquiries can be made to: monarchy@westnet.com.au and payments to:

Australian Monarchist League Conference c/o The Royal Society of St, George 127 Sandgate Road Folkestone Kent CT20 2BH

Cheques to be made payable to ‘The Australian Monarchist League’.

Additionally, on 1 November 2006, Philip Benwell MBE will be addressing a meeting, by courtesy of Lord Stoddart, in the House of Lords commencing at 7 pm at which time I will launch ‘The Association of the Commonwealth Realms’ the purpose of which will be to work to bring closer together the English Speaking Realms and to defend The Crown of the United Kingdom. There is no charge for this meeting.

Penny pinchers deny forces personnel proper protection

The scandal of inadequate armour for the Landrovers used in Iraq and Afghanistan has now received much publicity thanks in large part to the exposés of the blog EU Referendum. Channel 4 News last evening returned to the similar scandal of lack of fire-fighting foam protection in the British Hercules aircraft, promised to have been rectified some time past. The video of the news item is available from the page linked here. As it is money that is clearly involved in this matter is it at all surprising that it seems to be three Scottish cabinet ministers involved in this shameful delay? The three are of course: Chancellor Gordon Brown, Former Defence Secretary Dr John Reid and the present holder of that post AND ex-Treasury Secretary Desmond Browne.

One Week before the end of Habeas Corpus!

On 22nd September, a mere week from today, Britons may begin to lose the centuries held right to not be imprisoned without trial. It is at risk, as with so much else of importance, from the European Union acting under the ceded authority of the supposed democratic members of Britain's three main parties. This matter seems worthy of detailed background which thanks to various individuals named in the links and attachments I am now able to provide from this blog. I suggest the paper titled Will giving up th UK's veto over Home Affairs threaten the UK's legal system, be read first. It is available in pdf from this link to Open Europe research. The Daily Telegraph's David Rennie blog from Brussels had some fascinating exchanges last summer which may be read by clicking here. I quote below part of a contrbution by Torquil Dick-Erikson from 29th June 2006 .. because criminal justice is not only the department of state affairs for stopping or deterring crime, but also for protecting the freedom of innocent individuals from wrongful or indeed malicious imprisonment. It is the heart, the essence, of statehood. Once the EU has this, it won't really need a constitution since it will control all our lives. John Middleton is right to be terrified. Their legal systems are utterly different from ours. No continental country enjoys our rights of Habeas Corpus or Trial by independent Jury. The EU Commission's plan - Corpus Juris - for a single system for the whole of Europe, is based entirely on their inquisitorial system. Our safeguards will be wrenched away by majority voting. They will also be able to beef up Europol, and we shall see armed, uniformed Europol units patrolling our High Streets (all continental police are always armed). Lindsay Jenkins on the following day made a contribution which included the following statement: I would like to disabuse Chris Sherwood when he says that armed Europol officers in the UK (or anywhere else in the EU) is pie in the sky. Torquil Dick-Erickson has a deep understanding of what is just around the corner. Both the first head of Europol Jorgen Storbeck and the second, another former senior German police officer, have made it clear that Europol will be an executive police service. Another contribution to the debate by Mr Dick-Erikson on 4th July included the following: Make no mistake. Corpus Juris was conceived as a toe in the door, the thin end of a wedge to be hammered into our legal system and knock it apart. Its initial stated purpose is limited to the issue of fraud against EU finances, but this is just an attempt to make it more acceptable to us. At the EU Commission seminar where it was unveiled, the introductory programme listing the planned official speeches for the seminar, drawn up and printed by the EU Commission, said explicitly that "Corpus Juris is conceived as an embryo European criminal code". The final entry from Mr Dick-Erikson was on 9th July and included the following: Habeas Corpus is one of the essential parts of our civilisation. It is absolutely bedrock. You simply do not lock people up with no public hearing and no evidence of guilt being shown. In Britain, this is simply not done. (Or only in times of war or of extreme public emergency.) We have fought wars and world wars through our history to prevent this from happening to us. It is part of the essence of what we mean when we say "it's a free country, isn't it". With the European Arrest Warrant of course we have lost a part of this freedom: we can now be arrested even in Britain, on the orders of a foreign judge, and at once transported abroad, there to linger in jail for many months before we have a public hearing and before any evidence is produced against us. Habeas Corpus still applies now in Britain, but only if one is to be arrested by a British authority, not if one is to be arrested by a continental one. And if we give up the veto on Justice and Home Affairs, the EU will be able to set up its single system of criminal justice (on the continental model) and take away our Habeas Corpus even within Britain. There were later interesting contributions in that debate from Anne Palmer and Stuart Coster, but brevity rquires I quote no more from this string. Parliamentary discussion on the European Arrest Warrant, the Italian means of holding suspects and the consequences of extradition from the UK may be read from here. Pictures of the embryo EU riot police force may be found from their Home Page, linked here; their mission statement alarmingly includes the following: Quote Ømonitoring of and advice for local police in their day-to-day work, including criminal investigation work Unquote

Will Italy destroy the Euro?

A new pamphlet from CER is available today. WILL THE EUROZONE CRACK? by Simon Tilford, September 2006 Europeans often refer to Economic and Monetary Union and enlargement as the EU’s two greatest successes. However, the basis for a sustainable currency union is not in place. Unless the members rapidly boost their reform efforts, and unless economic growth across the eurozone accelerates, EMU faces a bleak future. What happens in Italy will be critical. If Italy fails to improve its competitiveness, it will eventually have to leave the eurozone. This could force other countries to quit the currency union and potentially threaten the EU’s single market. Simon Tilford is head of the business unit at the Centre for European Reform. It may be ordered from this link.

Royal Society Archives HIV Aids and Virus growth on Ape's kidneys

The 1954 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to John Franklin Enders and his junior associates Thomas Huckle Weller and Frederick Chapman Robbins "for their discovery of the ability of poliomyelitis viruses to grow in cultures of various types of tissue. The possible connections of early experiments on animal tissue in Africa (human and veterinary) with the later spread of HIV AIDS was drawn by Edward Hooper in his book 'The River' Should such a connection exist the consequences would of course be incalculable, particularly the question of potential damages and the financial future of the vast drugs industry. The assertions in the book were ruled implausible at a meeting of The Royal Society, which organisation has today made its archives available free online until December. The so-called 'smoking guns' provided by Mr Hooper were further investigated after the debate and again his arguments were found wanting. The five page paper may be read from this link to the pdf file archived document. Other links on the subject from The Royal Society may be found on the page linked here.

Immigration from the EU

The following paper by Anthony Scholefield was published this week. The final question of the article "Is it not time they based their immigration and EU policies on analysis and principle?" is one for ever hanging in the air throughout the existence of this blog! ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE More chance to show spin-doctoring skills EU membership and the issue of migration are, once again, topping the political agenda. With the accession of Bulgaria and Romania due on 1st January 2007 they are likely to remain among the biggest issues in British politics, however much the major political parties may regret it. It is often pointed out that the Home Office study, ‘The Impact of EU Enlargement on Migration Flows’ of 2003 spectacularly misforecast the likely influx of workers from the Eastern and Central Europe as the result of EU enlargement in 2004. This estimated that the influx would be between 5,000 and 13,000 per annum. But it should be noted that the forecast was made before the decision of Germany and others not to let in immigrants from the new member states. The Home Office study in fact predicted that, in that case, migration from the Accession Eight (A8) to the UK could be between 12,000 and 82,000 a year and it drew attention to academic forecasts showing a range of possible migration figures to the EU15 between 100,000 and 260,000 a year. It also emphasized the draw of the English language as an important migration driver. Given that the population of Bulgaria and Romania is about 30 million and that its standard of living is 28 per cent of the EU15 as against 45 per cent for the A8, is it now possible to estimate the number of likely migrants to the UK from Bulgaria and Romania? The decision of the other major EU countries in the Spring to continue restrictions on the A8 for another three years means that they will not let in migrants from Romania and Bulgaria. The Blairite think tank, the IPPR, which the government has commissioned to look at this, forecasts an inflow of 68,000 to the UK in the first year. The twin issues of EU membership and migration share many characteristics and illuminate the dysfunctional nature of British politics. As Jeff Randall, the BBC’s economics correspondent has remarked, modern British politics represents the triumph of public relations over rational thought. It is quite clear that the major parties have no idea of what the EU principle of ‘freedom of movement’ is likely to entail in practice. They have been protected from exposing their ignorance by the fact that little intra-EU migration took effect before 2004. All the major parties are in favour of the EU and immigration. All make dogmatic statements about the benefits without scruple or evidence. All refuse to consider impartial costs/benefits’ analysis. All ignore the obvious losses to Britain’s poorest people. All profess support for the ‘free movement of labour’ without understanding its implications. Incredibly, all, ultimately, favour a completely free movement of labour area with Turkey and without any analysis of the likely economic and social impact. All ignore an important truth: that very large-scale immigration means that the receiving economy begins to take on the characteristics of the country from which the immigrants have come, as the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences has acknowledged in its study ‘The New Americans: “In the extreme case in which immigrants’ descendants never assimilate and have a higher rate of natural increase, the nation to which they have immigrated eventually takes on the same economic characteristics as the one they come from”. Given that Turkey will soon have a labour force as big as that of Germany and the UK combined this is something worth bearing in mind. On immigration, as on ‘Europe,’ all parties are careless about history, evidence and principle. Instead, the parties quarrel over the second order issues of management and presentation. Thus when the assumption that A8 immigration being between 5,000 and 13,000, turns out to be wildly incorrect, no action is taken or apologies made. Instead the government follows the advice of its PR experts by ‘accentuating the positive’. So, having reassured the voters that A8 migration would be a fraction of the 400,000 who actually arrived, the Government suggests that the actual outcome constitutes an unmixed economic blessing. Up to 20th August the Labour Government had not said whether or not it would allow in migrants from the two new states. It was reported that the Conservatives had decided to remain united in their indecision about immigration from the two new countries, at least for time being. Meanwhile there was a major effort to rearrange the presentation in Conservative immigration policy. Conservative policy has always been in favour of free movement of labour in the EU and indeed in favour of wider immigration. The party manifesto for the 2005 election said, “Britain has benefited from immigration. We all gain from the social diversity, economic vibrancy (what that?) and cultural richness that immigration brings.” David Davis has opposed Labour only on managerial grounds, “What you have to do is to manage the system properly in order to provide the skills we need, without overwhelming local social services or the housing market, without upsetting community relations.” It is difficult even to take the remarks of Damian Green (Times, 8th July 2006) seriously. According to Mr. Green, a new immigration policy must have the consent of ethnic minorities. Precisely how this consent is to be elicited and why the consent of the indigenous population is not required is not explained. Even Green must realize there is something bizarre about approaching Muslims in Coventry and, by implication, promising them a vote over whether Bulgarians and Romanians should be admitted to the UK. As for the UK Independence Party, its Leader, replying to criticism over his setting up a family company to import Eastern Europeans to under cut British workers, reminded us that it too is in favour of some immigration, “For such long term work as opposed to my short term guest workers, UKIP has proposed a proper [sic] work permit scheme.” During July and August a number of prominent politicians and media figures began to warn that the large scale of immigration from Eastern Europe was impacting on the wages of British people and producing a number of other undesirable consequences of a kind which are likely to follow when an influx of labour is not matched by the requisite increase in capital spending on houses, roads, water, etc. These included John Denham, Frank Field, Polly Toynbee, Susan Anderson of the CBI, Bob Cotton of the British Hospitality Association and David Frost of the British Chamber of Commerce, as well as sections of the media. Extraordinarily, within less than twenty four hours both Labour and the Conservatives announced inchoate, media-driven changes in position. The Conservatives decided to call for ‘strict quotas’ on the number of workers allowed in from Bulgaria and Romania, whatever that means, while Alastair Darling, in answer to a question as to whether Britain would offer an open door, said “No. No-one who deals with immigration fails to realize that we have to have a system which is properly managed, properly constructed. That is essential.” Downing Street later claimed no decision had been made. The two crucial questions on the Bulgarian and Romanian issue are – does migration benefit the British people as a whole and is the free movement of labour in the EU in the interest of the British people as a whole? In order to demonstrate that it achieves the first of these goals those advocating the free movement of labour would have to show that reducing the earnings of the indigenous population in order to pay for the additional capital expenditure necessary to raise the living standards of imported labour is likely to have compensating long-term benefits. But they do not do this. Nor do they explain why the arrival of capital-less labour is in some peculiar way more beneficial than the addition of migrants with exactly the same capital and skills as indigenous populations which, as the US National Research Council frequently points out, would simply enlarge the economy without achieving a positive impact on GDP per head. There is substantial evidence, for example, that provided by the Economic Institute of the Dutch government that, with capital fixed, almost any type of immigration reduces GDP in per capita terms with considerable losses to wage earners outweighing extra returns to capital. Leaving aside important issues relating to national identity, there are quite obviously considerable fiscal costs in importing workers with low marginal productivity into a welfare state, Only the most highly selected skilled or wealthy immigrants could possibly increase the prosperity of the native population. In 2004, only 25 out of 582,000 immigrants qualified for investors’ immigration consents and the hurdle for being an ‘investor’ is extraordinarily low – being less than the cost of a house in a salubrious area of London. Lord Turner, a very europhile former Director of the CBI, said on 11th July, “The economic disbenefit is that in the short term, at least, high levels of unskilled immigration are bad for unskilled workers and I think to deny that is nonsense. There is an attempt to deny that but it just flies in the face of all economic theory.” One wonders how he can support the EU with its principle of freedom of movement - but at least his statement exposes the weakness of the parties’ policies on the EU and immigration. Now the two major parties in a formation dance are appearing to reverse their previous certainties about the benefits of the influx of capital-less labour, a few questions may be asked. Are they prepared to stop the immigration from the A8 countries? Are the A8 immigrants considered to be a permanent addition to the British labour force? Or are Bulgaria and Romania going to be the only EU countries from whom immigration is controlled? Are they prepared to conform to the EU agreement to take unlimited labour from the A8 countries after 2011 and Bulgaria and Romania after 2014? Are they still serious about enlarging the EU and allowing (eventually) free movement of Turkish labour? Is it not time they based their immigration and EU policies on analysis and principle?

Wasting our ill-equipped armed forces.

Americans looking at Iraq and Afghanistan can comfort themselves that there have been no further terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. Britons with our home grown terrorists, provided courtesy of our useless politicians, can draw no such consolation. Are others not now asking if our armed forces might be more usefully,productively and safely engaged in the woods around the Islamic school in Crowborough where the Government has known terrorists may have been trained for the past seven years. As this blog has repeatedly questioned. What is the mission in Afghanistan? At least some in the MSM are also now asking similar questions. The Times, this morning, has this astute observation from William Rees-Mogg: Britain is now stuck in Afghanistan .......... The Prime Minister may well be right to think that British forces are engaged in “a vital mission” there. Yet, one would welcome greater strategic clarity. There are three questions to which every strategy should be subjected. What is the objective? What resources will be required? What will be the exit? Unfortunately Afghanistan has been one of those issues on which the three main parties in the House of Commons have agreed........ .......My impression is that the public have become suspicious of the Afghan project on two grounds. They doubt whether enough resources have been given to the protection of our troops and are not willing to take many more British casualties in order to prevent Afghan peasants growing poppies. The entire opinion piece may be read from this link. The disconnect between the people of Britain and their elected politicians seems to this blogger to be entirely due to the endless stream of lies being finally seen for what they are. The following is the latest update from The Guardian, Linked Here. 4.15pm update

---

British military toll continues to rise Staff and agencies Monday September 4, 2006 Guardian Unlimited Danish soldiers carry the body of one of two British soldiers killed by a roadside bomb near Basra, Iraq. Photograph: Atef Hassan/Reuters Three British soldiers have been killed and two seriously injured in ongoing violence in Afghanistan and Iraq today, according to the Ministry of Defence.

The deaths came amid increasing concern about the army's overseas deployments and two days after 14 British soldiers were killed when an RAF Nimrod plane crashed in southern Afghanistan.

General Dannatt, the new head of the British army, told the Guardian today that soldiers were fighting at the limit of their capacity and could only just cope with the demands placed on them by the government.

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Innocent III

I wonder if the present Pope considers England still bound by the Charter of Submission from King John, reproduced below? Perhaps not in matters of religion, but I feel certain that some of his countrymen in the European Peoples Party in the European Parliament, (in which group all but one of Britain's Conservative MEPs remain), certainly take that political view in regard to the intent of the Treaty of Rome, as the quotes provided on one of my other blogs Teetering Tories over the past weekend, linked here, surely show.

Charter of Submission from the King of England, 1213

John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy...etc.

By this charter attested by our golden seal we wish it to be known to you all that...we offer and freely yield to God and to SS Peter and Paul...and to the Holy Roman Church our mother, and to our lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenences for the remission of our sins and the sins of our whole family.... And now, receiving back these kingdoms from God and the roman Church, and holding them as a feudatory vassal...we have pledged and sworn our fealty hencefort to our lord aforesaid, Pope Innocent III...and we bind in perpetuity our successors and legitimate heirs that without question they must similarly render fealty and acknowelge homage to the Supreme Pontiff holding office at the time... ...in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them [the fiefs], the Roman Church is to receive annually...one thousand marks sterling....

Terrorist training in Sussex

This weekend the police are reportedly crawling over a 54 acre boarding school estate in Crowborough in Sussex. The following is a quote from the Hansard record, linked here, of a House of Commons debate in 1999: Quote Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): The whole House will welcome the two specific initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend on the tourist industry and travel information and on the advice about dealing with

11 Jan 1999 : Column 26

hostage-takers. As he said, it is of paramount importance that we have the closest possible co-operation with the Yemeni Government. Will he confirm that the Yemeni Government are now allowing the Metropolitan police officers to interview those hostage-takers who are in detention? What is his response to the reports in the British press at the weekend that over Christmas a camp was held in north London at which individuals were given military training that might be relevant to taking extremism and terrorism into areas such as the Yemen?

Mr. Cook: The Metropolitan police officers in the Yemen have not had access to the suspects currently under detention there. The issue is not clear cut and it is by no means clear that, if the roles were reversed and the police officers of a third country came to Britain to interview suspects whom we were holding under charges, we would necessarily grant such access to the investigating authorities of another power. Still, the Yemeni authorities have co-operated fully in passing to our police officers the results of the interrogation and also other parts of their investigation. At present, we are satisfied with the level of co-operation and I have pressed the Prime Minister of Yemen that we should maintain the fullest co-operation.

I have seen the reports about a training camp. The camp referred to was in north Wales, I think, rather than in north London--

Mr. Anderson: Finsbury Park.

Mr. Cook: There were also reports of one in Crowborough. There have been investigations into the matter. The training provided purports to be survival training and also martial arts. We have not established that there was any breach of British law during such training. However, we will watch closely to ensure that, if any offence is committed under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 that prevent conspiracy to commit terrorism abroad, the Act is properly enforced.

Unquote It seems this was just one more promise the government has failed to keep - seven and a half years have elapsed since that exchange from which it was clear the Yemeni Government had provided valuable background on terrorist training in Sussex.

We today mourn the unnecessary 14 further British deaths in the marine Nimrod over Afghanistan