This is why the EU cannot be trusted – they ignore the rule of law

Posted Category: Aarhus, Access to Justice

The Petitions Committee at the EU Parliament – Quite unbelievable behaviour (September 2016)!

It is time for people to watch and observe, see the dynamics and make their own minds up!

Pat Swords says the issues are not new, they have been happening for centuries; “I would point out the following to people who take the time to watch, downloadable  here. (By the EU clock start at 16:12:30 and run until 16:30:30. You can request the file and it is automatically e-mailed to you.)

Pat Sword’s presentation can be viewed here

Epaw-follow-up-information-on-petition-1338-2012-of-july-2016

  • Who does the EU Commission represent, the renewable sector it campaigns for or the rights and welfare of European citizens? Is it of importance that what it presents to a Parliamentary Committee is accurate and not false? After all you can check for yourself. The Commission’s statements in relation to compliance measures it was taking with UNECE had already been rejected as completely inadequate by UNECE to fulfill the EU’s obligations under International Law (link here to UNECE  file). International Law is about diplomacy and consent based governance. There is no enforcement arm of the UN, just a compliance mechanism. As UNECE has warned the EU in their compliance report, failure to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance can lead to the sanction of suspension from the Aarhus Convention on environmental and human rights. As a citizen of a Member State your passport carries both the designation of the EU and your Member State. Do you want your citizenship to be in the premier league or in the league of the laggard States? The latter where your rights are ignored and the ‘fair and transparent framework’ of the Aarhus Convention do not apply, instead decision-making is by the populist consensus, based o  whatever happens to be the current flavour.
  • So what are the relevance of the EU Commission’s claimed for benefits, i.e. the carbon dioxide savings? After all in Ireland it has been pointed out by campaigners, see for example link  here, that the official figures for carbon savings are false, as they ignore all the considerable inefficiencies induced on the grid by these highly intermittent renewables. The actual savings are far less, of the order 50% of what is claimed. Embarrassed by this the Irish authorities actually have to admit in their EU renewables progress reports, in relation to claimed for carbon savings, the ‘limitations and caveats’ associated with their methodology and that it only provides a simplified analysis with “initial insights”. So what the EU Commission stated to the EU Parliament, is what everybody with a reasonable technical grasp realises to be grossly inflated numbers. Even worse, even if these grossly inflated numbers were to be true, they are still only 1% of the global annual carbon emissions of circa 35 billion tonnes, while temperatures have essentially been static over the last 18 years. So where are we actually going with this wonderful unilateral action, as other countries are not going to rush headlong down this route? Is it not of concern that such belief systems, grounded in the assumption that these renewables could actually influence the weather, are quickly shown by simple analysis to be disillusional? Also see co2-emissions-resulting-from-wind-farm-construction by Paul Miskelly
  • Mark Twain was so accurate when he stated: “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” Sometimes also religion and politics intermingle, particularly when the apparatus of the State is used to impose a set of beliefs on others. Is this a conclusion now applicable to the EU?
  • H.L. Mencken was another American journalist, satirist and cultural critic of the early 20th Century. As he so rightly pointed out: “(1) For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (2) The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. (3) The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule”. So what have we learnt since then, what systems of ‘checks and balances’ have been put in place and implemented?
  • Has the EU moved forward or backwards? Is it dominated by the anointed elite?: As Thomas Sowell, an American economist and philosopher of the later 20th Century put it so aptly:Systemic processes tend to reward people for making decisions that turn out to be right—creating great resentment among the anointed, who feel themselves entitled to rewards for being articulate, politically active, and morally fervent. 
  • The ‘press’ is meant to be the fourth estate in our Democracy, but there is really no evidence of this at all, no investigative work, no holding to account. So if people want to spend time reading, listening and watching their output, then so be it. You’ll find out about about the sporting events, you’ll find out about the personal lives of  celebrities and politicians but if you believe that you are going to be informed about what is going on in the World around you, you are delusional. After all as Mark Twain put it, ‘if you don’t read newspapers, you are uninformed, if you do read newspapers, you are misinformed’. So now in the 21st Century where are we going? We do have websites and other social media tools, personal contacts, etc. which can be used to draw attention to them. The first part of Mark Twain’s quotation may no longer hold true, as alternatives are available, not least an actual video recording of what happened for download (16:12:30 to 16:31:00), which can then put on a website for access. We also have the documents which were presented there and used to support the presentation. The second part of the Mark Twain quote is really down to the wider public, if they don’t take personal responsibility to inform themselves of what is actually going on, they will remain grossly uniformed and as a result others will take the opportunity to make decisions over them. Is this right and proper? 
  • Here is a clear indication as to why so many in the UK voted Brexit: because of unaccountable arrogance  in those entrusted to administer and govern equitably in the EU.