web analytics

If It Was Good Enough For Brussels . . .

By ATWadmin On November 24th, 2007 at 5:34 am

Consternation as Muammar Gaddafi seeks to pitch his tent on Nicolas Sarkozy’s lawn

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya has flummoxed presidential protocol service with a request that a Bedouin tent be erected in central Paris where he can entertain guests during a visit to France next month.

Libyan officials have told their French counterparts that he wants the tent put up in the grounds of the Hôtel Marigny, the 19th-century Parisian state residence used to house important foreign visitors.

The protocol service is unsure how to respond, since it is unwilling to displease the volatile ruler but unsure about setting a precedent that could lead to similar demands from other heads of state. “Nothing’s been settled yet,” said a source at President Sarkozy’s Élysée Palace.

Le Point, the French magazine, said that advisers to the 65-year-old Libyan leader had told Paris he wanted a tent because he suffered from a phobia brought on by being confined indoors.

The Élysée Palace source said that Colonel Gaddafi “made this demand to receive his guests under his tent as is his custom and not to sleep in it.” Colonel Gaddafi, who has ruled the North African country for 38 years, greets visitors in a Bedouin tent in Libya and requested a similar installation when he travelled to Brussels for talks with the Belgian Government in 2004.

A black, Saharan-style tent was erected for him in lush parkland by a lake in the grounds of the Val Duchesse château in the suburbs of the Belgian capital.

Canvas in the Marigny gardens — which are a stone’s throw from the Élysée and the British Ambassador’s residence — would fuel controversy surrounding a visit designed to illustrate the return of the former pariah to the international mainstream.

I don’t know. Looking at the rooms, it’s not much more than a somewhat glorified Motel 6. Not that there’s anything wrong with Motel 6 or anything.

Dubbed the “mad dog of the Middle East” by President Reagan in the 1980s over his backing for terrorist movements, the Supreme Guide of the Libyan Revolution is now seen by Western leaders as an ally in the fight against al-Qaeda. His trip to France follows the release this summer of six foreign medical workers jailed by Tripoli since 1999 for allegedly infecting more than 400 children with HIV.

Mr Sarkozy played a key role in the liberation of the five Bulgarian nurses and Palestinian doctor after sending Cécilia, his wife — they have since divorced — for talks with the Libyan strongman.

A day after the medical workers were freed, Mr Sarkozy flew to Tripoli to welcome Colonel Gaddafi back into the family of nations. The meeting provoked a furious row in France when it emerged that Paris had agreed to supply Libya with nuclear technology to power a desalination plant and defence equipment, including military vehicles and air defence systems.

Colonel Gaddafi’s visit to France has been confirmed privately by French government sources but has not yet been officially announced.

Gaddafi’s world

— In his 38-year rule Colonel Gaddafi has styled himself as the leader of a pan-Arabic socialist movement and the progenitor of a United States of Africa

— Travelling with a corps of armed female bodyguards, he has turned his hand to some of the thorniest diplomatic problems – including the Israel-Palestine issue, where he proposes a solution based on a unified state called Isratine

— He plans to act as screenwriter for a $40 million (£19.5 million) epic about the Italian invasion of Libya

— In the 1980s Libya had a reputation for supporting terrorist and revolutionary groups around the world, including the IRA. With this in mind Britain’s National Front approached him for assistance. He offered no money but provided a stack of copies of his slim three-volume Green Book – which offers a “solution to the problem of democracy”

— The same book also covers women’s rights, explaining: “A woman is tender. A woman is pretty. A woman weeps easily. A woman is easily frightened”

Source: Green Book, Times archive, Agencies

Via The Times Online

While the good colonel is in Paris next month, maybe Sarko will “look into his eyes” and see that Gaddafi is a . . . . Sort of like what Dubya did the first time he met with Soviet premier Russian president Vladimir Paranoid.

Also at JammieWearingFool


By ATWadmin On November 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 am

Writing in this mornings Telegraph, Iain Dale argues that the Conservative Party SHOULD emulate the Lib-Dem’s and advocate an "In or Out" vote on the EU.

If I understand Iain’s thinking on this, and he may correct me, his primary objective is to neutralise the voting attraction of UKIP in certain constituencies. I do not think Iain is advocating that David Cameron actually argues IN FAVOUR of the UK leaving the EU, and therein lies the rub. You see I suspect that there is a significant body of UK opinion – and in particular English opinion – that might favour the UK coming out from the EU. It all depends on how this is presented and sold to the electorate. We all know the political left are fervent supporters of the EU – but is the political right to offer us nothing but the same? If so, why vote for them? As readers know, I would favour the UK withdrawing from the EU for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is to ensure our fundamental liberties are protected. But Iain seems more concerned about damaging UKIP, and to my mind that is rather short-term thinking. Do you agree?

Calling On All Good Danes (And Other Folks, Too)

By On November 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Denmark to Hold New Referendum on Euro

Denmark will hold a referendum on whether to adopt the euro and drop exemptions to closer cooperation with the EU on defense and law enforcement, the prime minister said Thursday.

Danish voters rejected the European common currency in a 2000 referendum. The Scandinavian country has also opted out of other key areas of EU cooperation.

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at a news conference it was time to reassess those exemptions, which Denmark was granted in the early 1990s.

“A lot has changed since,” he said. “It is the right time to take a decision.”

No date was set for a vote but it would be held during the next four years, said the prime minister, whose center-right government was re-elected last week.

It was not immediately clear whether there would be a separate vote for each of the exemptions.

Danes stunned fellow EU nations in 1992 by rejecting the Maastricht treaty on closer European cooperation.

A year later, Danish voters approved a revised treaty with clauses letting the Scandinavian country stay outside a single currency and banking system and refrain from joining a European defense structure or conform to EU citizenship laws and common law enforcement.

“We have always said that the Danish exemptions are a hindrance for Denmark,” said Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark’s prime minister since 2001.

He said the referendum would be held after Denmark had ratified the new EU reform treaty, which includes changes in decision-making rules designed to make the union function more effectively. The treaty replaces the failed EU constitution, which was rejected two years ago.

Fogh Rasmussen’s Liberal-Conservative coalition won the Nov. 13 snap election with support from its nationalist ally, the Danish People’s Party, and a smaller centrist group.

Denmark, a country of 5.4 million people, has held five referendums on EU-related issues since it joined the bloc in 1973.

In the latest one, on Sept. 28, 2000, Danes voted 53.1 percent to 46.9 percent against replacing the Danish krone with the euro. Recent opinion polls have shown a narrow majority of Danes now favor switching to the euro.

Via the AP

It appears that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is afflicted with a serious case of -isms. To better understand that from which Rasmussen and many Old Europe politicians suffer, clarity is found in New Europe, as demonstrated by President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic.


Ten-fifteen years ago I spoke many times in this country about this process of transition, about its non-zero costs, about its benefits, tenets and pitfalls. Now, when it’s over, we face a different problem.

As I said, we already succeeded in getting rid of communism. But – along with the predominant view at home and elsewhere – we erroneously hoped that the attempts to suppress freedom and to centrally organize, mastermind, regulate, control the whole society (and economy) were already matters of the past, an almost forgotten historic relic. They are, to our great disappointment, still there. I see more examples of them in Europe and in most of international organizations than in America itself, but they can be found here as well.

The reason is that there are new, very popular and fashionable “isms” which again put various issues, visions, plans and projects ahead of individual freedom and liberty. It is social-democratism (which is nothing else than a milder and softer version of communism), it is human-rightism (based on the idea of mostly positive rights applicable all over the world), it is internationalism, multiculturalism, europeism, feminism, environmentalism and other similar ideologies.

Communism is over, but attempts to rule from above, are still, or perhaps again, here.

The second main challenge I see is connected with our experience with the EU, but goes beyond it because it is part of a broader tendency towards denationalization of countries and towards world-wide supranationalism and global governance.

The special sensitivity, that I (and many of my countrymen) have, makes me view many current trends in Europe rather critically. My opponents do not seem to hear my arguments and a priori keep rejecting the views they don’t like. To understand my criticism requires familiar knowledge of the developments in the EU, its gradual metamorphosis from a community of cooperating nations to the union of non-sovereign nations and prevailing supranationalistic tendencies. This is not the standard knowledge in America.

I have always been in favor of friendly, peaceful, and for all of us enriching cooperation and collaboration of European countries. However, I have many times pointed out that the move towards an ever-closer Europe, the so-called deepening of EU, the rapid political integration, and the supranational tendencies without an authentic European identity and an European demos are not only necessary for the freedom and democracy in Europe, but damaging.

Freedom and democracy, these two, for us so precious values, cannot be secured without the parliamentary democracy within a clearly defined state territory. This is exactly what the current European political elites and their fellow-travelers are attempting to eliminate. And it bothers me.

This is from a speech Klaus delivered before the CATO Institute earlier this year and his ranking of the Religion of Environmentalism&#153 as the third main threat to individual freedom is a great read.

Or, kick back and see for yourself.

Writing in the Financial Times June 13th, Klaus stated that,

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:

    ■ Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
    ■ Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
    ■ Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
    ■ Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
    ■ Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
    ■ Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
    ■ Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

Amen, brother!

Also at JammieWearingFool


By ATWadmin On November 21st, 2007 at 10:50 am

BritMeatDM_468x345.jpgDid you see that the "Made in Britain" stamp favoured by many British manufacturers and producers is under threat from where else but the EU? Proposals to switch to a Europe-wide ‘Made in the EU’ labelling system will be discussed by the European Commission next month. If implemented it would leave British consumers unable to tell where the contents of their shopping basket come from in the EU. The rule would apply even if the final product is based on imported foodstuffs. Only meat would be exempt, so that goods such as Danish bacon and Parma ham could be identified by their origin.

From an EU perspective this is very logical. It seeks to subvert the identity of the Nation state at every juncture so stripping away the "Made in Britain/France/Germany etc" label helps advance that cause. It also shows that every outward and visible form of our British identity is vulnerable whilst we remain in the European Union. Only way forward – and that’s to get out. But our political elite have sold their souls for the EU. 


By ATWadmin On November 21st, 2007 at 10:19 am

I see that the European Union has denied that it seeks to question women about their sexual history as part of a drive to….ahem… improve census statistics.  Instead it merely needs data on nationality, size of family, ethnicity, computer literacy, number of cars owned, cooking facilities and "durable consumer goods possessed by the household". That’s all.

One proposed question asks the "date(s) of the beginning of consensual union(s) of women having ever been in a consensual union: (ii) first consensual union and (ii) current consensual union". Some have taken this to mean sexual history but no – the EU has clarified that Consensual union is in fact another term for unmarried partnership.

"Information on consensual unions may be needed in countries where statistics on marriages and on legal marital status do not provide sufficient information on the formation of partnerships. onsensual union, as well as information on dates/duration of marriage, is valuable for fertility statistics and extends the knowledge that can be derived from data on number of live-born children."

Got that? As far as I am concerned, I fail to see why the EU needs any of this information and resent it knowing anything about me. It’s all part of the Big  Brother Superstatism that is at the heart of the European Union. 


By ATWadmin On November 20th, 2007 at 8:54 am

As Patty pointed out yesterday, the EU really does have a death-wish and how better to expose this than to consider the tsunami of migration and accompanying crime that is about to hit the EU next month  when nine more EU states scrap their border controls.

The creation of a free travel zone means an individual could journey from as far east as the Russian border to Britain’s doorstep at Calais without having to show a passport. The controls are being scrapped under the Schengen agreement, which was signed by all but a handful of EU nations. Although Britain opted out, critics of Schengen say this country remains a favoured destination for both criminals and economic refugees and faces a new wave of clandestine entry. In the Ukraine, officials say the country is already struggling to cope with a buildup of migrants gathering at its EU border in the hope of reaching western Europe.

Britain’s opt-out from Schengen is a joke since we have a completely porous border! There is going to be another massive wave of immigration sweeping into the EU core area, but Britain remains the hot spot thanks to the lack of any border controls and a Welfare provision which acts as a giant magnet! 

The Suicidal Logic of EU ‘Soft Power’

By ATWadmin On November 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

795151-1161796-thumbnail.jpgForeign Secretary David Miliband  has suggested the European Union should work towards including  Russia, Middle Eastern and North
African countries.
   He said enlargement was "our most powerful tool" for extending stability.”

Despite guns and ammo, the Soviet Union was not able to expand into Western Europe; the Communist union didn’t survive into the 1990’s. But, Putin is increasingly starting to resemble an ‘old-school’ communist dictator.  So, according to Miliband, it’s time to surrender and include Russia in the EU.    Anything to avoid a fight!

In 1683, conquering Islamic hordes were turned back from the Gates of Vienna; Western Europe remained predominately Christian.  But Western Europe’s current demographics and the contemporary threat of Islamofascism point to difficult struggles ahead. So, according to Miliband, it’s time to expand open borders to the Middle East and surrender to expansive Islam, as well. Surrender is so much easier than fighting.


By ATWadmin On November 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am

mr20bean.jpgI chuckled when I read that European countries should be more willing to launch military interventions in trouble-spots around the world, according to Mr Bean ringer David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary.

Miliband will use a speech in Bruges to warn the European Union it faces becoming irrelevant (Love the use of the future tense) if it is unwilling to deploy “hard power” to promote democracy and tackle conflict beyond its borders.

Memo to Milliband. The EU is only interested in soft-power. It wants to use dialogue and "negotiation" to solve the worlds’ ills. Recruiting a regiment of aromatherapists is perhaps achievable,  constructing a legion of stress councillors possible, but as regards anything else – forget it. You may as well send in the Belgium Army.

Milliband adds that the EU can fill a vacuum in modern politics. Yes – the vacuum once filled by a proud Nation STATE.

Two Questions

By ATWadmin On November 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

1. How is it that both the media and even some of our own columnists still don’t get what Sarkozy really is?

And also:

"He sat down to a near-unanimous standing ovation including, I am ashamed to write, from British MEPs in all three main parties…"

2. Why are you still in a Conservative Party that ceased to have any semblance of agreement with your views years ago, Mr. Hannan? 


By ATWadmin On November 13th, 2007 at 8:40 am

brownPA250906_228x242.jpgI see that in mapping out his strategy of "hard-headed internationalism" for Britain’s future foreign policy, Gordon Brown has marked a shift away from Tony Blair’s readiness to act as foremost ally of the US and favoured confidant of President George W Bush.

Mr Brooon signalled that in future Britain would work more closely with EU partners and through the UN. He made it clear that Britain believes tougher sanctions – rather than the threats of military action – against Iran are starting to work, although his senior officials insisted that "nothing is ruled out". Yes, that really worked in Iraq, didn’t it?

Makes you proud to be British, doesn’t it? Crawling to the EU and UN for empty words rather than finding the strength to do something of substance. At least France has a leader in the form of Sarkozy, we have a pathetic follower of internationalism in the form of the dismal Brown.