UK.Zonow.COM

In an action that looks more appropriate to the bad old days of the Soviet Union than a modern liberal democracy, the Metropolitan Police used counter-terrorism officers to raid Mr Green’s homes and offices and to hold him for nine hours on suspicion of “conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office” and “aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office”.

Their excuse was a call from the Home Office to investigate the leaking of sensitive information revealing that the government knew about the employment of illegal immigrants and that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had warned the Prime Minister of a possible rise in crime during a recession.

A junior official at the Home Office was suspended from duty and arrested on 19 November but was subsequently released on bail without charge.

Nigel Farage said: “When the police start arresting politicians for doing their job then we’re well down the path to a police state.

“Finding out what the government doesn’t want you to know they’re doing is the very job of an opposition politician.”

The arrest of an MP and the raiding of his offices is unprecedented in the investigation of government leaks.

It is well known that opposition MPs often rely on the leaking of information embarrassing to the government of the day and though there have been many inquiries, the police have rarely been  involved and internal investigations have usually ended with the officials thought to have been responsible for the leaks. Even then, successful prosecutions in such cases have been very few.

The government has denied being involved in the arrest of Mr Green. However, it begins to look sinister alongside the steady increase in public surveillance over the past 10 years and Labour’s apparently insatiable appetite for collecting information on citizens, together with its planned introduction of ID cards.

The police action has been justified on the basis of a little-known common law statute. But what does it say about Britain today when newspaper headlines might read “Opposition spokesman arrested”?

Read more

All the other MEPs for the East Midlands are backing an online petition calling for him to stand down.

UKIP’s Derek Clark MEP says: “It’s not just that he hasn’t been working while in the jungle, it’s that he hasn’t spoken in the parliament since 2005. No one has seen him in the region for years. We even had a competition for anyone who could spot him – a competition no one in the region could win.

“He’s shown nothing but contempt for the people of the East Midlands and should do the honourable thing and resign.”

Constituents and others can add their names to the petition calling on Mr Kilroy Silk to step down at www.kilroystepdown.co.uk

Read more

UKIP has identified a much better way to help us try to spend our way out of recession. By 2012/13, the UK’s net contribution to the EU will have been £40 billion, gross £99 billion. So if we left the EU, or suspended payments because its dodgy accounts (for the 14th year in a row), we could:

• Give every adult in the UK (about 45.5 million) a cheque for £880, stimulating demand now and costing nothing on balance over the period
• OR £40 billion is enough to prevent the 0.5% rise in employers’ and employees’ NIC in 2011/12 and 2012/13, AND cut both rates by 0.5% in every year in the same period, easing the tax on jobs and work and putting more money in people’s pockets.
• OR £40 billion is enough to cut employers’ NIC by 2.8% to 10% for two years, AND cut employees’ NIC by 5% for two years.
• OR £40 billion is enough to raise the personal allowance to £12,000 for two years, as per the Adam Smith Institute proposal, or almost certainly raise it to £10,000 immediately and permanently, with indexation/wages and dynamic effects eroding the cost over the period and beyond.

So when times get tough, the real cost of EU membership is shown to be far greater.

Read more

The paper says it has seen documents showing that Paris will demand subsidies to French farmers are protected before agreeing to allow global free trade talks to take place next month.

The development threatens to break promises made three years ago when the former Prime Minister Tony Blair gave up a chunk of Britain’s annual rebate from Brussels on the understanding there would be a cut in farm subsidies after 2013.

The recent meeting of G20 leaders called on the EU to come to a quick agreement on World Trade Organisation negotiations aimed at cutting farm subsidies and dismantling import barriers.

But diplomats say France, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, is using its position to hold the EU to ransom by linking protection for French farmers to the reopening of talks.

“It is a pretty transparent attempt to stitch up the CAP so France can carry on subsidising food and farms,” said one diplomat. “It is alarming how much support the French have.”

A classified internal French document praises the CAP as a “strategic asset” based on principles laid down in the Treaty of Rome over 50 years ago.

It goes on to urge that it should be continued beyond 2013, the date when a new five year EU budget period begins.

By seeking agreement on the CAP after 2013, France appears to be trying to ring-fence its lion’s share of annual EU farm budgets worth £42 billion, spending that costs the average British household £322 a year.

Read the full story at the Telegraph online

Read more

It was Mrs Merkel who persuaded fellow European leaders to promise a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. This unrealistic and possibly dangerous scheme is to be submitted for approval at the EU summit in three weeks’ time.

But German conservatives who supposedly support Merkel told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper they want the plan watered down and delayed because of the deepening recession.

Bavarian premier Horst Seehofer said: “The carbon dioxide reduction targets at the EU level must be organised so they do not endanger jobs.” Bavaria is home to the car companies BMW and Audi.

Mr Seehofer added that the car industry needed more time to tackle emissions targets. “What good are multi-million-euro fines for violating emissions rules if at the end of the day the jobs are gone?”

He was supported by fellow-Bavarian Michael Glos, the German economy minister, who said the country could ill-afford to make a priority of climate protection with the economy hobbled by the global financial crisis. “It is not the time to burden the economy with excessive environmental targets.”

And in Lower Saxony, conservative premier Christian Wulff demanded a two-year delay for the EU climate package.

Read more

Dr Spink said: “I joined UKIP because it alone respects Britain’s independence and this ’single issue’ determines our economic performance and policy is almost all areas of our life.”

In a letter to the Clerk of the House of Commons, Dr Spink wrote: “May I be designated simply as ‘Independent’? I remain an enthusiastic UKIP member and supporter, but UKIP have never had a whip at Westminster and I have been acting, effectively, as an Independent in the house, so this adjustment of my designation should add clarity to my position.

“In short, I remain ‘UKIP’s MP’, but I am independent of any Party Political Whip, as I have stressed many times.”

Read more

“This is a huge amount of money for a small fleet,” said Mr Titford. “The Belgians only have about 880 fishermen in total and will use these funds to intensify their fishing in our waters, at the expense of British fishermen.

“Our cash-starved fishermen will be getting nothing.  The Belgians are prepared to provide match funding for anything Brussels gives them. Our government is not, which means there will be no similar aid package for the British fishing industry, which is in dire straits.

“It is insulting for our fishermen to see their competitors so well funded and plundering our waters, while their own industry continues to be drastically under-funded and drowned in red tape.  It is high time this government took its responsibility for the British fishing industry seriously.

“I need hardly add that if Britain were to leave the EU, there would be enough money saved to enable the government massively to increase funding for fishing – not to mention the fact that we would regain control of our own fishing waters, which was so sadly lost when we joined the then Common Market.”

Read more

In 2007, net immigration to the UK increased to 237,000, reports the Office for National Statistics. This is an increase of 46,000 on the previous year and reflects the fact that fewer people are leaving the country.

The ONS says applications for asylum registered their fifth consecutive increase between July and October 2008, rising by 12%.

The figures suggest that the UK population reached a little under 61 million last year.

UKIP policy calls for a five-year freeze on immigration, and strict controls thereafter. Read more

Read more

Questioned by the Home Affairs Committee, the independent visa monitor, Linda Costelloe-Baker said it was “reasonable” to assume 15% of short-term approvals were wrong.

Officials were “under pressure” to issue rather than reject visas to meet productivity targets, she added.

Some 2.4 million tourists, business people and those visiting relatives apply for UK visas each year. Applicants are checked to ensure they intend to leave after their visas expire, they have enough money to live in the country and they are not looking for a job.

Ms Costelloe-Baker told the committee that rejected applications were checked for accuracy, but there were no similar checks for applications that were approved: “About 80% of visas are issued and yet there has been no external scrutiny over that 80%.”

She went on: “I don’t think there has been adequate scrutiny of decisions to issue. I think there is pressure to issue visas because it helps people hit their productivity targets.”

In answer to a question, Ms Costelloe-Baker said it was reasonable to assume that, if 15% of rejections were found to be incorrect, a similar proportion of approvals were incorrectly approved.

Ms Costelloe-Baker’s role as the independent monitor of visa entry is to be taken over by the new chief inspector of the UK Borders Agency, John Vine, former chief constable of Tayside.

Read more

Frantic negotiations are going on with other EU members that Dublin hopes will tailor the treaty specially for Ireland in such a way that a second referendum will produce a “yes” vote, following the people’s rejection of the warmed-over European constitution in June.

The government’s soundings, backed up by an Irish Times poll, have revealed that 43% of Irish voters would support the treaty if it were amended to allow Ireland to retain its EU Commissioner and to address the country’s concerns over its prized neutrality, its tax policies and public attitudes towards abortion.

Hence the talks with countries that did not allow their populations to have a say. Irish foreign minister Micheál Martin says the negotiations are intensifying as the government prepares to decide whether to risk a second referendum.

The Irish Times poll shows 39% of respondents saying they would vote against the treaty in a new vote, with 18% yet to make up their minds.

This has given heart to the government, which was seriously embarrassed by the decision taken by the Irish people and is now trying to push voters towards changing their minds by presenting the situation as “a crossroads” in terms of Ireland’s membership of the EU.

However, opponents of the treaty say merely tinkering with it is unlikely to produce the outcome the government wants, especially in the midst of a financial crisis that has caused some commentators to questions whether Ireland was wise to rush into the single European currency.

Read more

Actually, there never was any real likelihood that large UK banks would close their doors. This is not because of any deposit guarantees but because our banks run the payments system. If a large bank ceased honouring demands to withdraw deposits, people and businesses would be unable to pay their bills and the whole economy would abruptly come to a halt. Our large banks are “too large to fail” and, whatever the cost, the government will always ensure that they stay in business in one form or another – so long as the government itself can borrow enough money to do so.

So our banks are still with us, but they have lost their appetite for lending. After years of aggressive lending at smaller and smaller margins, the famous collapse in 2007 of the sub-prime market in the United States sparked the realisation that over the long years of uninterrupted global growth, risk had become more and more underpriced. The crazy mortgage loans of 120% loan-to-value had to come to an end. Unfortunately, in their desire to hang on to “liquidity”, banks are now also much more hesitant about lending generally, not just to individuals but also to each other and to businesses, particularly small ones. 

This means our small businesses are hit from both ends. Their overdrafts are costing more – even if they can still get them – and they are selling less because personal borrowing is drying up and people are saving what they can rather than spending. With small businesses as the source of two-thirds of UK jobs, unemployment will rise further, house prices – already down15%  – will go down some more, and the government budget, already looking dreadful, is going to get worse. The credit crunch has brought on the recession and we are in for a hard time.

So what do we do about it? What does the government do about it? Having rescued the banks, the assumption is that the government must fix the economy: it must get economic growth moving again.

The Bank of England has now realised that interest rates were unnecessarily high. There is no near-term threat of inflation and it has dramatically reduced its base rate by 1.5% to 3% with hopefully more reduction to come. But with people bothered about their future incomes and jobs, this is not going to have much effect on spending even if banks fully “pass on” the reduction to their retail customers. 

Meantime, the government is leaning on the banks to return to 2007 lending levels. Let’s be thankful that the banks, even those that now have a government shareholding, are resisting this call. They are probably being over-cautious, but a return to previous lending habits would be a return to the very behaviour that started the credit crunch in the first place.

So we fall back on fiscal policy, with renewed reverence paid to the “Keynesian” recipe of curing the recession by more government spending and/or less taxation. If people won’t spend, then the government must do it for them, otherwise it must give them some more spending money by letting them off some taxation. And we now have the unsightly spectacle of our main political parties competing with each other to see who can be the best tax-cutter. 

Yet, beyond the received wisdom that lower taxes ought to help there is no consensus about which specific cuts should be made, how big they should be, or how they might be funded from a government budget that is already heavily in deficit.

Amongst the ragbag of gimmicky ideas, one better suggestion is to cut employers’ national insurance. This might be a good candidate as it is a direct tax on jobs. Another is to reintroduce MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief at Source) which up until 2000 used to allow tax relief on mortgage payments. Since one the roots of the crisis is the fall in housing prices, a reduction in the cost of mortgage finance would at least address this. 

But the fact that we are in a recession implies that even sensible cuts will not help much as sensible people will use them to pay off debt and to save. Add to this our government’s reputation for changing its mind and the certainty that taxes will rise again as soon as growth resumes, and we have to conclude that temporary tax breaks are only going to bring a temporary interruption to the slide. Even if the proposed fiscal stimulus packages are co-ordinated across developed countries they will, at best, provide a cushion during the readjustment.

Some commentators are recalling the Great Depression of the 1930s, arguing that it was the fiscal stimulus of the 1933 New Deal that brought recovery in the United States. However, the big difference between then and now is that by 1933 many workers had been unemployed for three years and, with no welfare net, were in serious straits and prepared to work for any wage. A bit of extra spending by the US government had a large result.

Which leads to the key point. The root cause of the current recession is that we have increasingly been living above our means, on borrowed money. Credit has been too cheap, its price driven down during the good times by competition between the banks, following relaxation of regulation in the 1980s and 1990s – in particular the “de-mutualisation” of building societies in 1997 which permitted Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, for instance, to adopt their suicidal “business models”. 

Now, as re-pricing of doubtful assets leads to “de-leveraging” by investment banks and the drying up of credit all round, the result in the real economy is that we must get used to a reduced standard of living. But, unlike the United States of the 1930s, this adjustment is made more difficult in today’s Britain by our elaborate structure of employment law that holds up wages, provides for generous benefits, makes severance difficult and generally makes labour markets inflexible. Given all the costs and red tape involved in employing labour, it will be a long time before any small businessman with a brain considers taking on more staff again.

It is a measure of the extreme detachment of the European Union that at this time when all member states are facing severe economic difficulties, they continue to insist on rules that make life even harder for business, for instance, statutory employment rights for temporary workers and the removal of opt-outs from the working time directive. And, in their unrelenting zeal to regulate everything, there is no regard for the effect of this on the international competiveness of EU economies, Britain included.

But whilst adjustment in the private sector will be painful, it is the public sector that most needs to adjust. For while people have been living above their means, the government has excelled in wasting resources on creating new jobs – 700,000 during the last decade – all of which are paid for by the treasury, i.e. out of the taxes paid by those in productive private sector jobs.

There is now so much flab in the government that it will take years of painful dieting to remove it. But the government will not diet voluntarily. The only way that the flab might be reduced is if it is starved away by a lack of funds at the treasury as the recession deepens. Sadly, it will be softer areas of government spending, such as defence, that are cut first. The last to go will be the Diversity Outreach Officers and the Social Network Co-ordinators employed by our councils.

Don’t expect our politicians to admit it, but the recession will be painful, there are no quick fixes, and a lasting solution to our economic ills depends on a significant reduction of the public sector. 

As with every gloomy story, there is always a positive side. One welcome casualty will likely be the misguided climate change agenda being quietly abandoned as it is simply no longer affordable in today’s economic conditions.

The shake-out may also bring an end to the euro as a multinational currency. For as demands on government budgets grow – to prop up banks, provide fiscal stimulus and simply because tax revenue falls in recessions as welfare expenditure rises – some EU government debts are beginning to look unsustainable. The Irish government has sold bonds to borrow €4 billion for three years, and has had to pay 1.2% more interest than the German government would for a similar loan. 

It also looks bad for Italy, whose government has huge debts (109% of GDP) and for Greece, where the going rate on government debt is around 1.5% above German rates. Even our own Debt Management Office, which looks after British government borrowing, is anxious whether financial markets will comfortably digest the £100 billion or so of bonds that it will have to sell in this financial year.

This can only mean that the markets are viewing these sovereign debts as a poor risk. If, as the slump deepens, some euro zone government finds itself no longer able to borrow on any reasonable terms, its only recourse is to go begging to other governments. The EU might be able to help the Irish as theirs is a small economy (perhaps in return for ratifying the Lisbon treaty). But if a large country such as Italy is facing default, there is no way that other EU countries could realistically provide support or guarantees. The only avenue left for Italy would be to re-issue its own currency and devalue, effectively reneging on its debts.

If one or more EU countries should ditch the euro and be forced to go their own way we may hopefully begin to see a wider realisation that, while trade and co-operation between independent countries benefits all, political union is ultimately unworkable.

Read more

Mr. Gaunt was suspended by Talksport because of remarks made during a live conversation on placing foster children with families that smoke.

Mr. Farage said: “We do not condone Mr. Gaunt’s rather colourful language and some of the terms he used, things for which he has already apologised. However, it is an emotive subject and we fully support his stance on this matter.

“It seems unbelievable that children, badly in need of care and affection, can be denied this chance just because the people offering to give them a home happen to smoke.

“We hope that Mr. Gaunt is quickly reinstated so that he can continue to pursue important issues such as this.”

Read more

The European Court of Auditors said it had signed off the budget, to which the UK contributes £40 million a day, but it added that it could not trace the missing €6 billion.

UKIP MEP Jeffrey Titford, who sits on the Budgetary Committee of the European Parliament, said it was beyond belief that with so much public money missing the budget had still been passed.

Marta Andreassen, a former chief accountant for the EU and now a UKIP candidate for the 2009 Euro-elections, said the systems of financial control were so complex that the auditors had no way of telling where fraud began or ended.

Following the release of the ECA report, UKIP issued a statement in which it said:

“The report claims to have passed the accounts in an ‘unqualified’ way and yet it also states that ‘the Court cannot provide a clean opinion.’ The truth is that the ECA is a European institution and therefore has been politicised in order that it sanitise the devastating truth about the accounts.”

Eastern Counties MEP Jeffrey Titford added: “Year after year the European Parliament goes through the motions of considering the Court of Auditor’s report and its failure to approve the EU’s accounts, and each time, over the strenuous objections of a tiny minority of people like myself, the Parliament tamely nods through the accounts.

“Fourteen years of failure, 14 years of grotesque mismanagement of public money and 14 years of mealy-mouthed acquiescence by most British MEPs is enough.  If any British MEP either votes to approve the EU’s 2007 accounts or abstains from the vote, then his or her party should not receive a single vote in next year’s European parliamentary election.  The politicians are failing us, therefore, it is time for the public to act by holding them responsible at the ballot box.”

Marta Andreassen said the ECA had asserted without room for doubt that they had found at least €6 billion to have been wrongly paid out in 2007 from the European Union Budget. The court said it did not imply the transactions were illegal or irregular, or that there was fraud, Mrs Andreassen went on. They added that “only if funds have intentionally been improperly claimed can we talk about fraud.” But the court had failed to produce an analysis on the intentionality of the improper claims.

“They confirm that the improvements said to have been made in the control of the use of EU funds do not change the overall negative opinion given in prior years.

“The court confirms that it is the Commission that retains overall responsibility for the execution of the budget and is accountable for this to the European Parliament and Council. So, can we please ask the European Parliament and the Council to call the Commission to account for their persistent failure in managing European  taxpayers’ money.”

Read more

The treaty, an amended version of the discredited EU constitution, has already been rejected by voters in the Irish Republic, but 24 of the EU member states – including the UK – have ratified.

However, the treaty cannot come into force unless it is ratified by all 27 EU states.

Czech opinion has grown steadily more negative since the beginning of the year, with 45%  of people saying they either do not understand it or are not sure what it is meant to do.

The Czech government had intended to ratify the treaty, without a referendum, but the process was stopped until it could be determined whether it breached the country’s constitution.

Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said this week he believed the Lisbon treaty could be ratified in the first quarter of next year. Public opinion seems to take a different view.

Read more

Mr Obama has just proved that the political system of the USA has completely turned around and that is what is needed in this country.

As a strong UKIPer I have drawn strength from this event and I am convinced that the people of the UK are in the same frame of mind and need a big change.

The event in the USA, coupled with the hideous actions from the BNP, should give us a big message, and that is that we are on the upward slope and parties are becoming more and more worried about our stance in the community, so come on UKIPers, let us really put the heat on and give that little extra effort.

WE CAN DO IT and WE WILL DO IT.
 
Gordon H. Parkin
(No 1 UKIP candidate in the North East for Euro-elections)

Read more

“Congratulations to Barack Obama on this historic day,” said Mr Farage. “The way that he captured 75% of the vote of the under 30s shows how he has reinvigorated politics and brought back political debate to the young.”

However, he added, “He faces difficult times, difficult decisions ahead.

“Of course I wish him well and hope that he decides wisely, but we shouldn’t get too carried away. There are no overnight miracles and Mr Obama  won’t be able to change the world immediately.

“We also have to keep an eye on those decisions he does make. Where does he really stand on trade, for example? What is his plan for Afghanistan and how does that affect us and our plans?”

“Mr Obama won’t be the instant magic man – no one is. We need to wait and see what his actual proposals, his actual policies, will be.”

Read more

Former British tennis star Buster Mottram, claiming that he represented the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, offered a deal: the BNP would fight seats in the north of the country and UKIP would have free rein in the south at the Euro-elections in June 2009.

Having made this rejected offer Mottram refused to leave the Whitehall meeting and had to be escorted out by uniformed police officers.

“There are no circumstances, no possible situations, in which we would even consider doing any type of deal with the BNP whatsoever,” said the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage MEP. “I’m simply amazed that the BNP thought we would even consider such a thing, given that we are a non-racist, non-sectarian party.”

Buster Mottram was immediately expelled from UKIP.

At the same meeting, two members of the NEC and one ex-officio member  were removed from their seats on the committee.

Read more

In a written parliamentary answer, Mr Fitzpatrick said:

“The government have announced its intention to allow the voluntary display of national flags on vehicle number plates in England, Scotland and Wales. We are looking at how this change can be brought forward as soon as possible.”

But what are the rules the government is going to change? Mr Fitzpatrick had previously said that regulations introduced in 2001 made it illegal to display the Union flag, the Cross of St George, the Scottish Saltire and Welsh dragon on number plates. Only the EU “ring of stars” was permitted, following a European directive.

Yet the The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 actually says:

“The new regulations permit the optional display of the Euro-symbol adjacent to the registration mark on the left-hand side of number plates. The symbol is a circle of 12 stars on a blue background showing the Member State’s national identification letters below.”

In the light of that, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency advises that “the Government announced on 28 December 2001 the intention to permit the display of national flags and symbols on vehicle number plates. When the regulations are amended they will provide for the voluntary display of the Union flag, Scottish Saltire, Cross of St George and Red Dragon” in place of the EU symbol.

So does the Department of Transport not know the law, or did it never actually introduce the amendment the DVLA believes it had, or has someone simply made up a regulation that allows drivers to be fined for displaying national flags?

They can’t blame the EU in this case. The “Get Your Facts Straight” web site of the European Commission observes:

“The design and features of vehicle number plates have nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union. The Commission has no intention of making anyone change their number plates. This is a matter entirely for the national authorities or standards organisations.”

And the actual regulation on number plates delivered in November 1998, with a compliance date of September 2001, makes it clear that member states are merely obliged to recognise the “ring of stars” alongside national symbols on number plates:

Whereas several Member States have introduced a model registration plate which, on the extreme left, displays a blue zone containing the 12 yellow stars representing the European flag plus the distinguishing sign of the Member State of registration; whereas for the purpose of intra-Community transport this distinguishing sign meets the objective of identifying the State of registration as provided for in Article 37 of the Convention;
Whereas Member States requiring vehicles from other Member States to display the distinguishing sign of the State of registration should also recognise the sign.

What all this suggests is that the British government is to replace regulations that do not exist with new regulations that are the same as the ones that already do exist.

And these are the people supposed to be running our country?

Read more

UKIP MEP Gerard Batten, who has been  campaigning in Mr Symeou’s behalf, was present at the hearing. He says:

“Mr Symeou’s lawyer was only able to appeal because he obtained a copy of the Greek authorities legal papers and argued that they had not followed their own procedures correctly.

“The British courts have no power whatsoever to consider the prima facie evidence against the accused person and decide if there is a proper case to answer.

“Mr Symeou’s case perfectly illustrates the dangers posed to our liberties by the EAW, which I have been warning against since it became UK law in 2004.

“If anyone is wondering how we came to be saddled with the EAW, then the best person to ask is Liberal Democrat MEP Graham Watson, who wrote the legislation for the EAW and pushed it through the European Parliament.”

If you would like to question him about this, his e-mail address is graham.watson@europarl.europa.eu

Read Gerard Batten’s article on the Symeou case at the New Statesman

After the hearing, the Symeou family issued the following statement:

“We have conclusive evidence that proves Andrew Symeou’s innocence; however under the European Arrest Warrant the requesting state does not have to provide any evidence to a British court nor is a British court concerned whether there is a case to answer.

“We will fight this case all the way to the European Court and will not stop until the police officers who manufactured and fabricated evidence against Andrew have been punished for their crimes.”

Read more

Well on their way through the European Parliament are the EU’s proposals for an update to the directive covering the use of pesticides. This involves the introduction of a new hazard-based system for approving pesticides to replace the tried and tested existing regime, which is based on risk.

This misguided legislation typifies the EU’s approach to law making – fix it, even if it isn’t broken. What it means for farmers is the loss of many of the chemical tools they have used for years to tackle some of the most pernicious weeds and blights. It is good to see that the farming industry is belatedly waking up to the extreme threat this legislation poses to the arable sector.

Efforts to resist these proposals are being aimed at the European Parliament’s Environment Committee. Farmers are being encouraged to lobby the committee by writing letters to the individual members and a petition is under way, which a number of correspondents have urged me to sign.

Unfortunately, much of this effort misses the central point and is wrongly targeted.  Decisions on what system to use for the assessment of pesticides we employ in this country should be decided by our own government at Westminster, not by unelected officials in the European Commission. The Environment Committee is only enacting the wishes of the Commission and its proposals will be rubber-stamped by the tame European Parliament.

People seem to be forgetting that what we joined in 1973 was sold to us as a “Common Market” where we would do lots of business, which would be good for the economy. Who would have believed that, 35 years later, officials at the European Commission, with no democratic legitimacy whatsoever, would be laying down the law on what chemicals we may spray on fields in Britain, while our own elected government can do nothing but stand meekly by waiting to be told what it must enforce?

If you really do want to write letters, far better to send them to Gordon Brown and Hilary Benn, urgently requesting that Britain should veto these proposals and withdraw from the Common Agricultural Policy and, ultimately, from the EU itself.  The one would inevitably lead to the other. You might copy your letters to Agriculture Commissoner Mariann Fischer Boel for good measure.

Only by taking these dramatic but necessary steps will we ever again get sensible agricultural policy in Britain.

Read more