We heard lots from the official campaign to leave the EU about democracy. Most of it was hypocritical rubbish. We heard that the head of the European Commission was an un-elected bureaucrat who was telling Britain what to do - how dare he? Britain needed to reassert its authority to put this nasty bureaucrat in his place.
No sensible state has an elected head of the civil service. The head of the EU Commission is approved by the the council of ministers and the European parliament. Just like Britain, the head of the civil service or EU Commission is not elected and should never be elected by a popular vote.
If Britain were to elect the head of the civil service then he or she would become like a head administrator and elected president rolled into one. This would lead to a conflict of interest and what would happen if the the head of the civil service disagreed with the prime minister?
The Leave politicians know that it is not possible, in a free society, to have elected officials; what would happen to the political impartiality of the civil service? Would a Labour elected head of the civil service refuse to implement the policies of a Conservative government or vice versa? This would be a recipe for political chaos. We already have political chaos as a result of the ill conceived referendum. Why pile on more agony by electing the head of the civil service?
If, as a Leave voter, you expect to have elected civil servants then you have been duped. Just like you were duped about promises for £350 million pound per week of extra money for the NHS. Neither of these promises will be delivered by leaving the EU.
Similar accusations were made about the European Court Of Justice being composed of un-elected judges. What sort of politician proposes that we elect our judges? This would be a recipe for a system of justice based on madness. How could any one contemplate having judges elected on the basis of what political party they support?
Heaven help you if you are a known Green party supporter coming up before a UKIP judge, or even a Conservative party supporter coming up before a Labour judge. Judges must be seen to be politically impartial and must actually be impartial. If as a result of leaving the EU the political classes insist on elected judges then we will soon be on the path to a totalitarian government assisted by a politicised judiciary. North Korea here we come.
Once again if you voted to leave the EU on the the promise that you would get elected judges then you were double duped. You either won't get what you want, or if you do get what you want, then you could end up being imprisoned by a judge who does not like your political opinions.
Saturday, 28 October 2017
Tuesday, 17 October 2017
Cull of Wild Boars in Forest of Dean - time for a sense of proportion
I support the re-introduction of some of the mammal and bird species which have been extirpated or driven to extinction in the UK by humans. Wild boars were re-introduced either by accident when animals escaped from farms or by activists who deliberately released them. Wild boars have now reestablished themselves in many areas, including the Forest of Dean where there is a healthy breeding population of around 1500. The Forestry Commission has estimated that a population of 400 is an optimum level. The Commission have decided to cull the wild boars.
There are activists who are opposed to this cull and are taking action to prevent the shooting of these iconic animals.
There needs to be some sort of agreement between the activists and the Forestry Commission. The predators of wild boars have also been eliminated. There is no longer a population of bears or wolves to keep wild boar numbers down or keep the boars on the move to prevent them causing too much damage. The lynx has also been extirpated and these predators would have taken young boars and would have helped to keep herds on the run. There is, therefore, nothing to stop the population of wild boars increasing. The boars are, therefore, free to damage their own environment and the environment of humans. There needs to be some sort of control. Activists who are attempting to prevent the cull should take this into account. There is no justification for extirpating wild boars again but the Forestry Commission is not proposing this. There must be room for compromise.
A similar situation is being encountered with the deer population. Vast areas of woodland are being damaged by fallow and roe deer. In my own area it is not possible to cull the deer because the parks are too close to human habitation.
Attempts are being made to re-introduce the lynx to help control the deer population and keep it on the move but farmers are in the main totally opposed to the re-introduction of these predators for fear that they will take sheep. The farmers are wrong on this one as lynx rarely hunt sheep.
Human beings have upset the balance of nature in the UK and it is now time to restore some of this balance. It is too late for the wolves and bears; a re-introduction programme would probably fail except perhaps for the wildest parts of Scotland.
There is very little reason, however, to object to the re-introduction of the lynx, beaver or eagle (to England and Wales). We can afford this and their presence would improve the environment for everyone. However, we need to control the population numbers, based on scientific evidence,
of the introduced species. This means, in the case of the wild boars, a limited cull where the facts justify it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/12/boar-war-the-forest-of-dean-pixies-fighting-against-the-cull-of-wild-pigs
There are activists who are opposed to this cull and are taking action to prevent the shooting of these iconic animals.
There needs to be some sort of agreement between the activists and the Forestry Commission. The predators of wild boars have also been eliminated. There is no longer a population of bears or wolves to keep wild boar numbers down or keep the boars on the move to prevent them causing too much damage. The lynx has also been extirpated and these predators would have taken young boars and would have helped to keep herds on the run. There is, therefore, nothing to stop the population of wild boars increasing. The boars are, therefore, free to damage their own environment and the environment of humans. There needs to be some sort of control. Activists who are attempting to prevent the cull should take this into account. There is no justification for extirpating wild boars again but the Forestry Commission is not proposing this. There must be room for compromise.
A similar situation is being encountered with the deer population. Vast areas of woodland are being damaged by fallow and roe deer. In my own area it is not possible to cull the deer because the parks are too close to human habitation.
Attempts are being made to re-introduce the lynx to help control the deer population and keep it on the move but farmers are in the main totally opposed to the re-introduction of these predators for fear that they will take sheep. The farmers are wrong on this one as lynx rarely hunt sheep.
Human beings have upset the balance of nature in the UK and it is now time to restore some of this balance. It is too late for the wolves and bears; a re-introduction programme would probably fail except perhaps for the wildest parts of Scotland.
There is very little reason, however, to object to the re-introduction of the lynx, beaver or eagle (to England and Wales). We can afford this and their presence would improve the environment for everyone. However, we need to control the population numbers, based on scientific evidence,
of the introduced species. This means, in the case of the wild boars, a limited cull where the facts justify it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/12/boar-war-the-forest-of-dean-pixies-fighting-against-the-cull-of-wild-pigs
Wednesday, 11 October 2017
Yippeeee I've found a way to get the NHS £350 million a week
Yes, I am now a convert to leaving the EU and reasserting our national sovereignty. Let's leave NATO too.
Why should some un-elected American general tell us we should spend 2% of our national budget on defence. That is 38 billion quid a year. Why should Donald Trump tell us we should spend this money? We didn't elect him.
Without NATO we could take back control. I calculate it will be more cost efficient just have a big enough army, navy and air force to protect our national waters, air and land. This should only cost about £20 billion a year. This will free up £18 billion a year or £350 million a week, thereabouts, to invest in our NHS. Then, we won't need all those nasty foreigners to help cure us, as we could afford to replace them with robot nurses and doctors with a built in human touch.
Leave campaigners from all parties including UKIP should support this idea as it is a matter of principle that we assert our sovereignty and take back control. Perhaps you will join in too.
I wonder what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin think about this idea? Surely, they would never contemplate invading a fully sovereign country?
Why should some un-elected American general tell us we should spend 2% of our national budget on defence. That is 38 billion quid a year. Why should Donald Trump tell us we should spend this money? We didn't elect him.
Without NATO we could take back control. I calculate it will be more cost efficient just have a big enough army, navy and air force to protect our national waters, air and land. This should only cost about £20 billion a year. This will free up £18 billion a year or £350 million a week, thereabouts, to invest in our NHS. Then, we won't need all those nasty foreigners to help cure us, as we could afford to replace them with robot nurses and doctors with a built in human touch.
Leave campaigners from all parties including UKIP should support this idea as it is a matter of principle that we assert our sovereignty and take back control. Perhaps you will join in too.
I wonder what Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin think about this idea? Surely, they would never contemplate invading a fully sovereign country?
Monday, 9 October 2017
Beavers and common sense
At last we have a common sense solution to flooding for some parts of the land. Why not use beavers as natural flood control agents. They do their work for no costs whatsoever. They naturally save people's properties from flooding. They do no harm to the environment, on suitable land; in fact they create an improved environment for other plant and animal species to flourish.
Some of the residents of Lydbrook in the Forest of Dean must be delighted that these harmless creatures will be allowed to manage a flood control scheme.
We should never have extirpated this species just for their fur. I have written about this subject before and never have I been so delighted to say, "I told you so."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/16/beavers-uk-flood-defences-forest-of-dean
Some of the residents of Lydbrook in the Forest of Dean must be delighted that these harmless creatures will be allowed to manage a flood control scheme.
We should never have extirpated this species just for their fur. I have written about this subject before and never have I been so delighted to say, "I told you so."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/16/beavers-uk-flood-defences-forest-of-dean
Wednesday, 27 September 2017
A Bombardier warning for Brexit
Avid advocates of Britain leaving the EU should heed the warnings of the Bombardier crisis. The US government is slapping a huge tariff on the importation of Bombardier passenger jets. The Bombardier company is Canadian owned but it makes the wings for its jets in Northern Ireland. The imposition of the tariff by the US government is at the behest of the Boeing aircraft company. The imposition of tariffs is subject to a legal appeal. If the Canadian government loses the appeal in the US then the Bombardier company will be seriously affected and production in Northern Ireland will also be affected. The British government has been making appeals to the US but to no avail. It looks as though the British government is now making veiled threats against Boeing sales in the UK.
Entering into a trade war with the US would be dangerous under the best of circumstances . Britain would lose. After Brexit our position will be weaker; there will be no EU to back us up.
The US is looking after its own companies first. It always does this no matter who is the president. Britain does this too . So does the EU. After we leave the EU we will get no favours from our erstwhile partners. They will tread on us just like the US and China.
When Britain leaves the EU both the EU and Britain will be weakened economically. Even without the UK the EU will still vie with the US to be the world's largest economy. Britain's economy will be dwarfed by the EU as well as by the US and China. We shall be adding to our trading difficulties.
The big boys will protect their economies and Britain will be left to pick up the crumbs. It is not unpatriotic to point out this fact of life and it is delusional to ignore it.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/27/uk-boeing-contracts-bombardier-us
Entering into a trade war with the US would be dangerous under the best of circumstances . Britain would lose. After Brexit our position will be weaker; there will be no EU to back us up.
The US is looking after its own companies first. It always does this no matter who is the president. Britain does this too . So does the EU. After we leave the EU we will get no favours from our erstwhile partners. They will tread on us just like the US and China.
When Britain leaves the EU both the EU and Britain will be weakened economically. Even without the UK the EU will still vie with the US to be the world's largest economy. Britain's economy will be dwarfed by the EU as well as by the US and China. We shall be adding to our trading difficulties.
The big boys will protect their economies and Britain will be left to pick up the crumbs. It is not unpatriotic to point out this fact of life and it is delusional to ignore it.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/27/uk-boeing-contracts-bombardier-us
Monday, 14 August 2017
Insults and threats during political discourse.
Why do some people have to been so insulting and threatening on political blogs and such like? The treatment of political campaigners such as Miss Gina Miller is disturbing. There is no need to insult her, traduce or threaten her no matter what her political opinion is. Miss Miller is always graceful and behaves impeccably when disputing Britain's departure from the European Union with advocates of the opposite. She deserves to be treated with the utmost respect.
The use of threats and insults during political debate demeans all of us. If you are tempted to do so please think twice.
This blog will treat any insult with the contempt it deserves; it will go unanswered and it will be deleted.
The use of threats and insults during political debate demeans all of us. If you are tempted to do so please think twice.
This blog will treat any insult with the contempt it deserves; it will go unanswered and it will be deleted.
Wednesday, 26 July 2017
Fining the Homeless -a pointless waste of time and money
Oxford City council is considering fining homeless people for sleeping in shop doorways and is pinning notices to that effect on homeless peoples' belongings.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/26/oxford-homeless-people-face-fines-belongings-doorways
This is a completely unrealistic approach to tackling the problem of homelessness. Not many people choose to choose to live rough in the outdoors. Most homeless people are very poor and some of them are younger people who have run away from home as well as being broke.
What is the point of taking homeless people to court to be fined? Most homeless people have got no money. What are the courts going to do if a homeless person cannot pay a fine? Send them to jail for a couple of weeks to keep them off the streets and then land them back in the position from where they started. What a pointless waste of time and money.
Why create even more difficulties for homeless people? Why not solve the problem by providing them with a home from where they can rebuild their lives? Why not help young people to be reunited with their families if they have run away from home and then support them to live together in some sort of dignity?
We are kept being reminded that the UK has 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world. We have an economy which amounts to 2 trillion pounds. Surely, we have enough resources as a nation to cater for the homeless and provide every one with a decent and safe home.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/26/oxford-homeless-people-face-fines-belongings-doorways
This is a completely unrealistic approach to tackling the problem of homelessness. Not many people choose to choose to live rough in the outdoors. Most homeless people are very poor and some of them are younger people who have run away from home as well as being broke.
What is the point of taking homeless people to court to be fined? Most homeless people have got no money. What are the courts going to do if a homeless person cannot pay a fine? Send them to jail for a couple of weeks to keep them off the streets and then land them back in the position from where they started. What a pointless waste of time and money.
Why create even more difficulties for homeless people? Why not solve the problem by providing them with a home from where they can rebuild their lives? Why not help young people to be reunited with their families if they have run away from home and then support them to live together in some sort of dignity?
We are kept being reminded that the UK has 5th or 6th biggest economy in the world. We have an economy which amounts to 2 trillion pounds. Surely, we have enough resources as a nation to cater for the homeless and provide every one with a decent and safe home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
