Some morsels from Helmer

Some months back I posted about the climate change denying efforts of Conservative MEP Roger Helmer.

It seems my interest has led to me to get on the mailing list for his electronic newsletter. It's the second Tory newsletter I've suddenly started receiving. My MP James Gray has also been sending me one. I wrote to him asking for his support for a couple of freedom of information EDMs (which he gave).

Must be an election in the offing soon (certainly June 4 for the euros).

Anyway Mr Helmer's newsletter has so many delightful little morsels that I’ve cut them out to form a stream of conservative consciousness. (elipses show where I've edited stuff out).

My favourite is the bit where he warns that the EU could send tanks onto the streets to enforce its will. A variation on America's black helicopter conspiracy theory. "Am I being alarmist?" asks Roger. OF COURSE YOU ARE.

In the interests of fairness the full missive can be found via www.rogerhelmer.com

STRAIGHT TALKING

Welcome President Obama

Despite my well-known Republican sympathies, it would be churlish not to welcome in-coming US President Barack Obama.  But I did notice that both the Dow Jones Index and Senator Ted Kennedy collapsed on Inauguration Day.

Wind Farms

Whatever view you take of the Great Carbon Myth, wind farms are simply unsustainable, in either economic or environmental terms.  There are many things we need to do to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, but building wind farms is not one of them.  We saw earlier this year, during the long cold snap, the way that wind farms produced scarcely any power at all, just at the time when we needed it most.  Wind farms are the worst kind of gesture politics.  They may salve the consciences of the chattering classes, but they blight lives and villages and local communities.  They further reduce property values.  They pose health risks to nearby residents.  We should not build them at all, and especially not within two miles of existing dwellings.

Travellers' camp sites

Friday Jan 16th saw me, along with David Tredinnick MP, in a packed protest meeting at the Plough Inn in Earl Shilton.  Local residents are up in arms about a proposed travellers' camp in the village.  We have the EU seeking to earn our gratitude with a succession of Declarations and Charters of Human Rights, but the good people of Earl Shilton feel that while we all have equal rights, some minority groups are more equal than others. ... was told that during a consultation on a similar proposal in Bedfordshire, 4000 objections were sent in, but 3,900 of them (including one from the Police) were rejected as "racist".  I don't know what the powers-that-be regard as "racist" in this context, but I guess it would include observing that around travellers' sites, crime tends to increase and property values tend to go down.  But these are facts, proven time and again, not racist comments.

Pennbury "Eco-Town"

On the evening of same day, Jan 16th, I spoke alongside Edward Garnier MP at another packed protest meeting, in Oadby, Leics, this time against the proposed Pennbury eco-town...One priceless insight: the plans assume one parking place for every two dwellings.  That's right, you get half a parking place.  They say that residents will use buses and bicycles, and will walk.  And presumably pigs will fly.  We need to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, and it may well be that in ten years we shall all be driving electric cars, or hydrogen cars.  But you can bet that half a parking space per dwelling will be less than half of what's needed.

The BBC and the Gaza appeal

 ...we might have greater respect for the BBC's independence and impartiality had they not spent the previous few weeks of the conflict acting as unashamed cheer-leaders for the Palestinians, and as the primary accusers of Israel. 

Could the EU invade Britain? Lessons from history

In recent months my historian colleague Rupert Matthews has been looking at the political and constitutional debates that took place in the USA in the build-up to the attempts by some states to secede from the Union – a move that sparked the American Civil War. He wondered how they look compared to the position of Britain and the EU today.... look at the current EU. Could the EU deploy military forces to try to stop Britain seceding? The answer lies in the Treaty of Lisbon (aka the EU Constitution).

First, the newly created High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will also head the European Defence Agency (EDA) and have a right of initiative for proposing EU-led military operations. Second, Article 28b allows EU armed forces to be used to deal with any “crisis”. An event will be defined as a crisis by the Council and Commission. Article 28a allows the EU armed forces to be used to protect the strategic interests of the EU; again these are to be defined by the Council and Commission. Finally Article 188r allows armed forces to be deployed to any part of the EU without the agreement of the government of the member state in whose territory they are deployed.

These provisions are scattered widely through the Treaty (probably deliberately), but taken together they create an EU armed force that can be deployed anywhere in the EU for any purpose decided upon by the EU Commission and Council.  Never mind getting Ireland to vote again – the tanks might be on the streets. Are we being unduly alarmist? Well maybe. So perhaps somebody could tell us why the EU wants these powers?

...Red Hot Lies, by Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute,Washington...  I should declare an interest: Chris Horner is a friend of mine who has worked with me on climate-related issues....To give you a flavour of the book, I can do no better than to quote from the blurb on the dust jacket: "The global warming lobby, relentless in its push for bigger government, more spending and more regulation, will use any means necessary to scare you out of your wits -- as well as your tax dollars and your liberties -- with threats of rising oceans, deadly droughts and unspeakable future consequences of 'climate change'.  In pursuing their anti-energy, anti-capitalist and pro-government agenda, the global warming alarmists -- and unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money -- resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate".