United Nations is not fit for purpose

The United Nations Organisation is not fit  for purpose.

How is it that all of the independent sovereign nations of the world there gathered cannot act effectively against ISIL? 

ISIL, after all,  is an unrecognised self-proclaimed rogue “state” which stands condemned by all.

The UN, surely, if able to muster near unanimity, should have the necessary authority to act.

One bar to unanimous action may be the veto wielded by key states in the Security Council.  But do any of those support ISIL?  That is surely inconceivable.

Why no action? Perhaps some reform is needed in any event: should the General Assembly have the power, if wielded by a very high majority, say 80 or 90%, of all member nations, be able to overrule a minority view of just one veto wielding power, or to compel the Security Council to act?

Democracy Diminshed.

The Coalition Government has  diminished the political influence of MPs even further than had the Blair Government.

  

Today’s Parties want puppets and clones on their books.  Few MPs dare to act in keeping with the stance they professed when elected.   

Indeed, because of the Act passed by Blair’s government, the Parliamentary Parties, Elections and Referendum Act (PPERA), few candidates dared to put any view at variance with the Party Orders, lest they be forced to stand without Party endorsement, as Independent candidates, unable even to aspire to a description on the ballot paper.

PPERA was introduced because of the introduction of the system of Lists required for the proportional representation for elections to the Scottish Parliament, The Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and the European Parliament.  

For the first time in British history, parties had to register with the state authorities in order to be eligible to field candidates for Parliament.  Prior to that, anyone or any group or party, could be or field candidates who were able to adopt a description, be it a Party Name, or something as simple as ”Independent  Communist”, to fight their corner to take a seat in Parliament.

But no more – since PPERA, only registered parties can have party names or descriptions and the candidates need the specific endorsement of a Nominating Officer, from the registered Party, in order to have the description on the ballot paper.

The exception, for a candidate not accepted to stand for a party, or not wishing to, is to stand as an "Independent”.  So what, you ask?

Well, in the past, a free spirit could distinguish his or her “independent”  status with some description – for example, “Independent Communist”,  "Independent For A Free NHS”, “Independent Conservative” etc.   The rule now is that the only default description is the single word “Independent”.  So two, or three, independent candidates on the same ballot paper cannot explain or describe themselves as in any way different from the others – are they to the left, right or centre?

A small, harmless shift, one night say. Especially if one is a bureaucratic party, determined to keep MPs in line -  lose the label, lose the seat.  Power has shifted, in this as in so much else, towards  the controllers at the centre – party bosses and bureaucrats.

  

That is not good for democracy. 

And the Coalition bent the constitution even further – gone now are the good old days when a Prime Minster had to command the confidence of a majority of individual MPs in the House of Commons. 

Losing an important vote meant being unable to govern as pledge; but the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in coalition sorted that –  they fixed the term of parliament so that they retain power even if they lose the support of MPs – and that has happened in this parliament. And adjust the margin by which dissent or dissatisfaction amongst MPs is needed before the cosy cartel can be challenged.

Are all our MPs now wimps? Why do they accept all of this?  To keep the job, regardless?

We must restore the convention we had when we were British, that is, that the Government must have the confidence of the House in order to govern, that MPs should not fear for their futures more than they do for the country, and that free spirits can stand as Independents but with some description,  so that the electorate can distinguish their intent.

Reflection of Farage/Clegg Debate - and the EUs peacocks.

It seems that Nigel Farage and I are in step in our thinking on the Sevastopol issue - the EU has to be careful not to tread deeply into the Russian sphere of influence. At least Obama and the EU are now tacitly acknowledging that military options must be ruled out.
In his debate with Clegg, Farage is reported to have accused the EU of having blood on its hands over the Ukraine. Clegg on the other hand praised the bloc's influence in Eastern Europe; he is reported to have said "It was the British governments that pioneered the enlargement of the European Union so we'd have more peace, more democracy and more rule of law in our European neck of the woods."

Mr Farage responded by saying "we can all hang our heads in shame. We've given a false series of hopes to a group of people in the west of Ukraine; So 'geed' up were they that they actually toppled their own elected leader. That provoked Mr Putin and I think the European Union frankly does have blood on its hands in the Ukraine and I don't want a European army, navy, air force or a European foreign policy."

I think that the way ahead now surely lies in the EU and the USA recognising Crimea as part of Russia, with Russia withdrawing troops from the Ukrainian border and all parties, the USA, the EU's member states, Ukraine and Russia agreeing on Ukrainian neutrality, recognised and guaranteed by all.

Otherwise, we are set for a Black Sea Freeze, if not a wider Cold War II.

EU peacocking is a danger.

The EU is wrong to perform its current diplomatic sabre -rattling routine. 

The reality is that the interest which Russia has in Sevastopol, and hence Crimea, is vital to her; more vital to her than Portsmouth is to the UK. 

The old arrangement, the one put in place by Khrushchev at a time when no one dreamt that the USSR would ever fall or fail, gave Russia all she needed and let Ukraine have her place on the world stage.

The EU has disturbed that when Baroness Ashton (The English Woman) carried out her pas de deux with Kiev.  It is the EU which has the expansionist mindset.

So why all this EU peacocking?  Is it because it takes the eye off the Eurozone crisis?  

I think so: It is an old ploy, and a dangerous one at that.

We WOULD be better of OUT.

The Express is right - and I hope you all see it.

Oh, well, maybe the Scottish Express will not publish. So take a look at this:

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/416554/EU-membership-now-costs-British-business-billion


And remember, UKIP has being saying this for a wee while now.

Does your councillor or MSP care?

What do you think?

http://joshrjones.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/white-throated-needletail.html

There is no sanity in the SNP or Coalition Governement wind energy policies.  If you voted for one of them - think again.

EU OIL GRAB - UK/SCOTLAND BEWARE!

IMMEDIATE

Not only the SNP but the whole Scottish Nation has to wake up to the realities of sovereignty.

Mr Salmond wants out of the UK and into the EU - Amendment 63 to the Fisheries' Policy should wake him up. It is a the clear intention of the EU body politic to take full central control of, basically, everything. Here that foreign collective bureaucracy wants to sneak in central sovereign control of our sea bed - UK or Scottish, whatever the result of the Scottish Referendum

That means the EU is staging a oil grab - and a lot more.

Scotland ; wake up! We need a United Kingdom that has wrestled itself free from the central control of the EU body politic. There is no such thing as Independence in the EU, Alex. And the UK itself is in the same trap. We most certainly would be Better Together and Better of Out - and UKIP alone, it seems, offers that."

NOTES

---

EU threatens Essential Sovereignty:

Time for that Referendum Dave?

Hidden in an amendment within a huge report on the EU’s Common Fisheries policy, UKIP has discovered an attempt by Brussels to seize control of the UK seabed, owned by the UK Crown: A power grab that should trigger a UK Referendum.

The vast majority of the mineral rich seabed, inside the 12 mile limit of British Territorial Waters, is Crown Estate, or property of the Crown and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

Yet Amendment 63 would permit the EU to claim ownership via a direct power grab, without any consultation or prior approval from British people, the British Parliament or the Queen.

Under David Cameron’s “Referendum Lock” this should be subject to a direct appeal to British voters.

Speaking in the debate in Strasbourg this morning, Stuart Agnew MEP, the UKIP fisheries spokesman, said of the amendment, tabled by a Spanish MEPs,

"The British people, Parliament and Her Majesty the Queen will also be alarmed to discover that Amendment 63 would create a new power without a word of objection by Her Majesty's Government or the Tories.

“That power is sovereignty over the seabed as opposed to merely controlling the fish in the water above it. Any new power must mean a UK referendum.

“Therefore if this amendment is carried it must be the subject of a UK referendum under Mr Cameron's ‘referendum lock’.”

Later Mr Agnew said, “If this legislation is passed, then Cameron is duty bound to give us that vote under his own law”.

Notes

Statement by David Cameron, 25/5/2010

“My Government will introduce legislation to ensure that in future this Parliament and the British people have their say on any proposed transfer of powers to the European Union.”

The amendment

Amendment 63

Proposal for a regulation

Part I – Article 5 –indent 1

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
– ‘Union waters’ means the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of the waters adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;	– ‘Union waters’ means the waters and the seabed under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of those adjacent to the territories listed in Annex II to the Treaty;

Justification

In order to include sessile species.

Video of Speech by Stuart Agnew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ELeQM4Tq0--

Gawain Towler
Press Officer
EFD Group in the European Parliament
UK Independence Party

Tel: +44 (0)207 2229365

GSM: +44 (0) 7879339509
Skype: gawain.towler1

http://www.efdgroup.eu/
http://www.ukip.org
http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/
www.twitter.com/gawain.towler1

I would like to extend an invitation to any remaining Conservative supporters

A few days have now passed since UKIP's great performances in the English and Welsh Police Commissioners elections and in three Parliamentary by-elections.


We came second in two by-elections and third in two Police Commissioner elections. In Durham, we seem to be replacing the Tory party. We also beat them in Middlesbrough and trounced them in the Police elections where we had more activists at the count than they could muster.

I would like to extend an invitation to any remaining Conservative supporters and voters in Scotland, who may still believe in the freedom and independence of the United Kingdom, to join UKIP now. You will be very welcome.

I also extend this invitation to traditional Labour voters who believe in their country and in the social mobility that we espouse and which Labour's Islington set decry.

Moreover, I know that some Liberal Democrats, indeed some in office who have spoken to me in private, feel that the EU is getting to big for its boots. Liberal Democrat leaders sold out on many policies for the sake of power - and they used to want us to think they are a party of principles. They have proven they are a party of first principles - that is, putting the party and themselves first, not you nor the country."

Calling Alex Salmond.........

Angela Merkel reportedly told the European Parliament, just before heading of to chat to Coalition Dave in Downing Street, “Of course the European Commission will one day become a government, the European Council a second chamber and the European Parliament will have more powers – but for now we have to focus on the euro and give people a little more time to come along."

Now, the First Minister and his separatist bedfellows should ponder hard on what their Independence in Europe really means. Alex Salmond need not ask any lawyers - just ask Angela.

The solution, of course, is independence - for the UK out of the EU.

Trying to take the wind from UKIP sails, Ruth?

The Tories are rattled - they know about and are reacting to the anti-wind demo held in Perth. They want to be sweet to the anti wind lobby, just as does Straun Stevenson MEP.  But they cannot hide the fact that Coalitionist Cameron leads the government that pays the subsidies.  The Tories have a choice - UKIP, which has a policy to repeal the Climate Change Act, abolish wind energy subsidies and scrap DECC.

Edinburgh Agreement on a Scottish Referendum:

UKIP stands four square behind the unity of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We also firmly believe in the right of the British everywhere to be the final arbiters over their own lives.

That is why we support and would introduce binding (Swiss-style) referenda on vital issues.

That is why we believe it is as much the right of the Scottish nation to determine whether or not Scotland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom, as it is the right of the British people to determine if the UK should remain in the EU.

Our view on those two crucial issues is well known but we will repeat them and fight for them until we achieve what we believe the British people want – the continued integrity of the UK, and full British sovereignty.

So we support the Better Together campaign – we dismiss the SNP 's "wee pretendy Independence" ideas – and we want a referendum to take the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland OUT of the EU to achieve full British sovereignty and true UK Independence.

Vote NO to stop any British break up – and campaign for true British sovereignty thereafter.

Meercats could do it better than Alec

The incompetence of the SNP/Coalition/Brussels Wind Energy policy is horrifying. It lacks common sense and it seems, it also contravenes the Aarhus Convention.

Alec Salmond's pontifications certainly indicate that a so -called independent Scotland would be at risk under the the SNP.   And it is after all only wee pretendy independence anyway - Alex Salmond wants to be in the European Union - nothing independent or sovereign about that!

Once again, I must commend UKIP policy - real independence - sovereignty - for Team GB as a whole; and no wind power - no subsidies, no ROCs, no FITS, no laying the burden on the poorest, cessation of turbines spoiling our landscape. Simples, as the meercat says.

How effective is UKIP?

Could there be a UKIP led political revolution?  

It is entirely possible.

Certainly, UKIP inspired change is on the way. 

The EU's control over us is the bigger part leading to this change - but the wind energy debate is well to the fore.  

The latest YouGov polls show UKIP are now the third most popular party in the UK and in Scotland the poll shows a spectacular change

Scottish Results

Conservative 17% (-2%)
Labour 40% (-1%)
LibDem 4% no change
UKIP 8% (+4%)
SNP 28% (-5%)
Green 1% (-1%)
BNP 2% (+1%)

UKIPScotland is now level pegging with the LibDems in Scotland. The coalition Government will be wide awake to these changes - and worried. The way to stop the Coalition from ignoring popular will is to support UKIP, joining us, voting for us, working with us.

Media Blocks

Pleased to see that Alan Cochrane, writing in Scottish Field,  has taken up the issue of councillors being gagged.

Hurrah! I have been banging on about that for years - and even sent fruitlessly to the media - including the DT.

Ex Cllr Arbuckle used to say nice supportive things when I railed on over the issue in meetings of the Council, and he has since gone to his pet press and published as a journalist on the issue too.  Ironic, as his party was probably the driver for the gagging clause.

Annoying thing is that UKIP policy would put paid to the stupidity but the media seem to have a mental block when they see the letters UKIP - pavlovian beasts, they assume we are a one issue party.

Why don't they read of policies?

Dumb Wind Politics

The views just expressed by Cllr Alex Rowley, Leader of Fife Council, that Fife is not to be closed to wind farms, shows the value to his party of the deft use of a call for a moratorium. It was never a policy to stop wind farms. But it gained him power, with the support of the Conservatives.

Only UKIP stands four square against wind turbines and the easiest political weapon to stop vast numbers of applications coming forward is to abolish the subsidies. That lies in the hands of the weak Coalition Government - weak because their few sensible Conservative MPs haven't the courage to kick the Lib Dems out, or to join UKIP en masse, and weak because the Coalition won't cross the EU diktat which sets the targets to be followed.

Within the restraints of current Government policy, UKIP Scotland fully endorses the the calls made by CATS: each point they make would be a huge bonus for Scotland - certainly a mandatory 2000 metre buffer zone between turbines and homes should be implemented now. Even if applied only to turbines over, say, 20 metres high, the current adverse impact would be reduced to a reasonable level. UKIP however, still contends that there should be no subsidy at all - there'd be precious few turbines even under 20 metres then - they are not self sustaining in any real sense. Farmers and ladowners now grab at turbines because, with the subsidy, they are the best available legal yield per acre!

It's a case of never mind the landscape or the economic realities - increase utility costs for all, bribe communities and subsidize useless machines for the sake of a daft political aim.

Beats me - even the dumbest politician must realise that there won't be many places left for a decent photo opportunity in an 'unspoilt' Scotland soon.

Noble Cause Corruption

Psychologists have a term for the wishful thinking by which we accept any means if the end seems virtuous: ‘noble-cause corruption’…Politicians are especially susceptible to this condition. In a wish to be seen as modern, they will embrace all manner of fashionable causes. When this sets in — groupthink grips political parties, and the media therefore decide there is no debate — the gravest of errors can take root. The subsidising of useless wind turbines was born of a deep intellectual error, one incubated by failure to challenge conventional wisdom.’


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/06/osborne-versus-wind-farms/

Weakness

David Cameron is at his weakest when Clegg sits him down beside him to show their happy solidarity.