How strange. Britons visiting Poland are being threatened with deportation if they are taken ill and need hospital treatment while in the country.

The warning comes from the Polish Government despite arrangements which mean the NHS will treat Poles free of charge if they fall sick in Britain. It follows claims from the British Medical Association that patients could be turned away from UK doctors’ surgeries because they have been swamped by Eastern Europeans. The Polish Government claims its deportation threat is legal and necessary to protect its citizens from infections from abroad.

Given the massive influx of Poles into the UK – and the accompanying strain this has put upon some of our own public services, it seems curious that Poland refuses any such recripocity.

It’s reported that Tony Blair intends to rubber-stamp the European Constitution without consulting his likely successor Chancellor Gordon Brown — not to mention British voters.

Mr Blair has PERSONALLY pushed forward plans for a permanent EU President and Foreign Minister as one of his last acts before he stands down as premier. He will travel to Berlin on March 25 to sign the 50-page agreement, Declaration on the Future of Europe. Far from a simple “declaration”, this is a binding treaty which embodies “basic laws” for 490 million people in 27 countries. Its proposals were set out in the despised constitution, already crushingly rejected by voters across Europe. It will set up:

A PERMANENT, unelected, president of the European Union who will speak as a sole voice for the whole of Europe and serve a five-year term.

FULL-TIME foreign and defence ministers to represent Europe — which means powers like China and America will by-pass Britain and speak directly to them.

A REFORMED European parliament, empowered to draw up more of its own laws. Britain would lose the ability to veto its decisions — and each member state’s own government will lose the right to “opt out” of EU laws and treaties. That will mean that Mr Blair’s successor will be unable to renegotiate ANY of the European treaties.

British school pupils could soon be learning history from a European Union textbook under a new proposal from Berlin to be tabled next week.

The German education minister will present plans to EU education ministers next week. According to a German education ministry spokesman: "A common history book could contribute to common European identity and knowledge about what is important for European culture and history."

No doubt it would! The blueprint of this Official History of the EU is already in place:

The Franco-German Histoire Geschichte was launched last May, with a first edition covering history since the end of the Second World War. The text is taught as part of the higher curriculum in both French and German schools and has the expressed aim of overcoming old enmities.

Much of the first book of Franco-German history is devoted to the creation of the EU. "Through its willingness to co-operate with the Third World, its attachment to multilateralism, its dialogue with other regions, the EU appears as a model on the international scene," says the text.

What, no tractor production figures? British schoolchildren are the heirs of the finest historical and cultural legacy. They have no need for state propoganda masquerading as education from people whose own allegiances were to the 20th Century’s foulest regimes. The sheer impertinence of these commissars, in believing they can supplant truth and the nation state with a sovietised history is staggering.

Can we leave yet?

HOW exciting, the Prime Minister has emailed me! He says:

Re. the "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" e-petition which you signed. Know your place, pleb. We’re not listening, we don’t care what you think, pay more taxes. The next time we ask for your opinion, keep it to yourself.

Well, he didn’t quite say that, but the message is the same. You may like to see the email, over which He laboured for us:

Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain’s transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.

It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.

That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That’s why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.

But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It’s bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people’s quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.

Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.

Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains – helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we’re committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We’re also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows – for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.

But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.

One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real – congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.

A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.

Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you’ll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.

That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone’s interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

It has been calculated that a national scheme – as part of a wider package of measures – could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected – as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn’t hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.

I know many people’s biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won’t. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.

Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.

Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don’t have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. T
he public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.

We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.

Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair

In short, they can’t impose it just yet because the EU’s Galileo GPS system, which we are paying for in the same way that tyrants make their victims pay for the rounds used to kill them, still has some gremlins.

Admirers of the works of Gilbert and Sullivan will no doubt be familiar with those measured words uttered by the Pirates, as they cautiously approach the ruined windows of the Manor! I am reminded of this by the ever-stealthy approach taken by the European Commission, in their attempts to gain legal-type footholds within National Legal Boundaries.

So we will now hear, no doubt, from the Downing Street chorus, all grease-paint and frills, with words to the effect that there’ll always be an England, or Britain, or whatever the correct term is for Region Number fifteen, which is how we are known in Brussels; the place from which a good seventy percent of the law and legislation comes to be inflicted upon our once-great nation! Tony Blair, or his happy Scots shadow Brown will exclaim that all will be well, and nothing to worry about, and in nine month’s time, when the legislation comes shuttling down the expressway into Westminster, there’ll be a short statement saying words such as “Well, it’s because we’re ‘Communautaire’ you see, and it WAS decided by qualified majority voting you see; and we don’t need to worry, because it won’t happen again! No, it won’t happen again!

OH, YES IT WILL!!!

I see that the European Commission is proposing to force carmakers to make an 18% cut in CO2 emissions from new cars by 2012. Draconian is what the EU does best, you know.

An EU spokesman said the commission was aiming for a 25% cut in car emissions overall, with the "bulk of the effort" coming from better motor technology. The rest of the cut is expected to be achieved by measures such as greater use of biofuels and better tyres. Details of the plan, which has divided the commission, are being unveiled on Wednesday after a two-week delay. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas had wanted to force carmakers to achieve the full 25% emissions cut alone, but ran into strong opposition from the German car industry and Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen.

I listened to some talking heads debate this on the Radio this morning. General consensus was that it was OK to "pay a bit more to save the Planet"! Honestly, you couldn’t make it up.

As far as I am concerned, the cleaner cars can become the better, just as the more fuel efficient they become, the better. It would be great if we could get away from petrol as the primary source of FUEL. All laudable objectives – and car manufacturers should be incentivised to develop smart tech to bring these about. But let’s drop the nonsense about "saving the planet" and let’s drop the desire to IMPOSE penalties on those who manufacture cars. Has the EU never heard the expression that you will get more with honey than with vinegar?? 

Nice to see the UK and Ireland trail-blazing new standards in our wonderful European Union.

The UK is now the most burgled country in Europe, a disturbing crime survey reveals. This lack of respect for private property is hardly surprising given the Government’s refusal to allow us  the right to defend our property. Meanwhile levels of assault are also the highest across the EU, while car theft, robbery and sex offences are also well above average. As you can see, under Labour, we are reaching new standards.

In the overall crime league, the UK comes second only to plucky Ireland, with more than a fifth of the population in both countries exposed to crime in the past year. Ireland just manages to clock up the highest level of common crime in the EU.

Particularly embarrassing for the Government is the clear link researchers found between levels of violent crime and alcohol consumption – at a time when booze-fuelled violence is rising in the wake of the 24-hour drinking reforms.

The data for this survey results comes from the European Crime and Safety Survey, a joint project involving the United Nations and the EU Commission involving some 40,000 interviews across the continent, and is described as ‘the most comprehensive analysis of crime, security and safety ever conducted in the EU’. Instead of relying on official crime data published by EU governments, the researchers started from scratch, asking huge numbers of adults about their experiences during 2004.

This is indeed a remarkable story – just brought to my attention!

FOOTBALL in Italy has been indefinitely suspended after a police officer was killed during serious trouble at the Sicilian derby between Catania and Palermo last night.

The Italian football federation (FIGC) held an emergency meeting last night, and commissioner Luca Pancalli then announced an immediate suspension of football. "I have demanded a stop to all activity of football in Italy," Pancalli said in a statement. "Enough is enough."The football tournaments will remain suspended until we solve the violence in our football," he said. "It’s unacceptable that such incidents happen in a country like Italy." Italy’s national team was due to play Romania in Siena on Wednesday but that game – and the under-21 fixture against Belgium in Chieti on Tuesday – will not go ahead as things stand. The policeman, named as Filippo Raciti, 38, was struck in the face by a small explosive while attempting to deal with fighting outside the stadium. The officer was taken to hospital but died from his injuries.

How sad and what a tragic waste of life but really – A SMALL EXPLOSIVE??? What sort of animals would take such a device to a football match? You know I observe the rise of football to the point where is has become virtually a new religion throughout Europe, it’s stadia being the new cathedrals. And the more I see it, the less I like it.

THE day is fast approaching when it will be difficult to avoid arrest and imprisonment in the EU:

People who question the official history of recent conflicts in Africa and the Balkans could be jailed for up to three years for "genocide denial", under proposed EU legislation.

Germany, current holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, will table new legislation to outlaw "racism and xenophobia" this spring.

One can only assume it slipped Grocer Heath’s mind to mention this! It is, of course, an outrageous impertinence from a foreign country whose own relationship with free speech and individual rights has not always been intimate. Nevertheless, it is entirely in keeping with the drive to create a Soviet Europe, eventually stripped of ancient national identities, imposed by socialist elites and where history shall be ‘official’.

I thought I would bring this to your attention now as I may not have much of an opportunity in future. The day this proposal is implemented in England I shall write to every Head of State and every Premier in Europe denying the ‘official’ EU version of every conflict they have an ‘official’ version of and shall do so in the most racist and xenophobic manner. The French could then have me arrested and extradited, by authority of the European Arrest Warrant, and drag me in front of a foreign magistrate to be made to answer for my crimes against foreign law.

Can we leave now?

Here’s a remarkable story for you! From half-term, pupils at the Vesalius Secondary School in the West Flemish coastal resort of Ostende will be forced to wear a badge if they smoke. The badges feature a pair of lungs that have been blacked by cigarette smoke and bare the slogan "my lungs could look like this". Similarly, pupils who have given up smoking will also be issued with a badge featuring a pair of clean lungs and bearing the slogan "my lungs now look like this. I’ve stopped smoking".

Amazingly, a third of pupils in this school actually smoke openly IN CLASS! Some people have compared the forced wearing of badges to the stars of David that Jews were forced to wear during the Third Reich.

Wim Oscé of the Rodin Foundation says that he understands their reaction.

"First of all, the school seams convinced that stigmatising smokers is the best way to make them give up. However, we’re not convinced. Maybe the pupils will think its cool and not stop or maybe they’ll end up being bullied and youngsters who are really hooked on tobacco could end up being eaten up inside".

 

I take his point. I am surprised that the school authorities accept smoking in class for starters. I also think that the wearing of little badges will backfire since teenagers tend to gather brownie points by doing the opposite of whatever they are advised. Nanny Statism.