In this little article from Yorkshire we see a Tory MP complaining, rightly, about the EU intention to force all UK drivers to switch on their light’s during day-time!

The MP bemoans the fact that even though the government agrees with him, it is powerless to oppose the will of the EU directive!  A pity therefore that he belongs to a Party that refuses to consider, ever, leaving the EU!

Even so we are obliged to Greg Knight MP for explaining so succinctly just how redundant he and his 645 fellow MP’s really are!

‘We don’t need to see the lights’

Published Date: 07 August 2008
By Staff Copy

LEGISLATION that will force all drivers to switch their lights on during daylight hours has been attacked by MP Greg Knight. The local representative is furious that the European Union will issue a directive stating that all vehicles built from 2011 must have the daylight lamps fitted as standard. He fears that the move will increase fuel consumption and emissions by ab out five per cent. Mr Knight, who is chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Historic Vehicle Group, said: “In an age when we are all being told we must reduce our emissions this move, which increases them, just does not make sense. “There is no UK benefit and the whole episode is a sorry state of affairs. “The British government actually agrees with me and has opposed these proposals but such is the extent of the power we have now ceded to the EU, that our own government is powerless to stop these misguided moves. “It may be that daytime running lights are a sensible idea for a Scandinavian winter but we do not need them here in the UK and they will increase fuel consumption across every European country, for every new car, in every season. “This one size must fit all European attitude to law-making is pathetic and quite unnecessary. “Why should motorists in the UK, France and Spain have to use lights �“ even during the summer?” The MP has, however, welcomed ‘a partial victory’ for campaigners against the measure, meaning that existing cars will have to use their headlights all day.

Yesterday, there was an article published in Business Weekly that gives the impression that the EU really cares about the environment, and about the owners of small businesses.

The reality is that the EU cares about neither!

The first point to note is that the £3m supposedly given from the EU is in fact our money - Britain being the 2nd largest contributor to the EU’s budget.

Secondly, the whole Global Warming story is already debunked, and revealed as nothing more than pseudo science, used to enable the ’state’ to exert ever more control over our daily lives.  In other words, there would be better uses for these funds.

Interestingly the ‘Business Weekly‘ article also reveals a high level of co-operation/interaction between the academic world and the unelected Regional Development Agency - the body that has risen Phoenix like from the ashes of the Regional Assembly - many academics having been seduced by financial enticements from the vast educational propaganda budget of the EU: And of course, the Regional Development Agencies only exist to further regionalise England ( split up into easily controlled (by Brussels) regions).

Do read the article below, but do so with the knowledge that you are reading propaganda!

Written by News Desk
Tuesday, 05 August 2008

The East of England’s ERDF concentrates on low-carbon investments. Small firms in the East of England are to benefit from £3 million of European funding to help them go ‘low carbon.’

The first two projects to receive support from the East of England’s £88 million European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will help businesses cut their energy bills and CO2 emissions and match companies up with the right universities to develop low-carbon projects.

The region’s ERDF programme, which has a nationally unique focus on low-carbon economic growth, will also help to drive EU-wide energy reduction targets and the government’s recently published Renewable Energy Strategy.

£2.1 million is going to the Resource Efficiency East (REE) scheme, which will help small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) become both more resource efficient and at the same time more competitive. REE will help businesses to cut their energy bill and carbon emissions and other resources over the next three years giving firms a sharper competitiveness edge.

A further £628,000 will go towards setting up a project to improve the links between academic expertise and innovation in universities across the East of England and regional businesses looking to develop commercially important low carbon technologies and products.

The successful application for funding for the i-10 Low Carbon Transfer project was made by the University of Cambridge on behalf of a group of eleven East of England universities.

This project will include a brand new ‘taster scheme’ to encourage SMEs to engage with academic hubs in higher education institutions for ground-breaking work on low-carbon issues.

David Morrall, European Programmes Director at EEDA, which manages the region’s European Regional Development Fund, said: “The new £3 million of funding in the region, the first two grants made under the ERDF programme, will help small businesses go ‘low carbon’. The funding will take forward the plans in the government’s recent Renewable Energy Strategy.

“Both the REE and i-10 projects represent innovative ways of developing regional businesses through low-carbon initiatives. I look forward to seeing the fruits of these schemes and to EEDA supporting many similar projects across the region in the coming months.”

Source

A great many farmers are up in arms over legislation being prepared by the EU Commission that seeks to slash the number of pesticides used in agriculture, to reduce what it sees as potential threats to human health in particular and to the environment in general. Now Land & People is all for the expansion of organic growing and the reduction, as far as is reasonably practical, of the use of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides in British agriculture.

However, although we accept that the EU Commission may be acting with good intentions, the fact is that this initiative is likely to make the situation even worse, whilst disadvantaging the British producer into the bargain. We’ll now explain why.

Firstly, a reduction in the use of sprays is almost certainly going to result in reduced crop yields per acre �“ this being particularly true as far as potato, brassica and cereal production is concerned. This, in turn, will reduce farm incomes �“ which is no light matter bearing in mind the number of smaller farms, in particular, that are barely breaking even these days. Some farms, but certainly not all, will be able to increase their acreage under cultivation to make up for some of the loss �“ even though this will, in itself, incur further costs in terms of extra fertiliser and diesel.

Secondly, with less productive harvests, the law of supply and demand is likely to kick in with a vengeance. The deficit created through reduced yields will create a vacuum in the market that will be filled with cheap imported produce �“ something further undermining the viability of our producers!

Thirdly, and here’s the rub, imported produce �“ unlike our British produce �“ will, most likely, have been grown with little or no restrictions on the use of chemical sprays. In other words, the public’s exposure to sprayed produce is likely to increase, rather than decrease. Not exactly what is intended we would suggest!

Lastly, the EU Commission’s proposals will be enforced right across the community we are told. But we all know what that means �“ we only have to look at the “enforcement” of fisheries legislation. Whereas a succession of British governments have vigorously policed the rules, the governments of other countries �“ Spain and Italy spring immediately to mind �“ cannot be said to have displayed the same enthusiasm. Now whereas we can guarantee that Brown’s Labour regime in Westminster will enforce every petty fobbing rule to the letter �“ can the same be said of the Slovak, Polish or Rumanian governments in respect of their producers? Of course not and once again the British producer will not only be shafted by unfair Third World competition but also by our supposed “partners” with the EU.

As an aside, Land & People believes the EU Commission’s approach to this issue to be fundamentally flawed. We believe they are applying the wrong yardstick in addressing this issue. Their yardstick is that of “hazard” �“ not that of “risk” - as we would advocate. To explain what we mean consider this:-

A cigarette is hazardous in that it contains a whole raft of carcinogenic and other harmful chemical compounds. However the risk is in the usage. All things being equal, the one cigarette per day man is at considerably less risk than the forty per day man! The hazard for each man is the same - but the risks are entirely different.

It is therefore our opinion that the reduction of chemical spray use in agriculture, which we believe is entirely desirable, should be undertaken in the light of studies that evaluate risk rather than hazard, and implemented in a staged way that neither disadvantages the British producer, nor denies him the time to adapt �“ whilst protecting the consumer from the “chemical-warfare” agricultural produce of less discerning lands.

Yes, let’s rid agriculture of as many chemicals as we reasonably can �“ but let’s not destroy the British producer in the process!

As matters stand, should the EU Commission implement this legislation then we are likely to see the British market flooded with cheaper Third World and Eastern European produce, over which there has been little or no control as far as the application of sprays are concerned.

Does that make any sense at all?