EU corruption - it's quite incredible and won't be discussed on the BBC

'The BBC Europe Editor Gavin Hewitt’s The Lost Continent is a superb page-turner about the crisis of the European Single Currency. I found it so jaw-dropping I added my own entry in the index for "WTF moments: best of."

I learnt that “Two journalists from Corriere della Sera discovered there were 72,000 official cars [in Italy], costing 1.85 billion euros annually”.

In Spain, “the airport of Ciudad Real boasts one of Europe longest runways. Its vast airy light terminal is designed to handle 5 million passengers a year. It cost nearly a billion euros. Yet there are no planes.”

During Ireland’s property boom, “In the space of 10 years, 553,000 houses had been built. Nearly 300,000 of them lay empty.” One city, Valencia in Spain, ran up a debt of 25 billion Euros.
German stability culture it wasn’t.

In a sense, the single currency – monetary union without fiscal union, let alone political union – not only helped get European countries into crisis, it has also stopped them getting out of it.
Introduced prematurely – and there is an understatement! – in 1999, the Euro was a political act by a political class-cum-bureaucracy that saw itself as the vanguard party for a European super-state. It was always about politics not economics. It was supposed to be the next stage to an "‘ever-closer union".

Unfortunately, the single currency was also an open invitation for countries with very different economies, and very different economic and political cultures to Germany’s, to get into serious trouble.'

There's more at Alan Johnson's Telegraph Blog but definitely not at the pro-EU and partly EU funded BBC.

Panic on the streets of Berlin, Paris and Brussels

The EU bosses are worried that if a Conservative government is elected in the UK before the Lisbon Treaty is put into force then a referendum called in the UK would vote their project down. Leaving aside the fact that if the referendum is certain to be defeated then why has the UK's Labour lickspittle government ratified it there is another worrying story emerging.

It seems that the German and French governments, as well as that of the Swedes who hold the rotating EU Presidency, are putting pressure on the Czech President Vaclav Klaus to sign the Treaty as Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Prime Minister of Sweden, said to the signing ceremony in Poland "We do not need more delays". Meanwhile it is alleged that pressure is being put on the Czech Parliament to persuade their stubborn President to sign the Lisbon treaty, talk of impeachment proceedings or maybe stripping him of his treaty-signing powers is rife. Either of these routes would mean the Treaty being signed before any possible UK general election.

Sordid isn't it? The EU pushing a small member country to sign-up and shut-up so as to ensure that the popultaion of one of the big EU countries is denied a referendum, a referendum that they were promised by all their political parties ahead of the last general election. You might be excused for wondering why the EU are so desperate to impose the Lisbon Treaty if it is just a "tidying up exercise". Maybe it is somewhat more than that... We know it, they know it; it's just that they will continue to lie about it right up until the Treaty is in place and we are subsumed, even more than we are now, into the EU super-state.

"THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT"

The Code of Conduct for members of Parliament is available online for the perusal of us mere taxpaying voters so I thought I'd take a look and see what guidance is given to our esteemed Lords and Masters.

Here's an interesting section (my emphasis and my comments)

"IV. General Principles of Conduct

7. In carrying out their parliamentary and public duties, Members will be expected to observe the following general principles of conduct identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its First Report as applying to holders of public office.[1] These principles will be taken into consideration when any complaint is received of breaches of the provisions in other sections of the Code.

"Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

Surely all those MPs who have gained financially by the over-use of expense claims fall foul of this principle.


Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Surely all Peers who are due an EU pension so long as they "uphold the interests of the European Communities" are in breach of this principle (you may want to read this article, this article and this article for more information about Lord Brittan of Spennithorne and "Lords" Kinnock and Mandelson


Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
I see some interesting questions that could be asked here of contracts being awarded to companies with family members in high positions or to companies where the Minister goes to work after retiring (forceably or otherwise)


Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Unless they can use the FOI restrictions to prevent such disclosure.


Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Unless they operate under a system of sofa cabinet and off-system emails.


Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
Too many examples, just too many examples; see my website over the last two years for examples.


Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example."
No comment necessary.

And now "V. Rules of Conduct" (my emphasis and my comments)

"9. Members shall base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.
Does anyone believe this is followed?


10. No Member shall act as a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House.
EU pensions again?


11. The acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct as a Member, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be submitted to the House, or to any Committee of the House, is contrary to the law of Parliament.
No comment.


12. In any activities with, or on behalf of, an organisation with which a Member has a financial relationship, including activities which may not be a matter of public record such as informal meetings and functions, he or she must always bear in mind the need to be open and frank with Ministers, Members and officials.
No comment.


13. Members must bear in mind that information which they receive in confidence in the course of their parliamentary duties should be used only in connection with those duties, and that such information must never be used for the purpose of financial gain.
No comment.


14. Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services.

strictly in accordance!

15. Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute."
No comment.

Interestingly, "The Categories of Registrable Interest" do not seem to include future pensions which I have mentioned above. However the following seems to cover the point more than adequately:

"Category 10

Miscellaneous: Any relevant interest, not falling within one of the above categories, which nevertheless falls within the definition of the main purpose of the Register which is "to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches, or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament," or which the Member considers might be thought by others to influence his or her actions in a similar manner, even though the Member receives no financial benefit. "

There even seems to be a clause to deal with future employment:

"PAST AND POTENTIAL INTERESTS

56. The rule relating to declaration of interest is broader in scope than the rules relating to the registration of interests in two important respects. As well as current interests, Members are required to declare both relevant past interests and relevant interests which they may be expecting to have. In practice only interests held in the recent past, i.e. those contained in the current printed edition of the Register, need normally be considered for declaration. Expected future interests, on the other hand, may be more significant. Where, for example, a Member is debating legislation or making representations to a Minister on a matter from which he has a reasonable expectation of personal financial advantage, candour is essential. In deciding when a possible future benefit is sufficiently tangible to necessitate declaration, the key word in the rule which the Member must bear in mind is "expecting". Where a Member's plans or degree of involvement in a project have passed beyond vague hopes and aspirations and reached the stage where there is a reasonable expectation that a financial benefit will accrue, then a declaration explaining the situation should be made. "

In fact the Code of Conduct seems to cover most of the bases, or rather it would if MPs and Peers were honourable people; unfortunately many seem to be anything other than honourable and so more stringent legislation is needed. I would like to see an end to the convention of calling MPs honourable, I for one would find that word sticking in my craw.

EU trying to acquire more powers

The BBC report that:

"The City of London and other financial institutions should be supervised by a new pan-European watchdog, a European Commission report will recommend.

Its proposals, written by ex-Bank of France Governor Jacques de Larosiere, will include an EU-wide supervisory scheme for banks and financial bodies. "

The EU trying to acquire more power, what a shock. This is what the EU is for to gather power, to centralise it and to control Europe.

I liked this line in the BBC report:

"The independent group was set up by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in November to look at ways of improving supervision of the financial sector. "

"Independent"? Independent of what or who?

I also had a jolly good laugh at this line from the BBC report:

"BBC Europe Editor Mark Mardell said supporters of the scheme would like to see national bodies like the UK's Financial Services Authority made subordinate to the new institution. "

Well of course they do, that's because they want everything "National" to be subservient to everything EU.


Just one final thought, why would the UK even consider making its financial regulation subservient to regulation by an organisation that hasn't managed to get its own accounts approved by its own auditors for 14 years?

Hans-Martin Tillack and the EU

Update on EU restriction of freedom of speech case is revealed as

"Hans-Martin Tillack, a German journalist who had been detained by the EU after investigating Brussels fraud, was definitively cleared by the courts. The Belgian government, whose police had raided Tillack's flat, was ordered to pay damages and costs."

Read the whole article at First Post and worry about our future in the EUSSR Superstate.

EU Accounts

As Times report today in an article by someone who really knows about this subject, Marta Andreassen,

"Here we go again. Today, for the 14th year in a row, the European Court of Auditors will unveil their report, telling us that they refuse to clear the EU accounts. What's worse, no one will really seem to care. We are told that the accounts won't be cleared until 2020 - if then.

Having worked inside the Brussels nomenklatura and having being sacked for my insistence that financial controls have to be strengthened, I am not surprised to find that nothing has changed other than the arguments deployed to defend this state of affairs. What the auditors have been saying for years is that most of the payments made by the Commission from its £70 billion-a- year budget cannot be deemed legal or regular. That is, that they cannot confirm those payments have been made to the correct person for the correct purpose and for the correct amount. It stretches credulity to insist, as the Europhiles do, that this does not mean that there is fraud. "

Unsurprisingly I can find nothing about this ongoing scandal on the BBC website and I doubt that David Cameron will raise the matter at PMQs. The UK, along with the other EU members, is being royally ripped-off by EU fraud and nobody seems to care. In fact some people do care but they end up under investigation by the EU or fired; read up on Marta Andreassen and Hans-Martin Tillack and worry about our democratic future.

EU accounts not signed off for 14th straight year

I see that the EU's accounts have not been signed off for the fourteenth year running. William Hague says that this is "completely unacceptable"; I would say it is worse than that, it is a f***ing disgrace. The UK pays large sums of money into the EU budget which seems to be spent on French farmers, Spanish infrastructure and jobs for Belgians.

I can't find any mention of this fact on the BBC, but then they are too busy documenting every tiny twist in the Gordon Brown story, promoting Barack Obama, pushing the man made climate change agenda and generally screwing up the UK.

What confuses me is that if a UK company failed to have its accounts signed off by an independent accountant then HMRC and/or Companies House would have their corporate guts for garters. However in the EU's case nothing happens. What are the discrepancies that prevent the Auditors from signing off the accounts? Has money gone missing? Have the EU still not managed to install a system of double-entry bookkeeping? Has any money disappeared due to fraud? Who is responsible for the discrepancies, someone must be?

Two people who tried to blow the whistle on EU fraud and suffered as a result are Marta Andreasen and Jose Sequeira - do look them up on the internet, the cases are real eye-openers.

The EU "project" is tumbling down around their ears

I see that

"About 200sq m (2,152sq ft) of the ceiling (of the Strasbourg chamber) caved in on 7 August. Nobody was in the chamber at the time."

Maybe now we can stop the waste of regularly transporting the EU decision making process from Brussels to Strasbourg just to keep the French happy.

The "Impotent fury of spurned EU-federalists"

Ah bless their angry little souls. Daniel Hannan MEP has written a nice piece which you can read here , but here is an extract:

"MEPs meeting in Strasbourg yesterday were furious. They fumed and shouted. They hopped about. They jabbed accusing fingers at the handful of Eurosceptic MEPs. We were 'populists', they said. We were 'dishonest'. We were 'a right-wing rabble'. Worst of all, many of us were 'British', who had never before shown the slightest interest in Irish democracy.

What had we done to provoke this ire? We had turned up wearing T-shirts bearing the slogan 'Respect the Irish Vote'. This seemed to madden the federalist majority, who, only two months ago, voted not to respect Ireland's vote. True to their word, they have since demanded that ratification proceed in the other 26 states and, in the meantime, they are implementing the contents of the Lisbon treaty as if there had been a 'Yes'.

'We respect the Irish 'No', but...' said speaker after speaker. Yeah, right. If they truly respected Ireland's 'No', they would undo the bits of the Lisbon treaty that have been implemented in anticipation of a 'Yes' vote, including the EU's diplomatic corps, common policies on immigration and a binding Charter of Fundamental Rights."

Of course we all know that the key parts of the Lisbon Treaty will be implemented one way or another over the next couple of years, some have already been implemented before the Treaty has even come into effect. The move to full EU integration is not optional, the views of the peoples of Europe are of no consequence to our putative masters.

MEP's expenses

There is a lot of fuss being made over the "dodgy" expenses of Conservative MEPs that have been revealed recently, and rightly so as the antics of Giles Chichester and others are reprehensible. However I have read little on the BBC about how this information has come into the open and why we are unlikely to learn of any "naughtiness" that has been undertaken by Labour or Liberal Democrat MEPS.

Open Europe, the European focussed think tank, asked all British MEPs who handled their staff allowances, and whether they employed family members. Only 25 out of 79 UK MEPs were prepared to provide full answers. 12 MEPs replied, but gave only partial answers, while 41 simply refused to answer the questions. Most Conservative MEPs replied, as did almost all UKIP members and both Greens. But 15 out of 19 Labour MEPs and eight out of 11 Lib Dems have kept quiet.

So here is a list of the MEPs who have not answered the questions at all (per Open Europe):

Conservative - 11:
Sir Robert Atkins, Christopher Beazely, John Bowis, Den Dover, James Elles, Malcolm Harbour, Caroline Jackson, Timothy Kirkhope, John Purvis, Struan Stevenson, Robert Sturdy

Labour - 13:
Michael Cashman, Richard Corbett, Neena Gill, Richard Howitt, Stephen Hughes, Glenys Kinnock, Linda MacAvan, Eluned Morgan, Brian Simpson, Peter Skinner, Catherine Stihler, Gary Titley, Glenis Willmot

Liberal Democrat - 8:
Elspeth Attwooll, Andrew Duff, Fiona Hall, Sarah Ludford, Liz Lynne, Bill Newton-Dunn, Emma Nicholson, Diana Wallis

Non attached and Nationalist parties - 6:
Robert Kilroy-Silk, Jill Evans, Bairbre de Brun, Ian Hudghton, Alan Smith, Jim Nicholson

UKIP - 3:
Graham Booth, Roger Knapman, Mike Natrass


Maybe Michael Crick could get off his Caroline Spelman hobby horse and investigate some of these people. The only problem is that he would only look at the Conservative MEPs listed as Tory sleaze is an acceptable BBC story, whilst Labour sleaze is not.

Oh Yes, it's NO (hopefully)

If this is true then I am a happy NotaSheep. The BBC are reporting that:

"Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern says substantial vote tallies across the country show the European Union Lisbon reform treaty has been rejected.

Tallies are not official, but Mr Ahern says it is clear the No vote is ahead in a vast majority of constituencies. "

Of course being the BBC they try some pro-EU spin:

"Correspondents say many voters did not understand the treaty despite a high-profile campaign led by Prime Minister Brian Cowen, which had the support of most of the country's main parties."

That would be the same Brian Cowen who said that he hadn't read the whole Treaty.

"The Lisbon Treaty replaces a more ambitious draft constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005."

"more ambitious", how about practically identical in result?

"Just over three million Irish voters are registered - in a European Union of 490 million people."

Nice try BBC, no other country has held a referendum. The French couldn't because they knew the electorate would vote NO. As the French President Nicolas Sarkozy said at a meeting of senior MEPs, (reported in EUobserver, 14 November 2007) "France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments … There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."

"In 2001, Irish voters almost wrecked EU plans to expand eastwards when they rejected the Nice treaty. It was only passed in a much-criticised second vote."

Will the EU try the "keep voting until you get right approach" again or will the majority of the provisions be slipped through in the next "Accession Treaty"?

Democracy EU style

The Daily Telegraph reports that:

"The European Union assembly’s political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings.

Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP’s pan-European Eurosceptic “Independence and Democracy” grouping.

Under the rule change, the largest and msot pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament’s political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.

”It would prevent single issue politicians from being given undue support from the public purse,” said Mr Corbett.

”We want to avoid the formation of a fragmented Parliament, deeply divided into many small groups and unable to work effectively.”

Mr Corbett’s proposals will also give the President of the Parliament sweeping powers to approve or reject parliamentary questions.

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, claimed that the move goes hand in hand with the denial of popular votes on the new EU Treaty.

”Welcome to your future. This shows an EU mindset that is arrogant, anti-democratic and frankly scary,” he said.

”These people are so scared of public opinion they are willing to set in stone the right to ignore it. Freedom requires the governing elite to be held to account. They must be getting very worried if they are enacting such dictatorial powers for themselves.”

Current rules allow 20 MEPs from a fifth of the EU’s member states to form groupings, giving them a say in the Parliament’s administration and power structure.

Under the changes, the threshold would become 30 MEPs from one quarter of the EU’s member states. "

We should all face up to the fact that the EU is anti-democratic and heading towards being a totalitarian state. The Soviet Union fell apart, unfortunately we in the west have signed up to a new totalitarian state of our own. The EU have been implementing as many of the provisions of the failed Constitution as they can and regardless of the Eire vote on the Treaty it will be implemented. From that point on any changes to the EU will be carried out without recourse to the electorate. Future EU elections will only involve political parties that support the aims of the EU, dissenting parties will not be allowed to stand. Not long after that it will be made a crime to publish articles criticising the EU. How long before a UK citizen who says on a blog that the EU is corrupt, has an arrest warrant issued in Belgium and is extradited to that country to stand trial.

When the euro-enthusiasts lied about the political implications of joining the EEC back in the early 1970s and told us that it was just an economic area; the die was cast, the future is all but inevitable. Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein EU.

Eurovision Song Contest

I admit it, myself and Mrs NotaSheep are watching the Eurovision Song Contest. Well it's on in the background whilst I blog and Mrs NotaSheep chooses some lingerie or whatever it she does on her laptop of an evening.

With the songs done and dusted, here's my verdict:

1. Romania - boring, not a chance

2. UK - Polished and one of the few songs that could be a hit in the UK but no chance of winning as everyone in "Europe" hates the UK

3. Albania - dire power ballad not a chance

4. Germany - Yikes, not a chance

5. Armenia - Weird dancing, not a chance

6. Bosnia - What the hell was that about, the girl singer looked like a slimmer Cleo Rocos from the Kenny Everett Show and as for the male singer and the backing artistes... bizarrely I think I can still hum it...

7. Israel - Not a hope as Europe hates Israel almost as much as the UK

8. Finland - The winning rock song from 2 years ago was interesting, this one wasn't

9. Croatia - Total crap

10. Poland - Very poor but the telephone lines from Ealing, Hammersmith and other parts West London will be red-hot

11. Iceland - Quite a good hi-energy song

12. Turkey - Not my cup of tea

13. Portugal - Forgotten it already

14. Latvia - What was that, Pirates of the Caribbean (the musical), weird people...

15. Sweden - Blondes have more fun, really...

16. Denmark - very, very catchy and a bit familiar somehow

17. Georgia - The Matrix (the musical)

18. Ukraine - Yeech

19. France - Huh.... and the French are meant to have style?

20. Azerbaijan - What...

21. Greece - Very Britney Spears per Mrs NotaSheep...

22. Spain - That was a joke wasn't it, please tell me it was a joke

23. Serbia - A terrible Eurovision ballad

24. Russia - Desperately average

25. Norway - Quite a fair Eurovision song, strapping singer...


Winners of the films as a musical were nobody, Latvia and Georgia were equally dire.


My predictions:

Greece will give Cyprus 12 points or maybe only 10 points
Cyprus will give Greece 12 points
Sweden will give Norway 12 points
Norway will give Sweden 12 points
The ex-Soviet Union states will vote for each other
The Balkan states will vote en-bloc
The UL will get less than 30 points

The winners will be from one of Poland, Denmark or Norway but bearing in mind the bloc-voting maybe Russia or if not then Ukraine or Greece.



The voting:
UK no politics and surprisingly few points for Poland
Macedonia 12 points to Albania what a surprise
Ukraine 12 points to Russia what a surprise (and the 10 and 8 were hardly shocks)
Germany 10 points to Turkey what a surprise
Estonia Estonia 8, 10 & 12 to Baltic or Baltic bordering
Bosnia & Herzegovina 12 points to Serbia what a surprise
Albania 10 points to Turkey and 12 points to Greece
Belgium 10 points to the Turkish homeland and 12 for Armenia!
San Marino 6 for UK, 12 points would go to Italy had they been there, 10 points for Israel, 12 points to Greece - Obviously nobody has told San Marino not to vote for UK or Israel
Latvia 10 points to Ukraine and 12 points to Russia, I am in shock, mind you would I want to annoy Putin more than I had to
Bulgaria 8 to Armenia, 10 to Greece and 12 to Germany (I am fed-up with typing points...)
Serbia 10 to Russia (a massive surprise) and 12 to Bosnia Herzegvina (a huge shock)
Israel lots of ex-Soviets there so 10 to Ukraine and 12 to Russia
Cyprus ... here we go... 12 points to Greece (typed before she said it, no need for the delete button)
Moldova 8 to Azerbaijan, 10 to Russia and 12 to Romania (shocks all round...)
Iceland (I feel votes for Scandinavia) 10 to Norway and 12 to Denmark (shocks galore)
France (Votes announced in French, song in English) surprising votes
Romania (I sense more votes for Turkey (8), Russia (10) and Ukraine or Greece (12)
Portugal (oldest allies in Europe, could they give us 12? probably not...) 12 to Ukraine (voted on music not politics)
Norway (more votes for Scandinavia?) Sweden only 7, Iceland 8, BOSNIA 10 (are they mad), 12 to Denmark (what a shock)
Hungary (good Balkan solidarity?) 8 Greece, 10 Russia (OK), 12 Azerbijan
Andorra (Spain, France and Spain?) France just 3 (so 12 for Spain?), 10 for Portugal
and yes 12 for Spain
Poland (anyone left there, I thought most were now in West London) 10 to Ukraine and 12 to Armenia (hmmm)
Slovenia (more Balkan solidarity?) 8 Croatia, 10 to Bosnia Herz.. and 12 to Serbia (I am shocked!)
Armenia (Balkan, Russia and Greece?) 8 to Greece, 10 to Georgia and 12 to Russia
Czech Republic (harder to predict - joke!) 8 to Ukraine, 10 to Azerbijan and 12 to Armenia
Spain just 8 to Portugal, 10 to Armenia and 12 to Romania (no idea...)
Netherlands (would be 12 for Belgium..., I predict a lot for Turkey) 10 for Turkey (Firefox locked there ... oops)
Turkey (look Balkan) 8 to Ukraine, 10 to Armenia and 12 to Azerbijan
Malta (needs to stay out of the sun) 8 to Russia (?), 10 to Ukraine (??) and 12 points to Sweden (Can we recall the George Cross?)
Ireland (anything for UK?) 8 for UK, 10 to Poland, 12 to Latvia
Switzerland (that'll be France and Germany) 8 to Albania (?!?!), 10 to Portugal and 12 to Serbia
Azerbaijan (more ex-Soviet and Balkan?) 8 to Russia (shock!), 10 to Ukraine(!?) and 12 to Turkey
Greece (12 or 10 to Cyprus?, 0 for Turkey?) 8 for Spain, 10 for Albania and 12 for Armenia (NOT CYPRUS!) --- It has been pointed out that Cyprus didn't make it to the final and therefore Greece wouldn't vote for them. I didn't think that this minor problem would stop Greece voting for Cyprus; if the positions were reversed I am positive that Cyprus would try to vote for Greece ---
Finland (Scandinavia... and Russia) 5 Sweden, 7 Iceland, 8 Israel (not very Scandinavian), 10 to Russia and 12 to Norway
Croatia (solidly Balkan) Albania 8, Serbia 10 and Bosnia H 12 (what a shock)
Sweden (more for Scandinavia?) 5 Denmark, 7 Finland, 8 Iceland, 10 BOSNIA H(!), 12 Norway
Belarus (12 for Russia and 10 to Ukraine?) 8 to Azerbijan, 10 to Ukraine and 12 to Russia (this is so hard to predict)
Lithuania (Russia, Baltic and ex-Soviet?) 8 to France (a surprise), 10 to Lithuania and 12 to Russia
Russia (will they reward their ex-Soviet friends?) 8 to Ukraine, 10 to Azerbijan and 12 to Armenia (that was a yes then!)
Montenegro (more Balkans) Croatia 2 Armenia 1, 8 to Russia, 10 to Bosnia H, 12 to Serbia (what a shock)
Georgia (more ex-Soviet?) 8 to Russia (just 8, Putin won't like that), 10 to Ukraine and 12 to Armenia (ex Soviet solidarity)
Denmark (Scandinavia and Germany?) 8 to Sweden, 10 to Norway (wrote that before she said it and 12 to Iceland (ditto)


Results:
Russia win due to politics as predicted
UK come equal last as predicted
How did Bosnia & Herzegovina get that many points


Politics not music; one question why should the UK fund this event? I suppose if we didn't then we wouldn't even make the final in the future.

Sounds like even Terry Wogan has had enough... Mrs NotaSheep certainly has, she has been asleep for the past hour!


The Russian winning song really reminds me of something else, a ballad from not that long ago - I will ask Mrs NotaSheep in the morning.




PostScript:

Mrs NotaSheep asked why is it called a "green room", so I Wikipedia'd it:

"A green room is a room in a theatre, studio, or other public venue for the accommodation of performers or speakers when not required on the stage.

...

The most widely accepted origin of the term dates back to Shakespearean theatre. Actors would prepare for their performances in a room filled with plants and shrubs. It was believed that the moisture in the topiary was beneficial to the Actors' voices."

UPDATE Donal Blaney has a nice article on the Eurovision Song Contest and I was active in his comments section.

Embassies of the Union

Take a read of The Telegraph reporting that:

"The European Union will open its own embassies under a plan critics fear represents a "power grab" by Brussels officials pushing for a federal superstate.

The secret plan represents the first time that full EU embassies have been discussed seriously.

The "Embassies of the Union" would be controlled by a new EU diplomatic service created by the Lisbon Treaty.

The Daily Telegraph has seen a high-level Brussels document discussing plans for a "European External Action Service" (EEAS) which was proposed under the new EU Treaty, currently being ratified in Westminster."

Note that the report claims:

"The new service would rival established diplomatic services."

This is of course rubbish, the "new service" is not designed to "rival established diplomatic services", it is designed to replace them. It is staggering how the general population, most politicians and commentators don't seem to realise what is happening, it is almost as though they don't want to see...

Galileo funding gets approved

Daniel Hannans article complaining that MEPs vote through funding without knowing what they were approving should surprise nobody. The fact that the example he and Chris Heaton-Harris used was the GNSS surprises me even less. The EU juggernaut rolls on and we are powerless to stop it. For more on the GNSS/Galileo system take a read of these articles.

EU fraud

Further to my blog about EU payments fraud amongst MEPs I now read that "Senior MEPs have declared that a secret report finding "massive suspicion of fraud" in European Parliament funding worth £100 million a year will never see the light of day...Herbert Bösch, chairman of the parliament's budgetary control committee, refused a demand from 11 of his colleagues for the report to be published.

"I made it available to members of this committee. I did my job," he said. "It is in the hands of the bureau to publish this."

Mr Bösch defended the parliament's culture of secrecy surrounding public money paid to MEPs for generous staff and travel allowances.

"I will refuse any demands to have a look at my journeys and trips," he said. "Some things should not be published."

José Javier Pomes Ruiz, a senior Spanish centre-right MEP, attacked Chris Davies, his British Liberal Democrat colleague, for talking to the press about the report.

"The aim is to get press coverage and to bring the parliament down. MEPs have the democratic right to manage their funds whichever way they want," he said."


Does the phrase "secretive scum" cover my views?

An interesting letter re EU fraud

"As a member of the European Parliament's Budget Control Committee I was this morning permitted to read a copy of Internal Audit Report 06/02 on the parliamentary assistance allowance paid to MEPs for the employment of their staff.

I write to request that you immediately provide the Director-General of OLAF with a copy of this report.OLAF was established to uphold the principle that the European Institutions have a duty to guarantee, with regard to the taxpayer, the best use of their money and in particular to fight as effectively as possible against fraud and any other illegal activity harmful to the financial interests of the Community.

In my view the findings of the Parliament's internal auditors most definitely fall within OLAF's terms of reference. They are so serious that it should be assumed that criminal proceedings may follow. I believe that the parliamentary authorities have a duty immediately to open the entire matter to independent scutiny by those experienced in judging what is and what is not fraudulent activity.

In view of the seriousness of this matter I request that receipt of this letter be acknowledged.

Yours sincerely

Chris Davies MEP"


And the response from the EU...

"The European Parliament's competent bodies were informed this week of a report drawn up by its internal auditor on the efficacy of the system of payments to MEPs' assistants. The report was a systems analysis and looked at a sample of 167 payments and their supporting documents from 2004 and 2005. It did not look into individual MEPs' transactions and did not reveal cases of fraud.

The internal auditor, whose role within the European Parliament is entirely independent, confirmed existing concerns that the system of staff employment for MEPs has become far too complicated, with three different methods of contracting staff and 27 different national taxation, social security and administrative systems involved. Some MEPs' assistants work in Brussels and others work in the Member State of their MEP. The complexity of the contracting and payment system has made it extremely difficult to manage, both for MEPs and for Parliament's administration.

As the internal auditor's report has not revealed any individual cases of fraud, he has not recommended referring his findings to the EU anti-fraud agency OLAF. Had the auditor made such a recommendation, the Secretary General would, of course, have acted upon it. It is standard procedure for internal audit reports to be treated as confidential."


As Bruno Waterfield comments on his blog - "This text is a classic example of EU institutional stupidity. Bad news does not exist. And, anybody who says so is a liar (that’s you Chris). Eursoc also explores the mindset. Anyway it is terribly complicated accountancy thing – too complicated for you and definitely, definitely not fraud. Moreover, this actually a technical thing, a “systems analysis”, it is not a political thing.

Anybody who says it is a political thing is being critical. People who are critical are worse than the bad news (that doesn’t exist anyway), see England Expects for another example. To stop criticism, and the possibility people might confuse something technical (above their heads and not their business, i.e. confidential) it must be kept secret."


The EU is profoundly anti-democratic and it is only the power hungryness of this Labour Government and the blind adherence to the pro-EU agenda of the BBC that prevents more of the UK public from realising this. I fear it is all too late now, the Lisbon Treaty will be approved and we will be ushered into the arms of a EU superstate.

Relying on the Irish to vote "NO" may not be viable

England Expects reports that "Amendment 32 of the Corbett Report on the Lisbon Treaty that "-2a. Undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland." was DEFEATED...129 in favour, 499 Against, 33 Abstentions" And as they say in the Eurovision Song Contest, these are the votes of the British jury (of MEPs) -

"Yes

Batten, Farage, Knapman, Nattrass, Titford, Deva


No

Attwooll, Davies, Duff, Hall, Ludford, Lynne, Newton Dunn, Wallis, Watson, Atkins, Beazley, Nicholson, Purvis, Cashman, Corbett, Corbey, Ford, Honeyball, Howitt, Hughes, Hutchinson , Kinnock, McAvan, , Martin David, Moraes, Morgan, Simpson, Sinner, Stihler, Titley, Willmott,


Abstain

Ashworth, Bowis, Bradbourn, Bushill-Matthews, Callanan, Chichester, Dover, Evans Jonathan, Harbour, Jackson, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Parish, Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Tannock, Van Orden, Hannan, Helmer, Wise."


That's six in favour of democracy - five UKIP MEPs and Nirj Deva of the Conservatives.

All Labour and LibDem MEPs voted against democracy in this instance, whilst most of the Conservative MEPs abstained - Christopher Beazley, John Purvis and Sir Robert Atkins would appear to be Conservative MEPs who voted to ignore the will of the only people to be given a vote on the Lisbon Treaty.


If you hear any of these MEPs - Attwooll, Davies, Duff, Hall, Ludford, Lynne, Newton Dunn, Wallis, Watson, Atkins, Beazley, Nicholson, Purvis, Cashman, Corbett, Corbey, Ford, Honeyball, Howitt, Hughes, Hutchinson , Kinnock, McAvan, , Martin David, Moraes, Morgan, Simpson, Sinner, Stihler, Titley, Willmott - talking about democracy, tell them where they can go...




This is disgusting but not really a surprise, the EU project will go forward whatever happens; the people showed they cannot be trusted in the last set of referenda and so refernda will not be allowed for the majority of countries and if any country does hold a referendum it will be ignored. The EU - "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein stimme" (One people, one empire, one vote).

UKIP's Nigel Farage is trying to fight back

I have increasing respect for Nigel Farage even though he does appear to be "pissing in the wind" in trying to stop the Lisbon Treaty being pushed into law. Here is a piece he wrote a few weeks back that I think shows the EU up for what they are - totalitarian, anti-democratic and cheats.

BBC hiding the story

The BBC feel they have to report the EU Treaty debate and associated matters but will not draw attention to these reports. Here is a hidden away report that tells us that "day three of the marathon debate about the Lisbon Treaty - or EU Reform Treaty - or European Constitution, which saw MPs at last focus their attention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The charter does not appear in the treaty but a reference to it in the document will make its rights legally binding.

When Tony Blair was prime minister he argued that Britain had secured an opt-out from the charter.

Now the government says that it neither sought nor achieved an opt-out."


Hold on, the government are directly contradicting a statement previously made by Tony Blair - so one or the opther is lying - and the BBC aren't reporting this as headline news! Sorry, I have just re-read that and the point is so obvious I missed it...


The EU Treaty is being railroaded through the Hosue of Commons under a three line whip with less than the promised line by line debate. We the public have got to make a stand before our rights and liberties are subsumed into the EU superstate.