So, post Lisbon Treaty ratification, what power DOES the EU have?

The EU is meant to: define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the ‘progressive framing’ of a common defence policy.


Brussels has ‘exclusive competence’ on five issues where only the EU may legislate:

·         The Customs Union

·         Competition rules

·         Monetary policy in the eurozone

·         Conservation of marine biological resources

·         Commercial policy.

 

Then there are ‘shared competences’, where member states can act, but only if the EU has chosen not to. These include:

·         The internal market

·         Social policy

·         Economic, social and territorial cohesion

·         Agriculture and fisheries

·         The environment

·         Consumer protection

·         Transport

·         Energy

·         Health and safety

·         The ‘area of freedom, security and justice’.

 

There are ‘shared competences’ where EU action does not preclude member state action:

·         International aid

·         Research and development

·         ‘Space’

 

There are also areas where the EU has competence to carry out ‘supporting, co-ordinating or complementary action’:

·         The protection and improvement of human health

·         Industry

·         Culture

·         Tourism

·         Education

·         Sport

·         Vocational training

·         Civil protection

 

The EU is also meant to make ‘arrangements’ for the co-ordination of member states’ economic and employment policies, and to carry out ‘initiatives’ to ensure the co-ordination of social policies.

If it seems that the EU may take action more or less wherever and whenever it pleases it could well be right.

Fingers on the buzzers – list in what areas member states do have exclusive control.

 

 

Stunned, shocked, incredulous, speechless

It is almost impossible, no, it is impossible to imagine how someone within the Department for Children, Schools and Families could spend £35,000 on a photocopier that should have cost £1,000.

Waste on that level, the staggering abuse of tax payers money, should be considered a criminal offence. There is just no explanation or excuse that could ever justify such incompetence. Isolated incident, no, they managed to spend £50,000 installing three loos in a primary school – value of job £5,000.

How many sets of body armour could the wasted money have bought? Whose job will be lost as a result of this waste?

You couldn’t make it up. Despair, utter, utter despair.

Why didn't he do what said?

On 17 March 1998 Gordon Brown the new Chancellor set out his stall in his first proper Budget. It is worth reviewing some of his then statements and the consequent reality.

"The Chancellor is above all the guardian of the people's money." - if only.

Scolding the Conservatives opposite, he said: "Last year, spending exceeded revenues by £23 billion, and when we came to power we inherited not only a cyclical deficit but also a structural deficit in excess of two per cent of national income." It sounds pretty grim doesn't it?

This year, government borrowing will be about £200 billion and our structural deficit (the overspend that has nothing to do with recession) has reached 10 per cent of GDP.

We are in this mess because at the peak of the economic cycle, 2005-2007, Mr Brown ran a sizeable deficit (borrowed) so that he could spray money around willy nilly.

In his last three years at the Treasury, Mr Brown borrowed more than £100 billion, most of which went to unreformed public services, funding an explosion of administration costs and salaries. The public sector's pay bill rose by 30 per cent in the five years to 2008/9 and at roughly £158 billion accounts for almost a quarter of government expenditure.

"To balance the Budget for one or two years and then let it run out of control in the years that follow is simply to fail." - so that's a fail then.

It is a fact that no Labour Government has left office with the deficit or unemployment lower than when it came to power. This tradition is most certainly not a noble one and it seems ridiculous that Brown has taken it so much to heart. He has destroyed our economy.

Skating on thin ice

Today the Telegraph reported: Mr Brown also said last night that he believed that the actions of some British bankers that contributed to the financial crisis were criminal offences. Asked whether any would be prosecuted for “criminal misconduct”, he said: “If there are any cases – and I believe there are – that show this is the case, then there will be proper prosecutions."

I think Mr Brown should be careful what he advocates. His recklessness with other people's money makes the behaviour of Sir Fred Goodwin et al seem very lightweight. Criminal misconduct is a polite way to describe his wanton and stupid management of the UK economy.

That said I do believe that the invesment bankers who parceled good loans with sub-prime loans and sold them on as a good loan book were committing fraud. Successful prosecutions would be an excellent way pour encourage les autres.

Tony Woodley - never caught short

When Tony Woodley, the Joint General Secretary of the Unite Trade Union (what a long and important title) ripped up a copy of the Sun at the Labour Conference he said "In Liverpool we learnt a long time ago what to do."

As I watched, seeing he's from the Pool, I presumed he was tearing it up for loo paper. That's what they use there, right?

He carried on "I suggest the rest of the country do the same", what, put Andrex and the loathsome puppy out of business!

Train smash TV

I know that this clip is on many, many blogs but it is just too good not to get a link here as well. Things to note: the absolute thunder in Gordon Brown's face and Adam Boulton looking like a naughty schoolboy.

Absolute classic!

Catchy names for Brown's teenage mum policy

Gulags for slags
Slut huts
Broody hen pens
Camps for tramps
Jail for tail
Vandal incubators
And the policy was nicked from the BNP!