On 20/08/13 13:37, Nightjar wrote:
On 19/08/2013 12:32, Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-19, Road_Hog wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
Conspiracy Theories R Us is that way.
Colin Bignell
Colin, don't be a dick all your life, there is no theory, just reality.
You can Google TEN-T if you want. You can see that the EU has
ordered the UK
to build HS2, just like they did with HS1. You can Google road tolls
and
Rothschilds if you need confirmation. You can Google about the
Galileo GPS
system, about European wide road tolls. You can Google about the EU
controlling our roads, railways, air transport and seaways. It's all
there,
but you are too lazy just like all the other brain dead X-Factor
watching
idiots out there.
[FX]Gets out deckchair. Opens beer.[/]
This could be a goody.
I hope you have a good supply of beer. It looks as though you may have
to wait around a bit for any response to my follow up post.
Colin Bignell
The pont is that there is a difference between saying 'X Y Z originates
at EU level' and saying 'its an EU conspiracy'.
Some may say the whole EU project itself is a conspiracy, and there are
sound reasons to give that proposition more than a second glance BUT
what it boils down to is simply bureaucrats chattering together and
doing perfectly legitimaate (by their rules) 'deals' with each other like
"If I toss 60 m euro into a 'gypsy housing' pot for the UK, can you
stick some bloody camp sites up?'
"Sure we always like to get EU money to spend in the UK"
Okay, so far that's not conspiracy, that's not illegal, and its not a
bribe. Its 'European money to solve a European problem'
Then what happens further down the chain is that regional development
agency X (we have regional development agencies, because that's where EU
money goes. Not into county borough or national ordinations, but into
instruments designed to spend EU money on a regional basis) gets tossed
-lets say £2m folding, on the basis its got to be spent on rehousing
gyppos.
Now region X ghas no true Gyppos, but it does have Irish travellers, and
£2m buys a lot of planning officers and consultants, so over to the
county council it goes 'in line with EU policy, you must house 150
traveller families,and there is £2m available (less our bureaucratic
overhead) to do that with'
On a strict NIMBY basis the councillors meet, find a village that no one
on the planning comittee lives in,. pay some consultant half a million
to come up with the right answers and declare that the remainder, now
less than a million will go on developing a site that already has a
traveller family on it. Where there was already planning permissions
granted to have two caravans. All this despitete fact that there are
now, in flagrant violation of the original planning permission, 6
caravans on it, and the original application was only granted because
'me daughter has special needs, she can't live on a site with more than
two caravans as she gets upset by all the people'
The money will be used to develop the site to accommodate 20 caravans
and then GIVEN to the family that owns the land they have breached
planning permission on.
Nothing matters except meeting an EU requirement to spend money and
house gyppos. Where the £1.1 m has gone between the £2m given and the
£900k actually alloted to this project, most of which will end up in the
pockets of certain building firms whose applications to develop never
seem to get refused, is a mystery.
However the Chief executives of the regional and local councils have
both awarded themselvesgenerous pay rises 'because we're worth it; and
are now sporting suntans from a week attending an important conference
on local governance in Cancun, as well as extra PAs who seem to be blood
related, to 'handle the work load of administering these new duties'
And of couserse the legal fees to handle the appeal against planning are
mounting up too. The lawyer has a new Mercedes and a toy private plane now.
Meanwhile Ed Milband is drivelling on about UKIP 'Thes people just
don't understand the way things are done in Europe, THEY JUST DON'T GET IT'
Of course the answer is, we get it only too well. WE just don't WANT it.
We could insread of gettg back the £2m which cost us £4m in te first
place, have spent the same ourselves without EU help. And frankly, if we
had pad the families £900k to **** off and never come back, that would
have been cheaper and better all round. Best of all spend half a million
confiscating all the illegally parked caravans in the UK, and charge
the owners 5 grand apiece to get them back
In the end it boils down to 'do we need a centralised bureaucratic
department in charge of dealing with itinerant chavs on a pan european
basis, and worse, costing us a fortunee to do what we could have done
without them anyay?'
And EU handouts attract grifters like a convent school attracts paedophiles.
IS HS2 a European project? well it fits REMARKABLY exactly into the
lines drawn on a map by the European authority in charge of playing with
train sets.
IS it funded even partially by EU grants? I think it would be
inconceivable if it were not.
Will European firms who have the ears of Brussel Sprouts make anything?
of course they will. Regulation* 54321 is specifically designed to make
UK engineering unable to even bid, whereas having been drawn up by
Reichengineering GMBH to exactly match their tacky products, that's what
will be installed.
You just don't get the way things are done in Europe, do you??
*An EU regulation is simply a legal requirement that is issued from the
EU, and is not debated or rubber stamped by any local government.
The legal basis for the enactment of regulations is Article 288 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Functioning_of_the_European_Union
(formerly Article 249 TEC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_the_European_Community).
*Article 288*
/To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt
regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions./
/A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in
its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States./
/A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the
national authorities the choice of form and methods./
/A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it
is addressed./
/Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force./
You can see for yourself what is covered by 'regulations'
http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-regulations-2012/
69 of them in 2012 alone right down to
69 COM 2012 2 Proposal on the special schemes for non-established
taxable persons supplying telecommunications services, broadcasting
services or electronic services to non-taxable persons
http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-regulations-2012/com-2012-2-proposal-on-the-special-schemes-for-non-established-taxable-persons-supplying-telecommunications-services-broadcasting-services-or-electronic-services-to-non-taxable-persons.html
sheesh. That really is a show stopper, what would we do without that one.!
Note that regulations are instantly binding on all member states, there
are no debates over them one enacted centrally , and they cannot be
locally repealed as long as a nation stays within the EU overall treaty
and legal framework.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.