Mariano Rajoy, spanish Prime Minister and Herman Van Romuy, the president of the european council.
State run healthcare causes enough problems as it is. But when it is run by a government in debt, who must cut their spending, there is inevitably going to be a staffing crisis.
In the news today, it was found that the UK has fewer doctors per 1,000 people than almost all other EU countries! In the report (Eurostat regional yearbook 2013):
So what did the union GMB say?
Enough is enough, there can be no more cuts to budget or staffing.
Why, in these sorts of articles (not just in the Telegraph, but in fact all other media outposts in the UK), do they not consider other options, such as splitting up the NHS into more manageable chunks, or privatising services such as GP practices to save the taxpayer and government money?
The only positive thing that has happened to the NHS over the past 10 years is the abolishment of 23,000 unnecessary admin jobs which are the types of jobs that are created when things are run by the government.
ps. will somebody please raid the guardian and destroy this horrifying meme which is designed to destroy the healthcare debate in the UK. Thanks =]
What happens when you have a big government and high taxes? Just ask France!
The Telegraph today:
Today it was revealed that French borrowing costs have continued to rise as latest figures revealed the manufacturing sector underperformed even Greece. The ten-year bond yield climbed as much as 4.5 basis points on Wednesday as a gauge of activity in its manufacturing sector slipped to a seven month low, to the lowest of the eurozone’s major economies.
This is a worryingly large increase in cost.
France’s manufacturing PMI slipped to 47, lower than the flash estimate of 47.1, and below the 50 mark which separates expansion from contraction. That marks the 22nd consecutive month of contraction for factory activity in the eurozone’s second largest economy.
“This suggests that competitiveness is a key issue which the French manufacturing sector needs to address to catch up with its peers.”
How do you solve an inefficient, uncompetitive nation? You lower all taxes and decrease the size of government. It really is that simple. Make a competitive environment, and jobs will be created.
Yet France pushes on with its hate tax of 75% for top earners, leading to a mass exodus of wealthy business people and entrepreneurs from the country, who incidentally are the people who create the jobs.
The common agricultural policy is a product of the european union. It was first introduced in 1962, and since then has grown considerably. It consumes a massive 42% of the EU’s budget when only 5.4% of the EU population work on farms.
One man has been fighting against the absurd policies of the CAP for many years in the european parliament: Stewart Agnew. He is a UKIP MEP and also a farmer in the UK. Here is a selection of videos of his fight against the CAP:
Mariano Rajoy, spanish Prime Minister and Herman Van Romuy, the president of the european council.
The council of the European Union had a debate today on the external action service. As I was reading the report, one section caught my eye: “EU support for democratic governance” of nation states around the world. These were some of the points outlined:
The EU’s support should be based on a rights based approach,
encompassing all human rights, and the principles of participation, non-discrimination,
accountability and transparency.
The Council underlines that better use should be made of the wealth of experience the EU
has accumulated in the area of democratic transition
Wow, this is alarming considering that the core structure of the EU does not encompass all human rights (particularly some UK rights that are overruled by the ECHR), is not fully democratic, and is certainly not transparent! Where are those accounts that should have been signed off for the past 19 years?
Here is some more text from the report:
Notwithstanding the partner country’s needs and the commitment of the EU to provide
predictable funding, the Council notes that elements of an incentive based approach can stimulate progress and results in democratic governance.
The Council also notes that while financial incentives are not sufficient to trigger democratic reforms, an incentive-based approach works best when a critical mass of funding is available in order to generate significant impact and results, and where allocations form part of a broader strategy of EU engagement.
So basically the EU are going to do more of what they are already doing which is wasting millions on trying to persuade nations around the world to become more democratic, even though they acknowledge that financial incentives don’t actually work!
The report can be found here.
ps. The president of the council is non other than Catherine Ashton, who incidently has never been democratically voted for in her entire life.
I have always thought that Iceland, Switzerland and Norway were the countries with the most common sense in Europe. However, I found out today that Estonia is probably the best and here is why:
What an incredible country. This is an example of what can be achieved with the right policies after breaking away from the soviet union (Ukraine should take note!).
Furthermore, Estonia was hit very hard during the recession, unemployment reached 18%! Since then, Estonia now has the lowest ratio of government debt to GDP and the lowest budget deficit in the EU.
Estonia ranks high in the Human Development Index, press freedom (third in the world in 2012), economic freedom, civil liberties and education. It is often described as one of the most wired countries in Europe (Internet), and is recognised as a leader in e-government.
This is my first post regarding european union legislation. I hope to post about more EU laws being passed that are not covered by the main press in the UK on this blog.
The first I have chosen is the european defence technological and industrial base. Here are the important points about the proposed legislation:
This is how MEPs voted:
What can we take from this? The new european army is on its way folks. The text in red signifies the fact that the EU will use this army to protect its own values and to promote them too, one wonders how this will all end up!
There have been many protests recently in Ukraine because the public want to live in a democratic country, free from Russia’s grip. Yet what they are calling for, is closer ties with the undemocratic EU. Am I missing something here?
Why can’t the people call for an independent Ukraine, who can be competitive and trade with the rest of the world, instead of transferring their powers from Russia to the EU? Surely after everything the country has been through, this is their best option.
As Milton Friedman once coined: The tyranny of the status quo. Ukraine has become unsettled with russia, but don’t want to suffer too much change, so instead they want to go with something they’re used to, being governed by a foreign body, the EU.
One wonders, how a politician who has never been voted for in her entire career, landed the role of the head of the European External Action Service. Catherine Ashton.
She is in the news again today because her service costs £420m annually. The EEAS was set up because of the new powers the Lisbon Treaty granted the EU. The purpose of this organisation is to bribe foreign countries and leaders to do as the EU says and to merge all of the european state armies into one massive army.
The EEAS has 3,417 staff and 500 of those earn more than the British Prime Minister David Cameron. Additionally, the majority of the employees only pay 15% tax on their salaries.
To add to the waste, it has emerged that the EEAS has spent £130k on teaching children cricket, and £1m on wind turbines and biofuel plants which have not been built.
Catherine Ashton has done remarkable well for herself ever since she passed the Lisbon Treaty through the UK house of lords without a referendum. Hmmmmmm………
The word nationalist is often thrown about when a europhile argues against those who oppose political union in europe. In fact, when the french, dutch and irish had referendums and all rejected the lisbon treaty, some MEP’s called the results nationalist, as to mean being nationalist is something bad!
A nationalist is someone who believes in democracy, who believes in one-man-one-vote and believes that government should be carried out by and for the people. However, he also raises the question: what people?
Representative government works best within a population whose members feel enough in common with one another to accept government from each other’s hands. After all, a policy functions best when there is a shared identity.
The unelected president of the European Commission, Jose Barroso, has argued that nation states are dangerous precisely because they are excessively democratic:
Governments are not always right. If governments were always right we would not have the situation that we have today. Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong.
The EU now treats public opinion as an obsticle to be overcome rather than a reason to change direction.
Marxists used to contend that, if only the workers were in full possession of the facts, and free rationally to advance their own interests, they would vote for socialist parties, but in practice they were led astray by bourgeois interests. It was therefore necessary for good communists to act in the real interests of the majority.
This is the same argument the eurocrats support. Because they think people are unable to make an unclouded decision, eurocrats are entitled to disregard their desires in pursuit of their own preferences.
Even Tony Blair thought this:
The British people are sensible enough to know that, even if they have a certain prejudice about Europe, they don’t expect their government necessarily to share or act upon it.
And finally, the EU has so much power, that to save the dwindling euro currency in 2011, it effectively halted democracy in italy and greece ‘for their own good’ through brussels appointed apparatchiks.
A nationalist, is someone who wants what is best for his country, through democracy. Not someone who thinks they know what is right for everyone.
The fact is, if the EU were a country applying to join itself, it would be rejected on the grounds of being insufficiently democratic by its own rules.
ps. please read Dan Hannan’s book:
A Doomed Marriage: Britain and Europe
The United Kingdom is no longer a democracy.
What is the definition of a democracy? I don’t normally cite wikipedia but I thought their definition was apt:
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
Political self-determination. Such an elegant way of saying that the people of the country should determine their own destiny.
So what if I told you that the UK is no longer a democracy. That it instead transfers the majority of its powers to Brussels (EU). You would probably argue that I am wrong because even though EU law overrides a vast number of UK laws, we do elect MEP’s who are our representatives.
What is the most important role of democracy? It is the ability for the people to remove any representative in power who they don’t agree with as a majority. The fact that not one single taxpaying citizen in the UK can remove any of the european commssion members is why we no longer live in a democracy. We have no control over the rule makers.
This image shows the structure of the european union. Let me ask you this. What happens when the commission creates a new law that the majority don’t like? Well the law doesn’t (or sometimes does) get through the european parliament. So what happens if this keeps happening? Nothing because none of the commissioners can be removed by the general public. They are unaccountable, unanswerable and unmovable.
Take a look at this graph from the office of national statistics:
Firstly, it shows how volatile the construction sector is in the UK. Secondly it shows that the UK services industry is booming while production has never really recovered from the crash.
The production side of the economy is directly effected by regulation and taxes, where as the services industry is propped up by government spending. The more the government spends, the more it has to tax. High taxes stifle growth in the production side of the economy and this reduces output. If our output is reduced the country suffers from a trade deficit and a budget deficit. The most effective way of reducing both is to produce more than you buy.
EU red tape is also having a massive impact on our productive sector and churns out new legislation every week.
Obama, Cameron and Milliband are all the same
It seems like a long time ago now, but back in 2012, Manchester airport did a trial run of full body X-ray scanners, which were funded by the EU to increase airport security. I know security in airports is important, but at the time I thought they went too far. My partner, who is a qualified radiographer here in the UK, said to me “I bet those scanners don’t abide by the Ionising radiation regulation 1999”.
Low and behold she was right, it was in fact someone she knew who was going on holiday through the airport that very week who happened to be a top dog in the field of radiation protection contacted the airport and they immediately took the scanners down.
What the underlying message of this story describes, is how far the state will go for your ‘protection’ in your best interest, even though you have not been asked personally whether you agree with the technology or not.
Anyway, in all cases, cartoon obama is best at describing these things.