Moovers and Shakers

Potty thinking, but whose idea was it anyway?

Fellow UK MEP Julie Girling was on a rampage over her new theme du jour, Chinese Lanterns and was highlighting the dangers posed to livestock.

Perhaps little did she expect the ensuing debate that would burst forth over magnets put inside cows' stomachs.

Of course, to raise concerns over the growing popularity of what is basically a floating naked flame that could fall anywhere within a reasonable radius of the point of departure, you do not expect then for the Commission to pose the solution of implanting magnets in the stomachs of ruminants. But that is typical of the European Commission. You ask them what the answer to 2 + 2 is and they will tell you it is the same as 1+6 x 18-22 / 4 - 6 / 5. They are paid huge salaries of course, to no doubt "think outside the box"

Whilst I am not a supporter of blanket bans, especially not made by the Commission or anyone else in Brussels, Chinese Lanterns do pose a threat. But it is not only to livestock. Organisers at Glastonbury festival send out patrols to make sure the airborne incendiary devices are not floating over the swathes of canvas that accommodate the thousands of festival goers who buy hundreds of pounds worth of tickets to see their favourite bands, not involuntary pyrotechnical displays.

Similarly can you imagine the consequence of one of these lanterns homing in on an oil refinery, or petrol station? Or tumbling out of the sky onto an unsuspecting jamboree?

Cow magnets does not answer the question.

But that is where the argument ends. Although the proposition is of course ridiculous in the light of the Chinese Lantern issue (and here I will point out that I have not read Ms Girling's written question to the Commission but one must suppose it underlines the particular grievances of UK cattle farmers) it does turn out that Cow Magnets exist and have been used successfully to prevent overzealous ruminants from sufffering internal injuries from the plethora of metallic objects they ingest over the course of a lifetime of indiscriminate munching. And to take the argument any further would see legislation havig to be drawn up to prohibit the use of a myriad metal objects that sneak their way into the countryside.

Frankenfish and Farce

I've read today that apparently a new breed of GM salmon could soon be winging its way to Europe and could well be on a table near you very soon. The genetically altered specimen grows twice as fast as a normal fish and has been approved by American authorities as safe for human consumption. We already face encroaching widespread fish farming as Brussels' Common Fisheries Policy drains our oceans of stock, but the thought of genetically modified farmed fish makes my skin crawl.
GM crops are one thing, but man made fish is surely taking the laws of nature and totally ripping up the rule book. European legislation suggests each member state is able to decide how much they wish to use genetic modification, but does put a ban on cloning. However with the amount of meat and fish brought in from third countries via trade deals, and repackaged and sold in supermarkets, it is likely at some point the Frankenfish will descend on Europe. Chilling.

Meanwhile whilst we are facing cuts a plenty here in the UK, Baroness Ashton has the cheek to demand an eight per cent budget increase for her new EU External Action Service (read here "EU Foreign Affairs".) Not only is there surely no room to maneouvre for a so called external service when foreign affairs is supposed to remain a sovereign dependency, but whilst the rest of Europe scrimps and saves post recession, the good Baroness has thrown frugality out of the window.

I received a big cheer from the hemicycle today after once again pointing out to the wasteful Commission that few MEPs can see the worth in travelling all the way to Strasbourg once a month (or even twice, as it has been this month) to hold debates which could more easily and cheaply be conducted in Brussels. Why we transport thousands of staff with a cargo of trunks packed with documents across the continent to a rather grandiose building used but 12 times a year, all funded by the taxpayer, I surely don't know. It is an absolute farce and should really rile the hardworking citizens of Europe who are seeing public services cut, taxes raised, prices shoot up all under the watchful eye of the supposedly austere European Commission.

It's more a case of "do as I say" not "do as I do" and quite frankly it has to stop. This issue unites MEPs from all countries and parties, other than a handful of French whose country no doubt benefits from the monthly circus coming to town. I thought the Gallic trend was currently to evict workshy, tax-feeding foreigners? Perhaps not!

Publish Post

Last Post

For years now people have been campaigning about the closures of local post offices. But rarely in the protests have you heard criticism of the EU.

Yes, successive Governments have stripped support away from the psot office. They've failed to help Royal Mail modernise as more and more licensing applications are done online, benefits paid directly into the bank account and so forth. The post office needed revolutionising and it just didn't happen.

But the real threat to the Royal Mail was the EU Postal Services Directive, which ordered under competition law for the delivery of mail to be privatised. Without this, the Post Office was left with no choice but to rely on taxpayer's money to stay open, money which over the years has been withdrawn.



I presented this argument to the European Commission yesterday stating:

"When the EU ordered the postal sector open up to competition it destroyed a vital British service. As a sovereign nation our post offices were run by Royal Mail and linked with national savings, licensing, welfare and pension collection to name a few.

In 1975 we had 25,000 post offices, now there are less than 12,000, despite a population boom. After being forced to sell off its profit making arm, post offices couldn’t stay open without government support. Thousands shut, stripping communities of access to vital services.

The EU postal reform says good-quality postal services should be available throughout the Union. That is exactly what we had.

“It’s a disgrace to strip Britain of an efficient public service merely to satisfy Competition law. Do you wish to privatise the NHS too? The UK must be allowed to fully opt out.”

In 2008, our Government commissioned an independent review of the Postal Service. The Hooper report warned that a forced restructuring under European law would be highly likely. That same author today is advising Westminster that the only option left for Royal Mail now is to sell it off completely.

Government support for post offices was withdrawn, causing widespread closure of vital sub post offices isolating whole communities from access to necessary services.

It’s another example of erroneous EU law interfering with a perfectly suitable British model.

Successive Governments in Westminster have let down the postal service by failing to move with the times and account for technological developments. But what this has done is leave the door wide open for Brussels to march in and destroy Royal Mail and the postal service sector entirely.”

Today, Richard Hooper, who authored the report in December 2008, will recommend the Westminster Government that a sell-off is now the only way to raise the money to modernise the service, threatening huge job loss and massive service disruption.