https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/806dfffcf475e56af0af3d26099985ca.jpg?itok=nvRKjmPP

Virtue signalling politicians are trying to kill off private vehicles powerd by petroleum, but are they just handing economic advantage to our commercial rivals in the far east. While western political elites obsseesed with pandering to the climate change scaremongers are imposing impossible reglulatory burdens on car makers because they do not understand the technology, car makers in China, Japan, India, Korea and elsewhere have no qualms about pumping a bit of the harmless, life supporting gas CO2 into the air

Picture: Zero Hedge

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

European carmakers are facing what could turn out to be a major crisis cooked up by EU regulators, and it’s all about EVs and emissions. The former are supposed to help solve the problem with the latter, but the likelihood of success is uncertain because there are literally millions of variables: car buyers.

The EU has been enforcing emission caps on cars since 2012. Until this year, this cap has been an average of 130 grams of CO2 per kilometer for all new passenger cars. Beginning next year, however, this would be reduced further to 95 grams of CO per km. In fuel consumption, the 130 g/km cap corresponds to an average 5.6 liters of gasoline per 100 km while the 95 g/km cap corresponds to 4.1 liters per 100 km.

Europe’s big carmakers are lining up the EVs. Volkswagen alone is planning four new EV models for 2020, after earlier this month it unveiled its first mass production affordable EV, the ID3. More models should be coming from the top carmaker in the next few years and its rivals will not be sitting idly by. Everyone who makes cars in Europe has an electric lineup… but there are no guarantees that people will want to buy those cars.

READ MORE >>>

RELATED POSTS
Technology Rules You

Electric cars too expensive

More Fake News Supporting Electric Cars

Climate change: Electrical industry’s ‘dirty secret’ boosts warming,/a>

Don’t be fooled – Elon Musk’s electric cars aren’t about to save the planet

British MEP Reveals Undemocratic EU Stitch Up Of Top Jobs

Brexit Party MEP Alexandra Phillips angrily blew the whistle on the undemocratic election process for choosing the European Parliament’s highly influential Committee chairs. The Newly elected MEP claimed the Federalist bloc had organised a “stitch-up behind closed doors”.

Phillips said she was “astonished” by the method the European Parliament uses to elect chairs of its committees. In a video uploaded to the Brexit Party MEP’s Twitter page (embedded below), Ms Phillips says: “So, I’ve just come back from my first committee as an MEP. I am on the Development Committee (DEVE) which is really important to me because I have lived and worked in India and Ghana and Kenya and Cameroon, lots of places.

“And I have seen how badly the EU as a corporate cartel and big business and big banking essentially rides roughshod with trade deals over developing worlds and then uses bits of aid to try and cover up the massive open wounds that they leave behind.

“But what astonished me, the agenda for this meeting was actually appointing the new chair of the Committee.

“But this is already stitched up behind closed doors by the big Parliamentary groups who decide that they will portion out the chairs of committees behind the scenes and then each candidate stands unopposed.

“So I went to the meeting and one chair and vice chairs were automatically appointed because they were the only candidates stepping forward.

“Remember this Parliament is 60 percent new MEPs who haven’t had experience in these areas before and so don’t know the systems and aren’t putting themselves forward.”

Alexandra Phillips tells of her shock at the lack of democracy or transparency in EU

EU leaders have also come under fire for undemocratically facilitating a backroom stitch-up for the bloc’s top job, that of President Of The European Commission. The person chosen to succeed Jean – Claude Juncker in the post is little known Federalist Ursula von Leyen, who emerged as the preferred candidate through a completely opaque process after better known figures were rejected by member states.

Much of the criticism centred around the abandonment of the so-called lead candidate (spitzenkandidat) process, which is designed to give a democratic mandate to the Commission presidency. Instead, leaders held a series of meetings across three days to fill European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s role before he is scheduled to step down at the end of October. But nobody seems to know who proposed von Leyen, who voted for her or what qualifies her for the job other than that she is German, a member of Angela Merkel’s CDU Prty know for loyalty to Merkel and a strong supporter of Merkel and Macron’s push to transfor the EU into a Federal superstate.

Following the talks among EU leaders, Ursula von der Leyen, who is currently Germany’s defence minister, a supporter of Federalisation and an advocate of an E U Army, was selected to be the next Commission President. She will become the next European Commission President if the European Parliament approves her appointment. Her path to power may not be smooth however. Member of the European Parliament from The Green Party and a coalition of socialist and communist parties have vowed to oppose her and claim they have the numbers to vote down her appointment.

RELATED POSTS:

EU’s Top Eurofederalist admits EU wants an empire
The leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE)
told CNN that plans to reform the EU and devolve power from Brussels back to the nation-state proposed by the populist paries that have spring up in member states, and led by Matteo Salvin’s Lega (League) in Italy, Marine le Pen and her Rassemblement National in France and Hungary’s Victor Orban, leader of the Fidesz party would mean that the bloc “will die inside.”

EU Dictatorship: German MEP says process of choosing Juncker successor a hoax as European elections near
The process of selecting the person who will succeed Jean-Cluade Juncker as European Commission President is a deeply flawed “hoax” dreamed up by “Eurofanatics” who want to create a United States of Europe, a German MEP said today. Hans-Olaf Henkel made his remarks as the prospective candidates – known as Spitzenkandidaten, in Germany, jockeyed for position.

Europe’s Nationalists Unite Behind Salvini Ahead Of EU Elections


With the EU elections due in May this year expected to deliver another body blow to the dream of a Federal European superstate, Europe’s more conservative nationalist parties have today announced an alliance that is aiming to become the strongest group in the European Parliament, with a view to forcing to radical reform on the EU bureaucracy in Brussels, which dictates policy on security, migration, family and the environment, according to Euro News.

Will Italy’s Mini — BOT Break The Eurozone?
Most people in Britain are sick of Brexit and if you ask anyone in other European Union member states what is the biggest crisis the EU is likely to fac this year they will almost certainly say the effect of Britain leaving without a trade deal. That’s because they get their information via the narratives presented in mainstream media. But Britain is not the only EU member state to have had major misgivings for many years about the way the EU is run

Germany Heading For Political Instability After EU Elections
Mainstream media’s reaction to the European election results in Germany for the EU elections rejoiced in the poor showing of the Eurosceptic, anti — immigration AfD but chose to ignore the far more significant trends that are emerging in German politics, trends that threaten the political and by extension economic stability of the EU’s most powerful nation.

EU Parliament Passes Resolution On Ban Of ‘Neo-Fascist’ Groups, Lists Identitarian Movement
The most undemocratic elected body in the world, The European Union Parliament this week passed a resolution demanding that member-states ban ‘neo-fascist’ parties and have intelligence agencies co-operate with ‘anti-racism’ NGOs. Ironically the ‘anti – racism NGOs they mention are all offshoots of anti – democracy organisations such as Open Society Institute and the Immigrant Defence Project.

The Daily Stirrer – July 2019

‘Left-wing Intellectuals’ Are ‘Sneering at Ordinary People’ on Brexit

from Breitbart Europe

Labour Party chairman Ian Lavery has warned figures both within and without the party against “sneering at ordinary people” who support Brexit, in the wake of highly damaging European Parliament election results.

Labour and its hard-left leader Jeremy Corbyn — a lifelong Brexiteer prior to his elevation to the party leadership — officially endorsed remaining in the European Union ahead of the 2016 referendum, but fully committed to delivering the people’s vote for Brexit in its manifesto for the 2017 snap election which followed the vote to Leave.

However, the bulk of its MPs have worked steadily to reverse this position ever since, and much of its largely cosmopolitan, upper middle-class parliamentary leadership are now pushing openly for a so-called “confirmatory public vote” with Remain on the ballot.

Read full article >>>

RELATED:
Intellectuals have always despised the masses
Boggart Blog Brexit Page
The Daily Stirrer May 2019
The Daily Stirrer archive, April 2019

 

Yellow Vest Protest Still Running After Six Months

Early May saw a lull in the weekly protests by France’s so called Yellow Vest movement which was not surprising after the huge turnout for the Midweek May Day protests on May 1, the traditional workers holiday in many nations.

from Bloomberg:

France’s Yellow Vest demonstrations drew a lower turnout and drifted away from Paris to smaller cities on Saturday, suggesting the movement is weakening as it hits the six-month mark.

Police estimated 18,600 people took to the streets around France, including 1,200 in the capital, on the movement’s 26th Saturday of protests, AFP reported, citing the interior ministry. Last Saturday, police counted fewer than 19,000 protesters nationwide, already the lowest turnout since November.

The Yellow Vests, a decentralized movement that began in opposition to higher gasoline taxes, has expanded its list of grievances to include demands for a higher minimum wage and increased pensions. President Emmanuel Macron last month promised tax cuts for the middle class in an effort to calm the protesters. Still, a poll on Tuesday found that 47% of the French support the Yellow Vests, up 3 points from 10 days earlier.

Turnout at the protests, and the level of violence, has waxed and waned depending on the weekend. Some Saturdays have led to shocking footage of street battles between protesters and police, the ransacking of the Arc de Triomphe and looting of shops and restaurants. On others, the events unfold with little violence. Masked anarchist protesters known as Black Blocs have joined in the demonstrations.

<p>In Paris on May 11, hundreds assembled midday south of the Seine river, in the student-packed neighborhood surrounding the Jussieu university campus. While demonstrations in the French capital remained orderly, Lyon and Nantes were rowdier at times as some protesters threw objects at police officers.

Read more: Why Yellow Vests Remain Thorn in Macron Presidency: QuickTake

With the protests continuing, although the numbers involved have diminished, it shows the anger of the French people at successive governments which want to focus on the problems of Africa and South East Asia, and the push to integrate 27 EU member states into a single political entity, while ignoring the problems faced by middle and working class people in France due to high unemployment, high taxes and rising living costs, Macron faces increasing political pressure. And with elections to the toothless but symbolic European Parliament only a few days away it looks as if his biggest political test to date will turn into a catastrophe for his globalist government. The Republic En Marche (Republic on the Move Party) currently trails the nationalistic, Eurosceptic, Rassemblement National (National Rally) party led by Marine Le Pen in the European Union parliamentary elections on May 26, according to a Harris Interactive poll published Saturday.

Defeat for Macron will bring renewed calls for him to resign and call an election, and should he choose to hold on to power in those circumstances, in all likelyhood it will reinvigorate the protest movement.

Legal basis of EU designed to take control from member states and hand to Brussels

The rejected European Consitution, which was abandoned in 2005 but reintroduced  in 2007 as the Lisbon Treaty (a form which member states’ voters coould not reject in national referenda,) was tailor-made to strip nation states of their power and centralise control in the hands of a Brussels cabal, according to a leading authority on international law.

Professor Richard Epstein, one of the foremost authorities on international law and treaties, exposed the cryptic clauses of one of the most important agreements in the history of the EU in a shock essay and in doing so exposed the true nature of the treaty and the power grabbing political monster the EU has become. At the time Mr Epstein warned the EU Constitution would result in less individual freedom and more bureaucratic interference, and centralised government from Brussels and advised Britain to chuck the treaty in the bin.

The document analysed by Mr Epstein was never formally ratified after being voted down in plebiscites in France and Netherlands, but it became the Lisbon Treaty, which passed in 2007 after being rejected in a referendim in Ireland, they only country consitutionally required to put a treaty change involving a surrender of sovereign powers to a public vote. But but Ireland is much smaller and has much less economic clout than France or Netherlands, and after the European Central Bank had shafted the Irish economy, Brussels told the Irish government the referendim result was not acceptable and the vote must be rerun.

The Lisbon Treaty contained 95 percent of the same text as the EU constitution, according to analysis by the London think tank Open Europe.

After being ratified by the political elites of member states and voted through at the second time of asking by Ireland, the Lisbon treaty became the legal bedrock of the EU,  updating laws and regulations for member states, establishing a more centralised leadership and foreign policy, a process for countries that wish to leave the bloc, and a streamlined process for enacting new policies, in effect shifting the EU from being a free trade club to being a political entity.

In his 2005 essay called “American Lessons for European Federalism”, Mr Epstein, Professor at the New York University School of Law, argued that the EU constitution lacked many of the democratic checks and balances contained in the American constitution and the consitutions of democratic nations. Absolute power is weilded by a committee of unelected bureaucrats.

Predicting where the document’s internal structures, which lacked of any clear definition, would lead, centralising massive power into the hands of unaccountable executives in Brussels, Mr Epstein wrote: ”For those who want a strong state with weak individual rights, then this Constitution achieves many of their goals.

RELATED:
Europe Unglues
MORE ON EUROPE
German Alarm Grows Over EU Determination To Punish Britain For Leaving

London’s Future?

This article, by Theodore Dalrymple, first published in Law and Liberty is reproduced by this Not For Profit site under fair use terms in the public interest, as the chaotic failure of our government to deliver the democratic decision to leave the European Union (Brexit) has revealed the chasm that has opened between the ruling elite and the nation they govern is now insurmountable.

I Have Seen London’s Future and It Is Caracas

 

Important (for good or evil) as Brexit may be to the future of Britain, it is not without its importance for the European Union. Indeed, it was always essential for the Union that Britain’s departure should be an economic disaster for Britain: for if it were not, why have a union at all?

It was therefore entirely predictable that the Union should drive a hard bargain with Britain, even a bargain economically harmful to itself, provided only that it was worse for Britain: for the self-preservation of the European political class is at stake. In the European Union politics always trumps economics.

In Britain too, political considerations were uppermost in the minds of those who voted for Brexit. They saw in the European Union a Yugoslavia in the making, led by a megalomaniac class without effective checks or balances. But now they are increasingly apprehensive of the economic costs of Brexit.

And the economic auguries for Britain are indeed poor, though not only, or even principally, because of the European Union’s hostility. The fact is that Britain is unlikely to be able to take any advantage of life outside the European straitjacket because its own political class is itself in favour of straitjackets that are no better, and quite possibly worse than, the European ones. The present Prime Minister, Theresa May, is very much a statist, indistinguishable from European social democrats, and the leader of the opposition, Mr Corbyn, who might well be the next Prime Minister, is an unapologetic admirer of Hugo Chavez. It is hardly to be expected that foreign investors will place much trust or confidence in an isolated country whose next government might very well weaken property rights, impose capital controls and increase corporate taxation in favour of supposed social justice. It would not take very long to turn Britain into a northern Venezuela: a Venezuela without the oil or the tropical climate.

Moreover, Britain already has many weaknesses and few strengths. It has a huge and persistent trade imbalance, because it does not produce enough of what the world wants and cannot easily be made to do so; it has a large national debt, about the same size as that of France, but without a highly functioning infrastructure such as France’s to show for it; its household debt is among the highest in the world. For many years, its economic policy might as well have been presided over by Mr Madoff; its social policy has been to smash up all forms of social solidarity or support for the vulnerable that do not pass through the state. The destruction of the little platoons has been very thorough: most large ‘charities’ in Britain are now dependent on government rather than on private funding, and hence are in effect departments of state.

As if this were not enough, Britain has enormous cultural problems, perhaps only to be expected in a country in which more than fifty per cent of children are born out of wedlock and twenty per cent do not eat a meal with another member of their household more than once every two weeks. A dangerously high and perhaps unsustainable proportion of the population is unfitted for productive life in a modern economy, having attained an abysmally low educational level despite (or because of?) considerable state expenditure. This section of the population is not merely indifferent to refinement of any kind – intellectual, aesthetic or of manners – but actively hostile to it. Similarly, it is not merely not anxious to learn, it is anxious not to learn.

This explains why Britain has persistently imported labour from Eastern Europe to perform tasks in its service industries that ordinarily one might have expected its large fund of indigenous non-employed people to perform. The fact is, however, that though these tasks require no special skills, they did require certain personal qualities such as reliability, politeness, and willingness to adapt: and these the eligible local population lack entirely. No hotel-keeper, for example, would consider using British labour if he could get foreign.

Perhaps nothing captures the levels of personal incompetence and lack of self-respect in Britain than the fact that young men of the lowest social class are about half as likely to die in prison as they are if left at liberty. In prison, though adult, they are looked after, at least in a basic way, and told what to do. They are no longer free to pursue their dangerous and crudely self-indulgent lifestyle, in which distraction is the main occupation. In prison they receive the health care that, though it is free to them under the National Health Service, they are not responsible enough to seek when at liberty. In short, they do not know, because they have never been taught, how to live in a minimally constructive fashion, though they were certainly not born ineducable.

No doubt other comparable countries have similar problems, but none (at least, none known to me) has them to anything like the same extent. These problems do not originate from Britain’s membership of the European Union, nor will they be solved by exit from the Union. They can be solved only by something more resembling a religious revival than by any likely government action. But expecting a population to bethink itself while simultaneously being offered political solutions that require no effortful cultural change is unreasonably optimistic. And politicians are unlikely to be frank about the problem for two reasons: first because alluding to the deficiencies of their electorate is probably not the best way to get elected, and second because it downgrades the providential role of politics, which politicians are understandable reluctant to do.

As if this were not quite enough, the hold on the country’s intelligentsia of statist solutions to practically all problems is still immensely strong. Nowhere is this more evident than in its attitude to the National Health Service, the establishment of which it almost universally regards as having been a great achievement, perhaps Britain’s only great achievement of the twentieth century. This is despite all the evidence that it has not been egalitarian in its effect, as it was originally supposed to be, or that almost all Western European health systems are superior to it. The fact that all Western Europeans regard it with at least disdain, and more usually with absolute horror, does nothing to shake the British intelligentsia’s faith in the essential goodness of the National Health Service. The only perceived problem with it is that it underfunded: the same problem as with all other government services. In the struggle between rhetoric and reality, rhetoric always wins.

The population by and large follows the intelligentsia, and the politicians follow the population; but the only economic advantages to Brexit would be the possibility of a nimbler, less regulated and bureaucratic economy. There is now no prospect of this. Therefore, I have seen the future of London, and it is Caracas – or very might be.

 

France to lose EU influence in European election as pro EU parties face wipeout

French president Emmanuel Macron faces crushing defeat in European election (Picture: Express )

The rise of Emmanual Macron and his Euro-federalist party, though a temporary aberration in French politics, has forced a realignment of the traditional parties of government, conservative Les Républicains (Gaullists) and the Socialist Party (PS), and they could both become bit-part players in the two biggest blocs in the chamber. This would mean fewer influential posts for lawmakers and far less say in Parliament over crucial decisions shaping Europe.

The Socialist Party is polling at just five percent, and if it falls below that threshold in the election due in May, it will not have any MEPs in the next European Parliament. An official from the French delegation of the centre-left Socialists and Democrats (S&D) bloc in the legislature told Politico: “The risk is that the left is so deeply divided that there won’t be any French person to represent it in the Parliament.

According to forecasts from Politico, the Socialists would drop to just five seats in the next Parliament, having secured 13 spaces during the last election in 2014.

Christine Revault d’Allonnes-Bonnefoy, a Socialist MEP who has been touted as a possible candidate to lead her party in the upcoming election, said: “We are going to lose a lot of MEPs. What we’re facing is a catastrophe. Right now, we are doing the job, we’re getting on with things. It’s not enough, but I don’t have any magic wand to change things.”

Centre-left parties in France have become fragmented recently, with MEPs such as Isabelle Thomas, Guillaume Balas and Edouard Martin quitting PS to join “Générations-s” – the left-wing party created by former Socialist presidential candidate Benoît Hamon.

Other MEPs including Emmanuel Maurel have joined France Unbowed – the far-left party led by former MEP Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

In an interview with French magazine Le Point last month, Françoise Grossetête said: “Their call to reform Europe has become a mantra, and shows the total ignorance of everything that has been carried out in the last five years when the right has led the governing majority in Europe.”

If current projections prove accurate, the Republicans would have a smaller delegation in the European Parliament than Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, while the once dominant Socialists would bring in the same number of seats as Denmark’s Social Democrats.

This reduction in French influence would be a huge blow to France, which for years has seen its MEPs push for progress on issues deemed in their country’s interests, including a change to the rules on EU citizens working temporarily in another of the bloc’s countries.

According to Politico’s forecasts, the Republicans are set to win 11 seats in the election, but this is still down from the 20 spots five years ago. What is not being mentioned by mainstream media is that Rassemblement National, the Eurosceptic, nationalist, anti immigration party led by Marine Le Pen look set to make massive gains.