An EU Presidential Election: One Candidate in a Secret Ballot

The election of the new EU Commission President (Ursula Von Der Leyen) made me wonder what percentage of the vote the other candidates got.

Oh Silly me!

She was the only candidate.

Of course! This is the EU after-all.

I know Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Un and Muammar Gaddafi all managed to to have "democratic elections"  while being the only candidate on the ballot paper. So I suppose its not too surprising the EU has followed suite.

Maybe we should be grateful.

Just imagine how much more it would cost if they had TWO candidates - or (gulp!) three! Especially if one or more didn't tow the EU party line.

God forbid. What would have happened if  a EU sceptic had won? What if someone who was not signed up to the EU bureaucratic dream had aced it?

I dare say there must be EU bureaucrats who have thought that very thought. I expect they'll be off the Valium and out of therapy soon.

Anyway. To me for some strange reason, the election of Ursula Von Der Leyen seemed rather odd.

It was not just that she was the only person on the ballot paper either.

At least old Saddam Hussein got a resounding 99% support by his Parliament when he was elected.

I understand poor Ursula only got 52%.

Just imagine the shock. You are the only name on the ballot paper. Yet when you win you find you were actually contesting a one way marginal and nearly came second.

Idly I wondered just who HAD voted for our Ursula.

As always I started out with a grand scheme. I wanted to figure out what percentage of the EU electorate (via MEPs per capita) had voted for her.

As I discussed HERE the size of population per MEP varies from 73,000 right up to 900,000 depending on which country you are voting in. But all MEPs have equal voting rights.

Clearly some MEPs are more equal than others.

So maybe by finding out the nationality of her MEP supporters I could work out whether she indirectly enjoyed more or less than 50% support from the overall EU electorate.

Seemed reasonable.

But I looked and I looked. No table could be found.

Then I found this VoteWatch.eu - Why is the vote on Ursula Von Der Leyen secret?

It appears that our elected representative were so intimidated by the prospect of being found out regarding whether they supported dear Ursula or not they insisted on a secret ballot.

Now, you might think that had this been Saddam Hussein's election, such a secretive scheme may have been a good idea.

Bearing in mind that those that opposed him usually ended up committing suicide that is.

(Fair dues - you have to admit - opposing Saddam Hussein was a pretty suicidal thing to do in the first place.)

But what are we make of a Parliament that is so gutless and so frightened of their political opponents that they demand anonymity?

Would their opponents have terrorised them with hurty words if they voted the "wrong" way?

I suppose as well as the hurty words the prospect of being a persona non grata and seriously compromising the perks and expenses may have weighed heavily as well.

So sadly, we will never be able to know who exactly elected Ursula Von Der Leyen. Let alone who voted for her non existent opponent.

So my grand scheme is in tatters.

We will never know if Ursula Von Der Leyen enjoys more or less than 50% support of the EU electorate.

But what the hell eh? 

The one thing we can all be certain of is this:

The version of democracy as (mal)practiced by the EU is merely a veneer. 

Window dressing. 

A sham.

So even if I had proved that she had significantly less than 50% electorate support, it wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Hey Ho.

The EU Parliament: A Fake Democracy

As we digest the Python-esque election of the new Eu Commission President (she was the only candidate on the ballot paper) I thought I’d have a look at exactly how "democratic" the  EU Parliament actually is.

Lets compare the way Parliamentary democracy is conducted in the UK and the way it is conducted in the EU Parliament. 

UK Democracy

As you know, the UK uses First Past the Post (FPTP) for 650 parliamentary seats (soon to be 600 when the Boundary changes take place)

Many think (myself included) FPTP is a pretty crap voting system. It needs updating. It can (and has) lead to over/under representation.

But even so, within the limits of geographical practicality, the UK election process attempts to be scrupulously fair.

Currently we are about to implement changes to the constituency boundary’s as dictated by the independent Boundary Commission. These changes happen to ensure the fairest possible representation across the country

In mainland UK, constituencies must have an electorate of between 72,810 and 80,473 registered voters. 

Northern Ireland has slightly (but only slightly) different requirements where the minimum is lowered to 70,810.

There are four unavoidable exceptions to these rules. All involve islands. But these exceptions are based on practicality and geography, not on deliberate political manipulation.

Even so, the absolute outlier (Western Isles constituency size - 21,200) is only over represented by a factor of less than 3.5:1.

A great deal of effort is expended trying to ensure that constituency sizes are fair. 

In fact, (except for the four anomalies), all constituencies across the UK will be within 5% of the median value regarding electorate size. 

Truly, within the bounds of practicality, one persons vote is worth much the same as another.

But what about the EU Parliament?

Elections to the EU parliament are conducted by a party list system known as the d’Hondt system. 

While d'Hondt does have issues and is not really a true proportional representation system it does (more or less) ensure a fair result across a country.

And in that, we have the problem. 

Or rather the deliberately contrived anti-democratic malapportionment as used by the EU.

While it is true that each country elects its MEPs by d’Hondt, the size of constituencies from one country to another varies massively. 

By massively I don’t mean double or even triple. I talking orders of magnitude.

Lets look at the dynamics of this related to the UK which has 73 MEPs (or a representation per MEP of about 900,000 citizens)

The greatest over-representation is that on Malta which has 6 MEPs each representing about 73,000 Maltese citizens)

So compared to the UK, Malta is over-represented by a factor of over 12:1. 

If you were to reflect the variation in EU constituency size onto the UK, it would be like having constituencies (each still returning one MP) having their electorate size varying between 6000 voters and 80,000 voters.

This is no accidental cock-up or historical legacy. This is deliberate. The EU even have a term for it they call it "Degressive Democracy".

Degressive (or even Regressive) it may be. But I think few would consider it democratic.

Malta is the worst example. But not by much. If you add up the seats allocated to the nine smaller EU countries you soon get to the 73 seats allocated to the UK.

The difference is the UK has a population of 66 million. If you add up the seats and populations of the smallest 9 EU nations you find that they have a total population of 17 million

That means that these 9 countries (compared to the UK) are over represented by at least 4:1 or by an even higher over-representation than the absolute worst case geographical anomaly in the UK parliament.

The difference is the Western Isles is an outlier due to the practicality of the situation whereas these nine EU countries are over represented by deliberate policy of the EU.

But it gets worse.

There is even a significant voter advantage compared to the UK  with larger countries. 

Germany has the largest national population in the EU with a population 82 million. The UK's population is 66 million. Yet Germany still has a per capita (i.e. per person) voter advantage of 1.05:1. 

So the Germans get 96 seats. The UK gets 73. 

If it was fair they’d get 91 to our 73. 

If the EU “Degression” concept was anything more than outright Gerrymandering they’d have around 85.

This can only be called what it is: Rigged and anti-democratic.

Of course that only applies if (like me) you believe that democracy is defined as one persons vote should be worth (more or less) the same as the next persons vote.

When one persons vote is worth the same as 12 others in another country - In my book that is fake democracy.

So why has the EU deliberately set out to do this? 

There are reasons. Most of which in my opinion are malign and are actually more to do with subverting democracy rather than supporting it. (more in another post)

But whatever the reasons, I think it is clear that the UK democracy, even with the crap FPTP voting system does its best to be fair. 

While the EU deliberately sets out to be demonstrably and deliberately unfair. It perverts democracy to its own design and it does this with a ruthless and deliberate policy.

The sooner we are out of this monster the better.

Boycotting a Second Eu Referendum

Remember the Eu Referendum 2016?

The 2016 EU referendum was the biggest and most well attended celebration of democracy ever held in the UK. As we all know, on a huge turn-out, the majority voted to leave the EU.

Even so, the Leave majority should have been higher. But many were intimidated into voting remain by a mountain of ugly fear-mongering propaganda. All paid for by the wealthy corporate sponsors of the remain campaign.

Yet enough of the proles held their nerve.

We metaphorically punched the sneering metropolitan elite and their political stooges on the nose.

We demanded the return of national self-determination. No more should we be dictated to by an anointed group of self serving bureaucrats, especially by those in foreign lands.

We should all remember as well that this was no overnight whim of the British public. We have been promised (and then denied – because they thought they’d lose) referenda on EU membership by all main political parties over many years. The Eu referendum was only held when the Conservatives ran out of wriggle room.

Implementing Our Decision?

But how goes the proud boast published and sent to every home in the land? Do you remember? The promise that whatever the result, the governemt would

[quote] “implement your (the voters) decision”[unquote]

It goes badly.

It goes badly not because a democratic desire for self determination is ill considered or that removing ourselves from a ugly monolithic and elitist bureacracy is wrong.

It goes badly because there is a well funded, EU inspired tranch that seeks to overturn the democratic decision of the UK population.

The EU has a long and shameful history of doing this (I won't bore you with it here but here’s a pre-referendum post of mine detailing their methods Click Here …).

So whats the plan?

How the EU plans to De-Rail Brexit.

Going on past performance and the current remainer MSM reporting (See Here) it looks like the main EU battle plan is to force a second referendum. 

There will be another huge fear campaign (which actually looks to be already in full swing). As the vote nears they will throw in a couple of concessions (to be reneged on later).  They have successfully done this before in Denmark (1993) and Ireland (2001 and 2008)

If they succeed, then in essence meaningful universal franchise democracy in the UK will have ended.

Referenda wise, there will be no “best of three”.

Two hundred years of progress towards meaningful democratic participation for the demos (or plebs, proles or whatever you want to call us) will have ended.

So how should we the great unwashed non metropolitan un-elitist JAMs defend our democracy from what amounts to a EU inspired coup?

Primarily we MUST consider how to see off a second referendum. Ideally we should quash a second referendum before it is held.

But unfortunately due to the leverage the Eu has on the political classes, it is likely to get political traction and be forced through parliament without having to appear in anyone's manifesto.

Don’t forget, the majority of MPs (including the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition) were/are all remainers. They are (to say the least) reluctant brexiteers. They are more interested in jobs and power than fulfilling the interests of the British public.

But if a second referendum is forced through parliament, what should we do? Here is my opinion.

Boycott a Second Referendum

(the following is my current opinion only and is open to challenge. I am quite happy to embrace better ideas and ditch this)

The published statement “We will implement your decision” means just that. It does not mean “we’ll ask again later if you say leave”.

Holding a second referendum before we have exited the EU is invalid. Nothing has changed to the extent to justify nulling the first result in favour of a second.

The first referendum was held only after it was included in a pre-election manifesto. The government was elected on that manifesto. It was a manifesto pledge and so had to be honoured, albeit reluctantly.

If remainers wish to hold a second referendum - that’s fine. As long as they obey the same rules and AFTER the original referendum is honoured.

Specifically they need to get the second referendum included as a pledge in a party manifesto. That party then needs to be elected to government on that manifesto. Then they can hold their second referendum.

So if the EU/Remainers force an invalid referendum, should we the public take part in this travesty of democracy?

My answer to that is No! (or rather HELL NO!)

The response to any imposed second referendum should be BOYCOTT.

OK this means the remainer will “win” their illegal referendum (if they are stupid enough to hold it) but as long as the turn out is derisory (say 30-35%) and wholly one sided they will clearly not have a mandate.

We can of course start organising such a boycott now. We can for example get prominent folk to publicly state they will not vote in such an invalid referendum.

I would suspect that given the prospect of a significant referendum boycott the remainers/Eu may take fright and the second referendum would be abandoned anyway.

Finally we the Boycotters, as well as pledging to boycott the vote, we can also sign a declaration refusing to aknowledge the validity of the bogus second referendum.

So that’s my idea. Maybe you have a better one. Write it up let’s get the ideas out there. If we are going to defeat this anti-democratic EU inspired conspiracy – we need to get the ball rolling.

Time is getting short!

Eu Referendum Demographics: A Different Take.

I've been interested to find out how many people from each age group actually voted in the Eu referendum.

From my findings below I reckon the votes cast by the 18 - 24 age group amounted to barely 6% of the total vote cast. So for every young voter who turned out there were four pensioners who turned out to vote.

We've all seen the standard Eu voting demographic which looks like this:

This is from a quite detailed set of statistics surrounding the referendum by Lord Ashcroft.
The full Lord Ashcroft data is (HERE) and the BBC version is  (HERE).

Both though miss one very important (or vital) statistic. What was the turnout demographic?

Look as you might, there is very little about how many people by each age group voted rather than just which way they cast their vote.

There is this from The Financial Times (HERE) that shows a trend that the older a towns population, the higher the Brexit vote. But while it is qualitatively interesting it gives no real indication of how many people from each age band voted.

But there was one source based on a poll and reported by Sky data on Twitter. Polls, as you know are far from definitive but I think it would be fair to say that it could be regarded as reliable to +/- 5%.

Here is the tweet.

(The caveat that was here relating to the Sky Data has been removed as it proved to be a red herring) 

From this we can see that while 73% 18-24 year olds  voted to remain, only 36% of that age band in total actually turned up to vote. The turn out for this age band was dismal.

In order to translate this into an approximate number of voters, we need to know the population density within that age group.

Here is a demographic table for the UK from Wikipedia (HERE)

We get (approximately)

18 - 24   5,900,000
25 - 34   8,400,000
35 - 44   8,800,000
45 - 54   8,700,000
55 - 64   7,400,000
65+       10,500,000

Clearly, not only is the 18-25 age group the least likely to vote but they are also (by far) the smallest group of voters.

If you now use the the Sky data you can get a rough idea of how many people voted in total from each age band

18 - 24 (5,900,000 * 0.36) 2,125,000
25 - 34 (8,400,000 * 0.58) 4,875,000
35 - 44 (8,800,000 * 0.72) 6,335,000
45 - 54 (8,700,000 * 0.75) 6,525,000
55 - 64 (7,400,000 * 0.81) 5,995,000
65+    (10,500,000 * 0.83) 8,715,000

This above table totals to 34,570,000 whereas the actual total who voted was 33,577,342 which is less than 3% different (2.95%)

I would suggest that within a 5% tolerance the figures above are fairly good.

So from this we can see that for every young vote there were four pensioner votes. The young vote (18- 24) was only 6% of the total vote cast.

If the young had voted with the same dedication as anyone above the age of 35 then the vote would have been with remain.

UK Foreign Aid, the Eu and German Coffee Barons

Of the £13 Billion annual UK foreign aid budget around £600 million is given to Kenya.

Kenya has long ties with the UK and is arguably one of the most progressive countries within Africa. Kenya is striving for self reliance and is a dynamic rising economy.

But the question has to be asked: Why does Kenya need this aid?

Why isn't Kenya self reliant already?

To be self reliant Kenya (or any country) needs to build trade. They need to sell and export Goods and Services. From this trade comes a surplus and from that surplus Kenya could provide the education, health care and education services that are currently propped up by UK foreign aid.

One of Kenya's main industries is growing coffee beans and selling the unprocessed beans to the Eu (Germany in particular)

Compared to selling processed coffee, the profitability of selling coffee beans as a raw material is pitiful. If you spend say £5.00 on a bag of ground processed coffee, then  about 5 pence (1%) will go to the Kenyan coffee grower.

So why don't the Kenyans process their own coffee and sell on the refined product? 

That's where we come to the German Coffee Industry and Eu protectionism.

Germany (and the rest of the Eu) cannot grow coffee beans. So the Eu is happy to have a zero tariff on coffee beans when imported as a raw material. 

But coffee is processed in Germany and the German Coffee Barons don't like competition. Neither does the Eu. 

If the Kenyans wanted to sell processed coffee to the Eu then they get hit by a 7.5% tariff. On the tight margins in a competitive industry that 7.5% is a killer.

AS a result Kenya doesn't invest in processing its own coffee and makes far less than it should out of its coffee industry.

All so German coffee grinders and blenders can operate free from competition.

Meanwhile UK Foreign Aid is used to prop up vital Kenyan services. 

In a perverse way the final destination of a large part of the £600 million UK foreign aid given to Kenya isn't Kenya at all. It ends up lining the pockets of protected and cosseted German Coffee Barons who profit from this unfair competition.

Without punitive and debilitating Eu tariff boundaries the Kenyans could develop their natural industries as they should be developed. Then they could pay for their own services and not be dependent on the largess of the UK government.

Poor Africans striving for a better future deserve better than this.

And so do we.

Vote Leave on Thursday.

Vote Leave for yourself, and vote Leave for the poor African farmers abused by the Eu.

Hat tip to Anna Racoon who looks at further Eu abuse and exploitation of African Farmers Here

A Love Letter to Europe

I know some of our European friends are quite shocked to find out that we will be probably voting to leave the Eu. So I thought I'd write them an explanation why I'll vote Leave. 

My Dear European Friends,

So, how has it come to this?

In 1973 I voted to join the Common Market. I was (and still am) a passionate supporter of a European Free trade area. I love Europe and I love my European friends and work colleagues.

So it is with sadness that I have to tell you that on the 23rd July I will be voting to leave the Eu. This is not a snap decision. I have agonized over this decision for a long time.

I feel I owe you an explanation, so here's why.

The most precious gift possessed by the peoples of Europe is Democracy. It is almost trite to remind you that millions died from all around the world to preserve it and promote it. Now, at last, all European countries are (to a greater or lesser extent) democratic.

Perhaps though, we should not forget that many of the countries in the Eu were, until quite recently, dictatorships. Over half of the countries in the Eu had totalitarian governments within the last 70 years. Maybe that explains the lack of rigour in your demands for democracy within the Eu itself.

That to me, is a very big problem.

Above all else, for me, the lack of democratic accountablity with the Eu is the reason to leave.

Tony Benn was hardly my favorite politician, but he beautifully summarised it as follows:

He said:

"...one can ask five questions:" 

1. "What power do you have? "
2. "Where did you get it?" 
3. "In whose interests do you exercise it?"
4. "To whom are you accountable?"
5. "And, how can we get rid of you?" 

He then pointed out that

"Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system."  

The Eu legislature is un-elected and unaccountable. Only the un-elected commission can propose legislation.

True - there is a fig-leaf of democracy in an elected Eu Parliament. But this is an emasculated talking shop. It cannot instigate legislation, which has to be the prime reason for any parliament. The Eu Parliaments powers are for all intents and purposes, little more than the UK House of Lords.

This is wrong.

But worse than this, is the way the Eu bends democracy to breaking point in order to get its way.

Several times treaties have been legitimately and democratically rejected by national referenda. On each occasion the Eu has instigated a fear campaign and forced another referendum within the country concerned to reverse the decision. (See earlier Post here)

Even worse they can (and have) deliberately overthrown democratic decisions. The worst and most flagrant example of this involved the defunct Eu Constitution and the subsequent affront to democracy called the Treaty of Lisbon.

I'll just remind you how this shocking anti-democratic coup took place.

The original Eu Constitution was vetoed by two referenda in France and Holland. Further referenda vetoes were certain.

Consequently the Eu Constitution (per-se) was dropped.

A victory for democracy?

Hardly.

By sleight of hand the Commission resurrected the constitution.

They replaced it with the (deliberately) unintelligible Treaty of Lisbon. It is unintelligible because it is in essence a set of line by line amendments to existing treaties. They are amended to reflect the content of the vetoed constitution.

As an amendment to existing treaties, the Treaty of Lisbon did not require countries to exercise a referendum. Only Ireland held a referendum. They vetoed the Treaty of  Lisbon. Undeterred, the Eu Oligarchy forced a re-run. After a scare campaign the result was reversed.

Democracy was defeated. The ruling Eu Oligarchy ignored the true wishes of the peoples of the Eu. They imposed their Eu Constitution.

Such actions demonstrate a total contempt for democratic rule.

So I simply cannot stand by while an already remote, elitist Oligarchy turns into a dictatorship. My country, my children and my grandchildren deserve better than that.

There is sadly far, far more.

The appalling treatment of African nations,
Debilitating uncontrolled immigration and emigration.
The advanced planning for an Eu "army"
The shocking underhand and undemocratic actions taken in the Ukraine.

Then there is the stinking cesspit of Eu wide cronyism and corruption.

For 40 years all political partys in the UK have tried to deal with these issues. But the unelected self serving Eu elite studiously stone-wall reform and ignore requests to change.

We can do no more.

So there it is my friends. We have to say good-bye.

Maybe the shock of the UK leaving the Eu will get things get sorted out. If the corrupt Eu Oligarchy is brought to heel maybe we can again have a closer relationship. But not with things as they are.

I do hope we can remain friends.

Love

Billothewisp

Vetos, Turkey, the Eu and Deception

Penny Mordaunt  did get her facts somewhat wrong about the accession veto on #Marr today. Theoretically the UK (and any other Eu State) does have a veto on an accession.

But the theory does not match the reality. Basically the Veto is a sham.

Let me tell you what has happened in the past.

Remember back to the 2005 Eu Treaty of Accession? That was the treaty that granted Eu membership to Bulgaria and Romania. Migration from these two very poor and barely democratic countries was already an Eu wide issue.  Thousands were living illegally in the UK and Germany. Problems abounded, especially in London.

I can remember there was a great deal of public concern about further mass immigration. People were worried about crime, jobs, benefits and the loading on the NHS.

The media went into overdrive mode to play it down. Anyone who questioned the sense in allowing free unchecked access to two very poor countries was shouted down or simply ignored. But the unease among the public was palpable.

The UK has always had a large Euro-skeptic base including many MP's. So it would be reasonable to suppose that those MP's would have vociferously debated and then voted against the 2005 bill granting UK approval for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania.

So even if the majority of MP's supported the accession bill, there would have been a significant verifiable opposition vote we could see today in the records.

Yet not a single MP voted against the accession of Bulgaria or Romania. There is though, a very good reason why they did not vote.

There was no vote.

There was no division. So no vote. Or at least no vote as a member of the public would expect on such a serious matter.

This is taken from Wikipedia (Wikipedia - Treaty of Accession 2005)

No division means no accountable vote.

It was (at best) nodded through on a Voice Vote although even this is unclear. Voice votes either pass or fail. There is no record of who took part in voice votes (assuming there was one). It could have been ten MP's or three hundred (probably the former).

The Public were alarmed. Yet the MP's nodded it through.

Does this give you confidence in the ability of Parliament, when under pressure from their Eu superiors, to even debate a veto let alone apply one?

Of course the Accession then went to the House of Lords who are supposed to scrutinise, comment and if necessary return policy to the House of Commons for further debate and work.

The House of Lords also votes - or not, as in this case.

As in the House of Commons there was no meaningful accountable vote.

Despite severe Public concern, the Accession Bill for Romania and Bulgaria was simply nodded through. The Eu were delighted.

Does that sound like a "Cast Iron Veto" to you?
 
We have to remember that many of the people in high office in this country are beholden to their masters in the Eu. They fix things to work as their masters want. They fixed the 2005 accession treaty and (if given the chance) they will fix further accession treaties.

If you want democracy in this country then we must break the links to the puppet masters.

Vote Leave on June 23rd.

Intimidate Us Mr Juncker? Really? I'll Raise you 5.

Quote: "If the British leave Europe, people will have to face the consequences"

So Mr Junker, you say: "Deserters will be given no favours". You say the UK "Won't be "handled with kid gloves". (Telegraph Here) (Reuters Here)

I gather one of you avid French sychophants reckons we'll be "killed" if we leave the Eu.

Ooohhh ouch!

Maybe Mr Juncker, I detect a little of the arrogant bully here? You know, frighten the little people? Beat the dog down. Show the UK their place?

I have to tell you Mr Juncker, that bullies usually end up finding out (often the hard way) that victims can become energised by abuse.

So, Mr Juncker, you want to PUNISH the UK do you?

Dare I say that you'd better beware. Else we punish you back.

Laughing are you Mr Juncker?

Really? Like when the bully laughs at his victim who has finally clenched his fist?

You started the threats and terrorist rhetoric Mr Juncker. So now I'll raise you FIVE.

How about a few ideas for starters.

You remember those Typhoon fighter jets, currently protecting your Eastern flank in Lithuania?

Well sorry, we are SO FRIGHTENED by your threats we will simply have to withdraw them to save money.

Then there is all that expensive military assistance and co-operation that keeps much of your various sub-optimal military organisations afloat. Maybe that needs to go.

Costly Royal Navy ships in the Mediterranean? They'll have to go too. They'll be needed her to defend our new fishing limits.

I gather you are a little concerned about Isis and you are heavily reliant on our intelligence. Well, sorry. We can't afford the phone calls any more.

I expect at this point Mr Juncker, you'll be smirking.

Of course the UK wouldn't do such things!  Wouldn't it compromise UK security too?

Ah well. That's a good question.

Remember Mr Juncker here you are reading from one of the little people. I am not one of the Metropolitan elitist snobs who currently rule this ravaged little land.

So just for a moment, look at it from the position of the proles Mr Juncker. Rather than from the view point of your sycophants and toadies.

Is a faint and distant threat (for us) from Russia more destructive to the UK than being overwhelmed and ruled by you and your associated Oligachs?

Funnily we feel somewhat less insecure about Mr Putin than you do. After all there is 1600 Kilometers of Europe between the English Channel and Russia. Then, don't forget, there is another 30 kilometres of water between Europe and us.

As for intelligence on the threat from Isis we find the Five Eyes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.) constitutes our defence (and yours too for that matter).

In reality, your shabby corrupt Eu intelligence doesn't really add much does it? Maybe we would get a little bit more conservative about what we share.

But anyway Mr Juncker, I can give you a comforting thought.

These are only my ideas of what UK retaliation could result from your "punishment".

The good news for you is that our current bunch of ruling Metropolitan snobs would probably NEVER contemplate such things.

But I have some bad news too.

You know those little people? The ones you deride, intimidate and sneer at?

Well, even after all the Eu bullying, lies, deceit and scare mongering, about half the UK electorate (at least) will vote to leave the Eu. Maybe many more.

Just think Mr Juncker and ask yourself this:

How many of those 30 million bullied, vilified and terrorised little people would now commit to defending your ugly monolithic anti-democratic Eu extravaganza?

Any? (I think maybe none.)

Maybe due to your threats and intimidation we will lose the referendum. Or maybe we will leave and you will "punish" us as described.

On a personal level, in either case, I will personally do my very best to oppose, subvert and dilute any support to your Oligarchy from then on.

So if either of these circumstances come about, I won't be marching to your defence Mr Juncker.

Much less my children.

Ever. Under any circumstance.

Furthermore I'd do my best oppose any UK support or commitment to the Eu. For any reason.

I would if necessary, lie in front of tank transporters, close runways and prevent ships sailing. Basically Mr Juncker, I will do my very best to ensure NO UK military or financial commitment is spent in defending or propping up any part of your Oligarchy.

Of course I'm just one of the little people.

Such statements from one of the proles may be regarded as trivial and simple bluster. But remember Mr Juncker, there are at least 30 million of us despised and derided little people who feel the same way in the UK. So beware.

But let us cool it down a little and end on a more conciliatory note. I'll condense the above into a few simple words.

Basically Mr Juncker, we can have friendly relations with the Eu.

Or not.

As is your choice.

But please, do not expect hostile Eu actions against the UK to go without consequence.

The Trouble with Bio-Fuels

I was going to post (again) about the Bio-fuel environmental catastrophe and how the EU and particularly Energiewende supporters are promoting it. But Biofuels Reform has beaten me to it.

The short animation below says it all. (h/t to @Thor at twitter for the tip off)

If you thought the Biomass scam was bad (see This Post) then make sure you sit down or stand well clear of breakable objects before you press the play button.



If you want to know some more about the utter environmental carnage taking place in Indonesia with Biofuels and burning Peat forests try this post of mine Fiddling While Sumatra Burns and read links to some of the peer reviewed papers .

Then there is this older post CO2 and Indonesian Peat Fires that gives a comparison of the biofuels scam to favorite Green "enemies" such as air travel.

Debunking the Myths

OK. This is a long post. To sweeten the task there is a windtoons cartoon at the end. No cheating.

Perhaps the most obscene aspect to the whole of the wind turbine fiasco is the way the carpet-baggers make up the "facts" to fit their own tawdry little aims. Especially when the truth is somewhat inconvenient. Wide eyed they then go into rant mode in an attempt browbeat everyone into believing their propaganda.

Take this site HERE for example. It is funded by the EU. But look at the bottom of any web page and notice it proudly states it is "co-ordinated by the EWEA" That is the European Wind Energy Association in case you did not know.

To me that sounds a bit like like having NHS Direct run by Glaxo-Smith-Kline-Beecham. Although to be fair to GSKB, I think they would be far more honourable than the average carpet-bagging wind-turbine cartel. But I digress.

On this site they have that favourite set of web pages you find on any of the carpet-bagging websites these days, proudly labelled  "Myths". Evidently our carpet-bagging friends want to enlighten the public by "Debunking the Myths" and show us all how wind energy is not only cheap reliable and non-intermittent but will probably cure cancer and teach you child to read as well.

What you actually get is the usual sad self serving deception and hypocrisy one has come to expect from the bureaucratic elite that runs this farce. When Sir Robert Armstrong used the phase "Economical with the truth" during the spy catcher trial of 1986 he really had no idea how the wind industry would take the meaning of the phase to a much higher level.

So let us look at the first myth they want to debunk. The myth which we all so mistakenly believe i.e.
"Wind power is expensive". Their answer to this "myth" is: (exactly as written:)

[quote]
Wind power ... can compete with other power generation options at good sites.
[unquote]

Now I suspect that a good site to the average carpet-bagger is anywhere they have got planning permission. To the rest of us I suspect a good site would be a windy site. One where, say, the turbine output would meet their often hyped 30% average capacity factor.

Now as you know there are some clever blokes about who love to debunk the debunk. One is called Professor Jefferson who did some research on the whole of the English turbine fleet that was operational for all of 2009 (See pdf Here).

He found that an annual 30% capacity factor was only reached by 7.6% of the turbine fleet. While 74% of the fleet failed to even reach 25% capacity factor. In fact the same percentage (7.6%) of turbines failed to manage 10% as managed to reach 30%.

So, the first deceit here in our "Debunking the Myths" is the "good site" deceit.

If you limited Wind turbines to only "good sites", and assuming that means a site that reaches the often quoted "30%" capacity factor then perhaps they could compete. They forget to mention that this would junk 92% of the turbine fleet in England straight away. Clearly MOST (almost all)  wind turbine power generation cannot compete with other power generation.

But it gets worse. They want to elaborate. (Ugh!)

First off they state the bleeding obvious
[quote]
Wind cannot compete with the cost of producing electricity from an existing power plant that has already been depreciated and paid for by taxpayers or electricity consumers.
[unquote]


Uh yes I would go along with that. Unfortunately though wind will never be free of its subsidy. It needs it to survive. If you did away with the ROC all wind farms would close down over night. Consequently wind will never be able to compete on a level playing field. It will always be cash hungry and require subsidy.

Then they contradict their first statement about how competitive wind is and admit that even at "good windy sites" is is not fully competitive, opting for a half way house "increasingly competitive".

[quote]
At good windy sites, however, it is increasingly competitive with other new-build generation technologies, especially given the dramatic rise in oil and gas prices. Oil, which influences the price of gas, has increased from an average of $14 in 1998 (in real terms) to around $100 in 2008.
[unquote]

Whatever you think about fracking we do now know that in the USA gas is now trading at a 50% discount to Europe. So even the spiteful little hope of other energy source prices  rising so high they make wind competitive is history.

But that's just the start. I could go on... and on... But you would get bored as would I.

When you hear about Wind turbine carpet baggers and their brown nosing friends ranting on about "Debunking the Myths" you know that what they really mean to do is ply you with their own deceptive propaganda and half truths.

Always listen to the arguments then ask yourself what is in it for them.

With Professor Jefferson, the CPRE, the John Muir Trust, Country Guardian and many others the answer is a desire to protect countryside and the people who live there.

With our deceptive band of turbine carpet-baggers the answer is money - your money.

Anyway after that rather depressing analysis lets finish with another excellent cartoon from windtoons.com

European Petrol and Diesel Prices Compared

The European Energy Portal provides information on a whole range of energy prices/issues, including Petrol and Diesel prices across Europe. This great site must be one of the few benefits we get from the EU.

Take this table on relative fuel prices (Petrol and Diesel).

Unsurprisingly Petrol in the UK is among the highest in Europe, although not as bad as some.

But rather shockingly, UK Diesel is by far the most expensive in Europe.

In fact the nearest rival (price wise) is Sweden. But even in Sweden the price of Diesel is still 7.5% cheaper than in the UK.

The cheapest European diesel price is in Luxembourg which is a whopping 30% less than the UK

Diesel is of course used in road transport as well as private vehicles. No wonder the transport industry is moaning all the time.

So why is Petrol and especially Diesel so expensive?

Here is another table from the EU Energy portal, giving a cost breakdown.

Notice the root cause of the price of diesel being so high is the outrageously high UK excise duty on diesel.

Diesel requires less refining, gives a higher mpg, and for a well tuned engine is just a clean a petrol. We should be encouraging motorist to use it in preference to petrol. It is also the life blood of industry.

• No Diesel = no distribution. 
• No distribution = no industry.
• No industry = no taxes to pay MP's expenses.

Any government, committed to enabling UK industry to dig us out of this current economic mess must cut the excise duty on diesel. How can industry compete when it is crippled by distribution costs?

Even from an environmental viewpoint the government must at least level the playing field with petrol.

Meanwhile on Wall Street

Billothewisp would just like to remind readers that while political deals are being made, that the world has been turning.

One thing you may have missed due to the election Roo-Ha-Ha and while Cleggy and Cameron have been sidling up to each other is that on Thursday, at one point, the world economy appeared to go into global meltdown.

The Dow Jones, at one point lost nearly 1000 points (that is a lot. In fact the biggest daily fall since 1987)

But of course, the people who run these markets are all closely related to sheep.

For some reason one decided to turn and then the whole thing went back on up . It ended the day having lost a mere 350 points. That was still the biggest loss since 2008.

As well as some issues regarding electronic trading, there is the fear this is also tied up with the Greek financial debacle. This is now threatening a domino effect on a number of other (mainly) European economies (unfortunately we are one of the dominoes).

Dear Auntie Angela in Germany is wafting lyrical about the future of the EU etc. etc. etc. A faint hint of hysteria and panic is entering her otherwise dulcet tone these days.

If you have any shares you will probably find they have lost nearly 10% of their value in the last week alone.

This is bad. Very very bad. And getting worse.

So, you thought a hung parliament was a problem!

A Greek Tragedy and an English Vote.

As we come to the end of the British election campaign, matters in Greece have turned ugly. Greece is nigh on bankrupt and sliding towards anarchy. To maintain their position within the Euro zone they have to make massive cuts . Even our future cuts, that will be very bad, will not match those currently demanded of Greece.

There is a lesson here for us. Greece gave up its sovereignty too easily. It surrendered its national control over its currency and, like us has kow-towed to the Bureaucrats in Brussels. While things were good, the Greeks wafted along on a sea of debt. Now it has all turned sour. Today Germany is calling the shots. Greece does as it is told.

There but for the grace of God we go. I must admit that, several years ago I was of the opinion that joining the Euro was a good idea. How wrong I was.

When we go to vote tomorrow, we should all ask ourselves as to whether the people we are voting for will strive to keep us off the Greek road to ruin.

The European Union has just about cost the Greeks everything. It has also cost us dear.

As the SNP seems ultra Europhile, maybe the primary concern we should express with our vote should be for the sovereignty of (at least) England if not the whole of the UK.

Let us prevent the Greek tragedy becoming the English tragedy.

Examine the manifestos.
Who is really going to protect our sovereignty?

Watch out who you vote for.