Who cares about democracy?

The BBC have highlighted just how few Brits enter the EU commission, less than 5% of the workforce, and it's set to decline as most joined long ago

To be honest their recruitment campaign is news to me, and the article says they don't even advertise here - so clearly it's the EU's fault for not being inclusive towards the second-biggest member, not the British graduate

And can you guess why we're so under-represented? Yes, that's right - you need to speak a foreign language (principally French and German)

The article says this could be dropped for our sakes, yet there is no hint that this is a totally unfair practice to start with - I've blogged a few times before about the pointlessness of learning either of these languages, while of course, huge swathes of Europeans learn the international language of business as a matter of course - we do not need to learn minority languages, unless we want to work in France, the Ivory Coast or Germany, or apparently the EU

This gives us a massive disadvantage simply because they are learning from an early age a highly useful way of communicating with the world, and we have little reason to learn their individual languages, which we are not exposed to nearly as much as they are English - this unfairly keeps out any native English speaker

And to top it off

"Brits working in the EU are not working for the British government, they are working for the European Union," he says.
"But what they bring is an understanding of British culture and of the importance in the UK of enterprise and of the British common law system. It's a reality that when you're working with a commission official, if you have a common background, then the relationship is different."
This subtle impact is acknowledged by the few Brits who have actually made it through the exams.
"The people who win in Brussels get 90% of what they want at the Commission (the executive arm of the EU)," a senior British EU official told the BBC, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
"You don't then need to send ministers in to defend red lines. It is simply a more elegant way of doing business, having people drafting the legislation who think in a British way influences law around Europe."
And there is also a frustration at the perception of the EU back home.
"This is an exciting place to come," the official says. "You work with a bright bunch of people and you make policy that affects peoples' lives."

Legislation...without elected ministers

We already knew the Commission is effectively an unelected government, but this is just brazen - no need for ministers, get whatever you want once you're in...

I'm the first to criticise democratic governments, but to paraphrase Churchill there isn't really an alternative - government by psychometric testing (Theocracy? Oligarchy?) is not right, making up laws without those pesky voters and journalists questioning you is easier, but not right

Cameron's shameless, amid other things

Am I going to say David Cameron 'reneged' or 'betrayed' eurosceptics?

Nope - as Hague says:

'now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means that a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the President of the European Council...'

The referendum was about the treaty, it was always said in the 'cast-iron' guarantee that if the treaty had been ratified then they couldn't do anything, there is no 'U-turn' or reneging here, I believe it is in fact, worse than that

Maybe they have honestly been scuppered by the final ratification, or, as I theorise, this was the plan all along, promising a referendum in the Sun, of all places, to get the backing of the eurosceptic majority in this country two years ago - while knowing full well they would never have to go through with such a dangerous idea

Now time will tell how this pans out - he will suffer an initial backlash for seemingly 'betraying' people, but what he will be betting on is having made enough anti-EU noise to keep the support of the voters, while not actually having to do anything but make a few vague sentiments about 'repatriating powers' - clever, huh?

Cameron just wants power, anyone who actually bought that he had any intention of giving us a referendum on the treaty was being played for a fool

---

Maybe people WANT a new TV

Apparently the digital switchover in the North-West, which will affect 7.2 million people, may cause 'chaos' as TVs are needlessly thrown away

I remember talking about this back in 2007, when a YouGov survey revealed that 57% of people believed that the government had provided 'insuffiecient or no information' about the switchover, and 83% did not know when the switch would be in their region (survey at YouGov archives, Society - 2007)

Neither do I in fact...but does it really matter, because in 2007 '80% of adults [had] digital television in their home'

So while a majority don't have a clue about how and when (like me), they are already completely covered and already watch digital - surely all that matters is that they have digital

The fear is that people will throw away a perfectly good tv when they could just buy a set-top box

In the past year in Cumbria, 50,000 TVs wee recycled - 'This represents an increase of nearly 70 per cent compared to same period last year.' (so that's an extra 20,500 TVs), in the south west they had an increase of just under 40,000 TVs - so we can say 60,000 extra TVs were recycled

Of the ones in Cumbria, 30,000 could have been converted - so that's at least ten thousand TVs that would have been recycled anyway, curiously the Mail do not report how many could have been saved in the South-West

So we have 20,000 'wasted' TVs reported - is that a bad amount? Does that indicate that people are confused, after adverts every five minutes saying 'all you need is a set-top box' for what, five years?

I happened to throw away a convertible (?) TV last year, it even had a digi-box on it, the reason I got rid of it? - because it was crap and we got a new LCD, it was damaged and of no use to anyone, but this would've been counted as a TV that could have received digital and was 'needlessly thrown away' - plug it in and you would throw it away too

And when the switchover happens, would you not expect a few people to think, 'time to update the TV' - maybe they don't actually want a box on their old TV and decided to get a new one - I can't honestly believe little old ladies haven't had it drilled into their skulls that they don't need a new TV, I've never met anyone who thought they need a new one - but I know plenty who bought a new one - a little upswing in dumping TVs is surely expected

It could also be explained by the chucking of bedroom tvs - I have a little old sony, I have no intention of upgrading it - would you seriously go out and get 3 or 4 boxes for every tv in the house? No, I'd just buy a new one, it's 200 quid either way - I'm not surprised if a few of those get chucked out (mine isn't btw, it can be put to other use)

I can't find good figures for the populations of the TV regions, but you can assume there are at least 1 million households in the South-West and Cumbria combined, so that's 60,000 extra TVs thrown away - 6% of households threw away more TVs than the previous year, at a ridiculously conservative guess, and assuming they were all compatible (and how many TVs are there in the regions, let alone houses)

Is that such a catastrophe?
 
---

The Mail really do need to stop trying so hard

More BBC controversy - they attacked the Queen!! (again!!1!1!!)

Miranda Hart, on HIGNFY, described the Queen and the DoE as 'that Greek twit and his Kraut wife'

ooh, nasty racist jibe there - which in fairness it is, stinks of hypocrisy after they pulled that silly Hobnob joke doesn't it?

Only, the Mail left something out until a bit further down the story (after the outrage comments...)

At a Buckingham Palace event in honour of Indian president Pratibha Patil, Philip said to businessman Atul Patel: 'There's a lot of your family here tonight.'
Miss Hart joked: 'There is no place for racism in the modern world and the sooner that Greek twit and his Kraut wife realise it, the better.'

Now, does that not make a teeny bit more sense? It's satire - I am not foolish enough to believe the writers at the Mail actually think it's offensive in any way, but if anyone actually found that offensive they need a humour-rectomy

It's not actually racist, so it doesn't become an inconsistent piece of handling or 'double standards', as the Mail conclude, once again they wilfully mislead their readers in their attacks on the Beeb

There are of course some that feel that the Queen is out-of-bounds for humour - fortunately most people are not annoying royalists

...only Rebecca Adlington is granted such status

Sweet Jesus

How on Earth do you work over 100 hours a week

I used to work 7 day weeks, 9 hour shifts - that's *only* 63 hours, and believe me that's taxing - if only from the point of view that you're never at home

Doctors may have a far more rewarding job but 100 hours is basically work, then sleep - 6 hours a night is 42 hours a week asleep, leaves barely 20 hours outside work

To be honest, despite getting double the amount of free time they do (in 'some' cases admittedly) I barely remember free time - the occasional hour in the morning involves feeding yourself, as does much of the evening - that's no life

It's an important job no doubt, but 100 hours hardly seems a healthy lifestyle - I would've guessed junior doctors worked between 60 and 80 hours, I can't even contemplate over a hundred

Hang on...didn't he quit?

Apparently Tony Blair will be our 'official' candidate for the formal position of 'EU president'

The point that nobody got a chance to vote on this issue, and even when the Irish did they were told to go back and do it again, is by-the-by here

But why does a man who willingly quit his elected position for no actual reason feel he should be the unelected president of the EU? 'I can't run a state...but I can run a super-state'

And why should I trust a man who was elected on a lie (I will serve a full third term...) - slippery bastard

And to top it all off sodding 'Mrs. unelectable Kinnock' is the one who announces it...I know politics has always been about jobs for the boys, but even the vague facade of democracy is just being sidelined by this lot

In related news, this is a clearly pro-government headline from the no.2 spot:

The government is expected to announce a scaled-down version of its grand plan to create up to 10 "eco towns".

Not at all condescending...

Predictable

So Labour are third, less than 16% - soundly beaten by UKIP and nearly half the size of the Tories, barely above the Lib Dems

That's called a message, Gordon - and it's worded something like this: 'Sod off'

Unfortunately Jury Team failed to achieve much, just under 80,000 votes nationally and 12th place - that's not actually bad for a start up party, I think people got ahead of themselves with this 'PR' idea - but it was ahead of Libertas

Truth be told, while I support the idea, they have to be a bigger party to provide more voices, you may notice 'other' parties got about 9% of the total vote, up 3% - that's not including the BNP, Greens etc so it's pretty huge - unfortunately it's like voting for independents - completely incoherent and basically wasted votes, if more people could get behind the 'party of independents' idea they'd be a lot stronger - it also doesn't help that in reality the regional PR system we have is pretty useless, and the fact we only get 72 members for the whole UK is unhelpful

It's a little disheartening, but breaking the party system is very tough and nobody but UKIP have ever managed it - and they did it by taking one emotive issue and having a well-known celebrity face launch them

The BNP did send two members, big whoop - they didn't get any more votes, but the low turnout in Labour strongholds increased their percentage, giving them a spot - it's unfortunate, but I'm not concerned

oh well...

Shock Horror

So the Dutch released their results a bit early, naughty them

Turns out the far-right 'Freedom Party' (of Geert Wilders fame) got a 'whopping' 17 per cent of the vote

A small loss for the ruling Christian Democratic party and a three point dip in turnout - this really isn't that exciting, or evidence of Europe going fascist, as the Indie and others would have you believe

Firstly, the Freedom Party are not the BNP, they're more like the Dutch equivalent of UKIP, if a little more extreme - they however don't espouse all-white membership and 'voluntary repatriation' - they're a protest vote, much like UKIP are

But I really wanted to pick up on this

Here is the great European paradox. European voters complain that the EU is too distant and too abstract; the more power their elected representatives in Brussels and Strasbourg are given, the more the voters shun the European elections. In 1979, turnout was nearly 62 per cent. In 2004, it was 45 per cent. Yet the European Parliament has acquired considerable new powers to amend European legislation.

You wonder why? Yes the EU has gained more and more power over the years, likewise so has the parliament - but it's still pretty feeble, it's not sovereign in any sense of the word, and people don't want it to be

It is the fundamental flaw with the EU parliament - people across Europe do not regard it as 'their' parliament - they see themselves as only being represented in the minority from their own country

In short, no one sees the EU as their nation - which is really the principle behind a parliament

Take Britain - it doesn't matter if a government isn't supported in one area, let's say nobody on the south coast votes for Labour - that doesn't mean they refuse to accept the current government, I doubt they'd like it, but it's still their government and they accept its decisions - the EU is not seen in this fashion, it's seen as 'foreign' - and that's by pretty much all the people in all the countries

Until people regard 'Europe' as one nation then such a situation will not be possible - I don't support or oppose this, that's just how I see the situation