What a refreshing change.....

I think we are all fed up of negative stories about immigrants - that they are all feckless layabouts here to scrounge welfare, and how it's the fault of UK being a member of the European Union. That things would be  different if weren't in the EU, you know a bit like Norway. 

I posted about the Norway question before: Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?

So it was refreshing to read in The Norway Post "[Norway's] Minister of Labour Anniken Huitfeldt [say she] is pleased with the increased number of immigrant workers who choose to come to Norway. She says the country is in need of even more workers, especially engineers and people from the health sector.

The Minister thinks our growing economy combined with good salaries and working conditions are part of the reason why more workers choose to come here. Huitfeldt also says that she is pleased with the shorter processing times now offered by the UDI, and the close contact they have with the labour market."

My thoughts on UKIP and it's 75% proof..

Who are UKIP exactly? - have you ever thought that, not sure, well neither does the popular media it seems. Of course in one sense it doesn't matter, the more support UKIP have the fewer the Conservatives have. And if the Conservatives don't win an overall majority in 2015 then it's unlikely there will be a IN/OUT referendum on the EU. Unless that is I suppose they form an unholy alliance with UKIP. But is that likely Messrs Farage and Cameron not being best of buddies, though Nigel Farage has said he'd deal with the devil if it got them what they wanted.....interesting that....look and listen: You Tube....

So maybe we should be taking a bit more attention of UKIP, and challenge them whenever we can, especially in social media. Because if you challenge them on the actual detail of their grandstanding the weakness of their argument is soon exposed. But not only that it's also fun, my favorite move at the moment is to quote them Churchill, especially his United States of Europe speech. I wait to see if they add him to a growing list of what the right wing see as traitors ranging from David Cameron to the Her Majesty the Queen.

Now as we know UKIP want out of the EU but why? - I wonder what their website says...

ah here it is the THE TRUTH ABOUT THE EU.....wow in capitals letters so it must be true.

Now let's see did you know that "The EU is a fraud on ALL Europeans". OMG a fraud on ALL Europeans that's half a billion people all victims of fraud. Of course "The European Union seemed a good idea in the 1970s" - but hold on I though the EU was founded on 1 November 1993, and in the 1970's it was the Common Market and that Prime Minister Heath took us into the European Economic Community (EEC), and a key argument behind the conspiracy theory is that in 1975 we voted in for the free market and not the EU, I'm confused now.

Let me think - we didn't vote for the EU but we where thinking the EU seemed a good idea in the 1970's, but we didn't vote for it. And "It’s not just Britain that wants out of the EU. Many other Europeans would vote to leave, if given the chance."

Yes there is a long list isn't there, Greenland they left and Greece, well maybe shouldn't have become a member of the Eurozone in the first place, but even they aren't proposing to leave the European Union. And it seems to me there are more countries joining the EU than leaving or talking of leaving, other than the UK.

Hold on what's that UKIP Wales "New German opinion poll shows majority believe euro membership carries more disadvantages than advantages" - yes but we are not in the single currency are we, so that argument is a bit pointless...other than it got the letters eu in it, they being the devils letters seemingly - EUrope BAD - EU BAD - EUrozone BAD.

Let me introduce UKIP Rule Number 1 - Anything that does not agree with you be they polls, elections,statements of fact etc.. are FRAUD, even more impressive if it's FRAUD against ALL Europeans. Your not just fighting for a small right wing minority you've got ALL Europeans to defend. You know and join in - I'd like to teach the world to sing,  in perfect harmony, i'd like to hold it in my arms and keep it company - oh bless... a will no one think of the children moment there.

But how much does this all cost us - "The EU costs Britain £50 million a day."...that's...where's my calculator...that's..£18,250,000,000 or £18 billion....OMG that's a big number - but also a meaninglessness number, the net contribution of the UK to the EU in 2011 was around £7.4 billion or £21 million a day or 0.00304276% of  UK GDP.

UKIP Rule Number 2 - Numbers when quoted should be big, even if meaningless...also keep in mind Dr.Evil. principle.

Did you realise "The EU means lower wages....because "Open borders have brought cheap labour, lower wages and more unemployment to Britain.

True studies have shown that for low paid jobs - mostly part time seasonal jobs, fruit picking etc.. immigrants do lower wages a little, but they are for jobs that most UK workers wont do 'cause they get more on benefits   and also don't we have the minimum wage. But other than that they actually increase wages, so on balance we are better off. And of course they get paid such a low wage because they are exploited, as they have fewer rights. But we do like our Asparagus don't we, as long as we don't think how they where picked.

Next shock horror open borders means increased crime, ah the classic evil monkey in the cupboard for you there. As we all know crime rates in the UK are falling.

UKIP Rule Number 3 - Blame all problems on immigrants the EU and large multinational corporations.

And now for a classic - the We have no control over immigration

Did you know fact - "almost 500 million EU citizens are entitled to work, live and claim benefits in the UK" OMG when do they arrive, have you a spare room 'cause apparently someone said that all of the EU should move to the UK - Rule 2 in action there - a classic use of a big number.

But there's more - "Britain’s borders are now effectively North Africa, Russia and Turkey; not the White Cliffs of Dover."

Rule Number 4 - Try and link any message with a nostalgic link to the WAR - you know the one and only WAR, so our borders stop at the White Cliffs of Dover, so people of Gibraltar on your bikes.

Do remember "The 1975 referendum was a trick" though not a fraud apparently. And now the EU is making over 70% of our laws - this seems to be pick a number and repeat it often gambit, I've found a claim that in 2001 the Bow Group said that 55% of UK legislation was originated by the EU, and then apparently the German Government calculated in 2005 that about 70% of its laws originated from the European Union. Or in 2009 Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan mentioned 84%; UKIP leader Nigel Farrage said it was 75%, the figure most often mentioned by anti-EU types (such as French National Front leader Jean Marie Le Pen or the Libertas Party) is that 80% of our laws come from the EU, while in a speech elsewhere last week, Conservative leader David Cameron said that “Almost half of all the regulations affecting our businesses come from the EU”.

Confused, well don't be they are all wrong, the website Nosemonkey -   What percentage of laws come from the EU? explains why.

And the UKIP 70-75% claim - does not apply to the percentage of laws in individual member states that stem from the EU, but the percentage of laws that stem from the EU that the European Parliament has a say in. That’s an entirely different kettle of fish – and so the 75% figure can safely be dismissed as based on a (deliberate?) misunderstanding.

Now as we know  the EU is evil (it has the letters EU)  and British MPs have little say on many issues. Unelected Brussels Commissioners have much more power than our own MPs. And of the 27 EU Commissioners, at least eight are ex-Communists.

OMG OMG - unelected Commissioners have more powers than our MPs .....not going to mention MEP's then I see, not going to mention the job Nigel Farage does, 'cause they seem to be voting on something over there in the EU...not going to mention this year EU parliament session....the 3874 votes by democratically elected MEP's of which Nigel voted in 50.28% of them....no...ok...I take it the UKIP MEP's do something....don't they?

What's that....oh yeah at least eight are ex-Communists and you know what that means SOCIALISM, not only is the EU EVIL but its run by SOCIALISTS - run for the hills people Stalin is taking over, he tricked us all, he's not dead he's coming back. After all Russia need do is just cross our border that we have LOST CONTROL OF (it's next to Russia remember) and we will all be COMMUNISTS. And what of the WHITE CLIFFS OF DOVER then...people or should that be COMRADES ...did you know there are 142 million Russian and it's a gateway to Asia and there are 4 billion of them, they could take over the EU, for every one of us there are 64 of them, think what would happen if they came over here to work.....OMG..OMG......

More to follow.... including "which with other democratic, freedom loving organisations, [...], across Europe." UKIP is working with.

UPDATE: In a rather pathetic letter to the Daily Post on Thursday 31/1/13 John Bell - Con. NW Chair said and I quote  - "In addition, if the EU is to survive as a prosperous trading entity with the rest of  the world, it has to ditch its outdated, central-controlled, highly regulated, bureaucratic, undemocratic one might say, socialist model".  Yes SOCIALISTS.......OMG OMG run for the hills people....

And there was me thinking that the banking collapse of 2008 had something to do with failure in the capitalist model.

The Council of Europe

As we wait for that 'landmark speech', I think again that it's important to distinguish between the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe was set up following the Second World War and a desire in all nations for lasting peace.

The following is an extract from the Statute of the Council of Europe:

The Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Irish Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Convinced that the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation is vital for the preservation of human society and civilisation;

Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy;

Believing that, for the maintenance and further realisation of these ideals and in the interests of economic and social progress, there is a need of a closer unity between all like-minded countries of Europe;

Considering that, to respond to this need and to the expressed aspirations of their peoples in this regard, it is necessary forthwith to create an organisation which will bring European States into closer association,

Have in consequence decided to set up a Council of Europe consisting of a committee of representatives of governments and of a consultative assembly, and have for this purpose adopted the following Statute.....

See also Council of Europe

And as we know the European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe and not the EU. The Council of Europe was founded on 5 May 1949 by the Treaty of London, and in a speech at the University of Zurich on 19 September 1946, Sir Winston Churchill said:

I must now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the strength of the United Nations Organization. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European Family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe. And the first practical step would be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny. In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, The British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia - for: then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

Therefore I say to you: let Europe arise!

Local jobs for local people?

A report in the Daily Post on Saturday - Meeting over Anglesey Council contracts row said "A COUNCIL mired in a row after an English firm was awarded the grass cutting contract for its schools could now see its executive study every tender before they are given out...."

...The motion resolved that the executive should look at every aspect of the tendering process in the future and consider “legitimate” means to help local firms tender."

Now I'm sure most of us would want our local council to help local businesses be competitive, grow and be successful. And the Council can help in many forms - assistance in applying for grants, business advice,starter units for new businesses etc...

But what they can't do is give an advantage or be perceived to give an advantage to local businesses in the tender process for public contracts. The Council spokesperson is right, the Council has to comply with European treaties and conventions.

In particular Article 101 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):

1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:

...(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

The Public Contracts Regulations 2006 incorporates this European legislation into British law.

Of course if there was legitimate means of giving an advantage to local businesses, don't you think some other Council would not have done so already?

But there is not.....and imagine the reaction if say an English Council awarded a contract to a local company even though a Welsh company tender price was lower.

And I agree with Cllr Peter Rogers who said to the Daily Post - "We need to make Anglesey companies competitive so they can bid for these contracts and also go to other areas and bid for work.

“We can't do this by stopping competition. We can't have councillors meddling in every contract.”

Returning to the report in the Daily Post and the "row after an English firm was awarded the grass cutting contract", let me finish with something I hope is quite obvious which is Article 18 of TFEU:

Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

UK to subsidize nuclear power via EU?

In August 2010, Chris Huhne the then Energy Secretary told BBC News

"My position and my party's position was always one of scepticism about the economics of nuclear power, but what we did in the coalition agreement is recognise the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

"We responded with an agreement which will say very clearly there will be no public subsidy for nuclear because it is an old technology... But at the same time, if investors come forward with proposals it is absolutely clear they will go through. "We believe that will happen. We believe there are investors who will be investing in new nuclear,"

But since then, there has been the nuclear disaster at Japan, the decision of Germany to close all of their nuclear plants by 2022, a world wide slow down and jittery investors as shown by E.ON UK and RWE npower decision to abandon their plans to build nuclear plants at Wylfa and Olbury.

All of this begs the question - will nuclear power ever be viable without subsidy from the public purse?

A post in the blog Zerohedge "Suddenly A Nasty Fight over Subsidies for Nukes in Europe" brought to my attention allegations that the UK was trying to get a subsidy for nuclear power from the EU.

The French newspaper lexpress.fr also ran this story.

According to the German press, four countries among which France and Britain have demanded that nuclear power is subsidized by the European Union, as well as renewable energy. The France denies such an initiative....

...An article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on Friday, France, Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic have sent letters to Brussels in order to subsidize the EU nuclear energy such as wind or Solar, in preparation for a meeting of energy ministers next week.

Meanwhile on Friday Reuters had the headline "EU states say renewable goal not fair on other fuels"

"Renewable energy does not have more right to an EU target than other fuels, according to pro-nuclear states and coal-intensive Poland, as debate heats up over updating a 2020 goal to have a 20 percent share of green fuel in the energy mix.

The comments from Britain and France, as well as Poland, have been made as part of consultations on the Energy 2050 Roadmap....

The British government in a position paper said "any targets set should be neutral with respect to different low carbon technologies."

All of which is based on leaked documents, but what seems clear is that there are moves afoot lead by the UK, France and Poland to include nuclear power and other 'neutral technology' as green fuel in the energy mix.

Whether this would lead to the EU funding nuclear power in the UK is unlikely, as Germany which pays 20% of the EU bill is most likely to veto such move.

All of which means that if the Conservatives cannot get the Liberal Democrats to change the coalition agreement to allow subsidy of the nuclear sector, then it seems there is little chance of investors coming forward.

'Pasty Tax' - Vat on freshly prepared food when sold hot or warmish..

In last week budget the Chancellor, George Osborne announced a consultation on a change to VAT rules on freshly prepared food, dubbed the 'pasty tax'. But what exactly is being proposed?

Sadly, this was rather lost by the media with an obsession as to whether David Cameron or George Osborne had eaten any pasties, furthermore it was reported by some newspapers that hot takeaway food would now be subject to VAT.

However, as the law currently stands, standard rate of VAT already applies to food ‘specifically sold for consumption whilst still hot’ (see HMRC Notice 709/1 Catering and take-away food.)

But what if you sell the product cold and provide a microwave for the customer to heat the food themselves? The tax-man has already covered that possibility:

"If you sell food to be taken away for consumption elsewhere, but you make a microwave oven available for your customers to heat up the food, either before or after the till point, you are making a supply of hot food which must be standard-rated. This is the case whether or not you make a charge for the use of the oven."

No, what the Chancellor will be consulting on is a change to the following provision in relation to freshly prepared products:

"If you sell freshly cooked products for consumption while they are still hot they are standard-rated..... Some of these products are, however, not sold with such an intention They may only be hot/warm as they are in the process of cooling down. Examples include pies, pasties, sausage rolls and similar savoury products, cooked chickens or joints of meat, bread products and croissants. The liability will depend, therefore, on how you prepare and sell them."

And if they are sold "warm simply because they happen to be freshly baked, are in the process of cooling down and are not intended to be eaten while hot; or cold or chilled at the time of purchase" then the VAT can be zero rated.

From October it is being proposed that even freshly cooked products if sold hot (warmer than the ambient temperature outside) will have a standard rate of VAT.

Whilst you think about what is actually different between the supply of foods that are cold, be they consumed immediately or not being zero rated, and similar 'warm food' (even if cooling down) which may in the future have a standard rate of VAT, let me talk about the European Union.

The European Union has over the years been legislating with the aim of harmonising VAT across member states. There are currently two VAT rates member states can apply a standard rate (minimum 15%) and a reduced rate (minimum 5%). The UK has a derogation allowing a zero rate of VAT on certain goods.

What is allowed at the reduced rate is specified in Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 as subsequently amended. You will recall I've talked about this directive before in my post about Wales Air Ambulance and VAT.

Which brings us on to Mr Manfred Bog of Germany.

"Mr Bog sold drinks and food prepared for consumption (in particular, sausages and chips) from three identical mobile snack bars at weekly markets. The mobile snack bars were equipped with a sales counter with a glass splashguard, below and around which ran a ‘board’ made from a material sold under the name ‘resopal’ which could be used for the consumption of food on the spot. To the sides of the vehicle, above the drawbar, there was a folding ‘tongue’, which was in the form of a table at the same height and from the same material as the ‘board’ running round the vehicle. The area where customers could consume the food was protected from the rain by a folding roof."

In his tax declaration for 1994 Mr Bog declared the turnover from the sale of drinks as subject to the standard rate of VAT, while the turnover from the sale of food was declared as subject to the reduced rate. The German tax-man disagreed and said that the sale of hot food for immediate consumption should be subject to the standard rate of VAT.

Cutting the story short, in the end the Bundesfinanzhof (German High Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is the sale of food or meals prepared for immediate consumption a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 of [the Sixth Directive]?
2. Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether additional service elements are supplied (provision of facilities for consumption)?
3. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is the term ‘foodstuffs’ in category 1 of Annex H to [the Sixth Directive] to be interpreted as covering only foodstuffs to ‘take away’ as typically sold in grocers’ shops, or does it also cover food or meals which have been prepared for immediate consumption by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means?’

You can read preliminary rulings on the European Court of Justice website.

The European Court of Justice(Third Chamber) preliminary ruling was:

1. Articles 5 and 6 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that:

– the supply of food or meals freshly prepared for immediate consumption from snack stalls or mobile snack bars or in cinema foyers is a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 if a qualitative examination of the entire transaction shows that the elements of supply of services preceding and accompanying the supply of the food are not predominant;

– except in cases in which a party catering service does no more than deliver standard meals without any additional elements of supply of services, or in which other special circumstances show that the supply of the food represents the predominant element of a transaction, the activities of a party catering service are supplies of services within the meaning of Article 6.


2. In cases of the supply of goods, the term ‘foodstuffs’ in category 1 of Annex H to the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 92/111, must be interpreted as also covering food and meals which have been prepared for immediate consumption by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means.

Not unsurprisingly the UK Government says this case and others, does not apply to the UK, and it may only be resolved following a lengthy court case.

The VAT Blog in their post HMRC don't believe the WURST will happen here in the UK gives a good summary of HMRC position as detailed in Revenue & Customs Brief 19/11

Wales Air Ambulance and VAT on Fuel

Most of us would agree that Wales Air Ambulance provides an essential medical service. That is why we  are happy to give donations to the charity that runs this life saver.

Ken Sharpe has been campaigning for some time to exempt fuel the Air Ambulance Service uses from VAT, in a similar way that it is for Lifeboats.

However, the UK Government has said that whilst there is provision for an exemption from VAT for fuel  used in Lifeboats in the European Union VAT directive, there is no other similar exemption that could be applied to other charities.

Ken Sharpe has suggested that if we cannot exempt VAT on fuel for the Air Ambulance Service, the UK Government should instead provide a grant of an equivalent value to the VAT paid on fuel used.

Currently he has an e-petition, which I urge you to sign:

The Air Ambulance Service is forced to meet rising fuel prices year on year including VAT.

The Air Ambulance Service have saved successive governments millions and millions of pounds funded by charitable donations given by the general public to run what has proven to be an essential service.

Whilst the Lifeboat Service has been exempt from VAT on fuel costs since 1977, a similar privilege has not been afforded to the Air Ambulance Service;

We call on the government to have an urgent review of this situation and in doing so We call on the government to return in the form of grants to Air Ambulance Service providers all the future VAT which the Treasury collects from them so that the Air Ambulance Service is in practice exempt from paying VAT in the same way as the Lifeboat Service.

It seems strange to me that should you say have an accident in France, which required that you were flown home by Air Ambulance, that flight would be exempt from VAT. Or should you fall ill at home, the ambulance if it were a vehicle then the fuel used would also be VAT exempt. And if the Air Ambulance flying to your rescue was funded and operated by the National Health Service then the fuel would also be exempt from VAT. But an Air Ambulance if operated by a charity is not?

You can find a summary of the Common system of value added tax (VAT) (‘the VAT Directive’) on the following EU website.

It explains that "For socio-economic reasons, the following are exempted:

certain activities of general interest (such as hospital and medical care, goods and services linked to welfare and social security work, school and university education and certain cultural services);.....

To download the latest consolidated version:  VAT directive in PDF format.

Here under Title IX Exemptions Chapter 7 Article 148 you will find the exemptions for lifeboats:

(a) the supply of goods for the fuelling and provisioning of vessels used for navigation on the high seas and carrying passengers for reward or used for the purpose of commercial, industrial or fishing activities, or for rescue or assistance at sea, or for inshore fishing, with the exception, in the case of vessels used for inshore fishing, of ships' provisions;

Lifeboats are also exempt from VAT for certain equipment by virtue of The Value Added Tax (Equipment in Lifeboats) Order 2002.

Under Title IX Exemptions Chapter 2 Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest there is Article 132 and

1. Member States shall exempt the following transactions:

(c) the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions as defined by the Member State concerned;

In the first place I think we can all agree that an Air Ambulance Service is in the public interest and/or a certain activity of general or public interest. It's then down to how you define provision I suppose.

I humbly suggest that for the provision of medical care you need supplies and equipment i.e. an ambulance to take the paramedic or doctor to the patient be that a vehicle or an aircraft specifically modified for the purpose, and fuel for the vehicle or aircraft is rather important you would think.

To me as an ordinary member of the public it seems air ambulances used for the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions are exempt from VAT transactions. And whom provides or pays for the service and the provision of medical care is down to Member states to define.

Most probably an over simplistic interpretation of complex VAT rules of which I have little knowledge, still a neat idea I hope you agree.

Is a Fedral Europe now the only answer?

This week we shall be remembering those who gave the ultimate sacrifice so that we can be free, be they in the first world war or second or conflicts since.

With the European Union seemingly close to collapse, I think the following speech given by a famous person from the past is one we should all be reminded of.

"I must congratulate the Assembly upon the high level maintained during this debate. Not only have the speeches been full of thoughts which have their own particular value because they have been contributed from so many angles, but also there have been successful attempts at oratory which have triumphed over the acoustic conditions which, I must tell you, are none too good and which will, I trust, be subject to development, like all the rest of our proceedings.

We are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world organization of the United Nations. I hope that we shall become one of several continental units which will form the pillars of the world instrument for maintaining security, and be the best guarantee of maintaining peace. I hope that in due course these continental units will be represented in the world organization collectively, rather than by individual States as in the present system, and that we shall be able to settle a great mass of our problems among ourselves in Europe before they are brought, or instead of them being brought, to the world council for decision.

We are not in any way the rival of the world organization. We are a subordinate but essential element in its ultimate structure. The progress of our first meeting has so far been encouraging. Our relations with the Committee of Ministers show a desire on both sides to reach a working harmony. That should not be difficult if we recognize clearly what our respective functions are.

We are a deliberative Assembly, and we must have full freedom of discussion on all questions except defence. We must assert our right to this freedom and we must have our own Parliamentary officers to assist us in our debates. I trust that the necessary Amendments to the Statute will be made by the Committee of Ministers on this point as the result of our first session here at Strasbourg.

But while I feel that we should insist upon full freedom of debate, and choice of subjects, we do not possess executive power, and at this stage in our development we could not possibly claim it. Our foundation by selection by the Governments of the day from the various parliaments is not such as to give us authority at this stage to take decisions. We claim, however, to make proposals. It is not for us to make decisions which would require executive authority. We may discuss European problems and try to bring about a sense of unity. We must feel our way forward and, by our good sense, build up an increasing strength and reputation.

But we must not attempt on our present electoral basis to change the powers which belong to the duly constituted national parliaments founded directly upon universal suffrage. Such a course would be premature. It would be detrimental to our long-term interests. We should, however, do our utmost to secure that these national parliaments examine and let us know their views upon any recommendation on European problems that we may make. That, I think, we may require of them. Each of us, in our respective parliaments, should take the opportunity to raise points according to the procedure which prevails.

I touch upon some of the points which are upon our agenda. I am not myself committed to a federal or any other particular solution at this stage. We must thoroughly explore all the various possibilities, and a committee, working coolly and without haste, should, in a few months, be able to show the practical steps which would be most helpful to us. I will not prejudge the work of the committee, but I hope they will remember Napoleon's saying: 'A constitution must be short and obscure.'

Until that committee reports. I think we should be well advised to reserve our judgment. I am in accord with what Mr. Morrison has said on this subject. I share his view that we would be wise to see what are the recommendations of our committee which. I hope, will sit permanently and not be broken up by our departure. To take a homely and familiar test, we may just as well see what the girl looks like before we marry her. It is to our advantage to have an opportunity of making a detailed examination of these problems.

Then there is the question of human rights, which is the second subject set down on our agenda. We attach great importance to this, Mr. President, and are glad that the obstacles to discussion by the Assembly have now been removed by the Committee of Ministers. A European Assembly forbidden to discuss human rights would indeed have been a ludicrous proposition to put to the world.

Again. I should like to see the report of the committee on this subject before we put forward our proposals to the Committee of Ministers. There is an urgency about this, because once the foundation of human rights is agreed on the lines of the decisions of the United Nations at Geneva but I trust in much shorter form we hope that a European Court might be set up, before which cases of violation of these rights in our own body of twelve nations might be brought to the judgment of the civilized world. Such a court, of course, would have no sanctions and would depend for the enforcement of its judgments on the individual decisions of the States now banded together in this Council of Europe. But these States would have subscribed beforehand to the process, and I have no doubt that the great body of public opinion in all these countries would press for action in accordance with the freely given decision.

I now come to the question of the empty seats, which was put before us by M. Andre Philip. Ten ancient capitals of Europe are behind the Iron Curtain. A large part of this continent is held in bondage. They have escaped from Nazism only to fall into the other extreme of Communism. It is like making a long and agonizing journey to leave the North Pole only to find out that, as a result, you have woken up in the South Pole. All around are only ice and snow and bitter piercing winds.

We should certainly make some provision for association with representatives of these countries, who are deprived of ordinary democratic freedom but who will surely regain it in the long march of time. This is a matter which should be carefully considered by the Assembly, and I agree with all those, and there are many, who have spoken in favour of setting aside some seats in the Assembly as a symbol of proof of our intention that the Assembly shall some day represent all Europe, or all Europe west of the Curzon Line.

I now come, sir, to the greatest and most important of all the questions that are before us. A united Europe cannot live without the help and strength of Germany. This has always been foreseen by the European Movement to whose exertions our presence here is due. At The Hague, fourteen months ago, where we resolved to press for the formation of this Assembly, a German delegation was present and was welcomed by all, especially by the representatives of France. One of the most practical reasons for pressing forward with the creation of a European Assembly was that it provided an effective means, and possibly the only effective means, of associating a democratic and free Germany with the Western democracies.

It is too early to judge the results of the German election; but so far as we can yet appreciate the results, many of us, apart from party considerations, may have felt encouraged by the evident size and validity of the poll and by the general results. We cannot part at the end of this month on the basis that we do nothing more to bring Germany into our circle until a year has passed. That year is too precious to lose. If lost, it might be lost for ever. It might not be a year, but it might be the year.

On the other hand, I am assured and here I must break the rule which Mr. Harold Macinillan laid down this morning, that the word 'impossible' must never be used again that it is physically impossible for any German Government that may emerge in the next few weeks to be represented here before we separate.

I need scarcely say that I should be very glad if a way could be found. If, however, this cannot be found, then we must draw the attention of the Committee of Ministers to Article 34 of the Statute, which says: 'The Committee of Ministers may convoke an Extraordinary Session of the Consultative Assembly at such time and place as the Committee, with the concurrence of the President of the Assembly, shall decide.' I think we must ask that an assurance shall be given to us before we separate that the Committee of Ministers will convoke an Extraordinary Session of the Consultative Assembly at the earliest suitable date.

If we could be told that we should meet again for an Extraordinary Session under this Article 34 in December or in January. I personally should be content to leave the matter in the hands of the Committee of Ministers, and even to forgo our claim for a debate upon this subject at this juncture. I would ask that we should receive an assurance that an Extraordinary Session will be convened and I appeal to you. Mr. Vice-President, personally to place yourself in communication with M. Spaak and urge him to confer with the Committee of Ministers upon this subject, so that we may have an answer and know what course we should take in the limited number of days and weeks which are at our disposal.

When we meet in the Extraordinary Session, if one is granted in December or January next, it is my hope that we shall find ourselves already joined by a German delegation similar to that of other Member States; but if this cannot be done, then will be the time for us to debate the issue in full freedom.

Mr. Vice-President. I earnestly hope that an agreement on this matter may be reached along these lines, and that we may be informed of it as soon as possible. It would enable us to avoid various serious difficulties at the present moment and would, I think, give the best chance for the future development of the European Assembly, and the best chance of making sure that the peace of Europe will be given every opportunity to consolidate itself. Such an event as the arrival in our midst of a German delegation as a result of our work here this month would certainly crown our first Session with a solid and memorable achievement, and would have a highly beneficial result in the cause of world peace and European security.

I have only ventured to deal with these particularly important practical points, and I have not attempted to speak of the sentimental and moral aspects of our work. I hope that we shall not put our trust in formulae or in machinery. There are plenty of formulae-"slogans" I think Mr. Morrison called them and, in spite of all the misfortunes which have occurred, there is still plenty of machinery in the political field.

It is by the spirit that we shall establish our force, and it is by the growth and gathering of the united sentiment of Europeanism, vocal here and listened to all over the world, that we shall succeed in taking, not executive decisions, but in taking a leading and active part in the revival of the greatest of continents which has fallen into the worst of misery.

As some of you will know that famous person was Winston Churchill, and a speech he made to the Council Of Europe at Strasbourg, August 17, 1949. Source: The Churchill Centre

At the time Winston Churchill was not sure about a federal Europe - he says "I am not myself committed to a federal or any other particular solution at this stage. " Which does not rule out support for a federal Europe in the future had he been convinced of its merits.

I think that that time has arrived and why we need now to begin a true debate about the future of Europe and whether it would be in all of your interests for closer integration and the formation of a federal Europe.

Lastly when reading the speech again, do take note of his strong support for human rights and the establishment of an European Court.

Time for Welsh Farmers to get real - CAP has to change.

The guest columnist in today's Daily Post, Emyr Jones, President of the Farmers Union of Wales make a case against the proposed changes to the common agricultural policy. He somehow tries to link the proposed changes to "heartbreaking images of starving population in far off regions of Africa and Asia"

Let us be clear, the answer to world hunger is not the number of sheep we have in Wales, nor the price of milk. No it will be down to how we can develop new strains of the basic food stuffs, such as grain or rice, that can be grown in the harsh conditions of Africa or Asia, so that the peoples of those continents are self sufficient.

In a way CAP subsidises, a by-product of the Second World War, has made the situation worse, in that third world countries can never hope to compete against subsidised food from Europe.

Yes to feed the growing population of the world we need produce more basic foods, but it should not be at the cost of the environment, or otherwise we might as well cut down the whole South America rain forest to produce cheap beef for our hamburgers.

The real answer GM food, local production with an emphasis on production of essential foods such as grain and rice. And that means using our resources carefully, which makes sense that certain parts of Wales are taken out of food production, and payment be made for preserving it's beauty and contribution to the wildlife of the area.

After all extensive farming with all it entails isn't really helping the environment, and it's a cyclic argument, we need to produce more food, cause the way we produce food is damaging the environment.

And the likely food shortage has nothing to do with farmers planting crops that will maximise bio-fuel profits has it.

Sorry farmers of Wales, cant make any money from farming - my suggestion get another job.