The joys of walking in the British countryside have been greatly enhanced by the E.U.'s recent announcement that thousands of miles (well, they say kilometres) of our footpaths are now part of the 'E-Paths' (European Long Distance Paths) network.

You could try the 5,000 kilometre E9 - The European Coastal Path - which takes you from Capo de Sao Vincente in Portugal to Narva-Joesuu in Estonia via the Plymouth to Dover Section of the E-path ('711 kilometres' or '719 kilometres via the Isle of Wight alternative route').

Or you could try the British section of the E2 'Atlantic to the Mediterranean' footpath which includes the '1400 kilometres' from Stranraer to Harwich (alternative route via Dover).

There is also an E8.

These E-paths will be waymarked with the golden garotte 'at major junctions'.

THE URL for this is the Ramblers' Association website:
www.ramblers.org.uk/info/paths/e2.html

[NOTE: The search on the site produced the following results:

miles - 277
km - 93
kilometres - 4.

Miles wins out by a mile despite many sections on the website leading in kilometres]

I don't understand, what's the point here ?
Or is this just some rambling of an old man ?

Ralf

would be interesting to know how much this latest EU "initiative" has cost the taxpayer.

Well frankly, I don't really care. I've been to many European countries and have seen these kind of signs for years. They don't alarm me in the slightest and all they really make me do is to be more aware of the size of Europe and just how long some of these paths are. No need to get your knickers in a twist over whether or not these paths use miles or kilometres.

You may have also heard of "E Roads". Did you known that the E30 goes all the way from the west coast of Ireland to Moscow?

Furthermore, the E roads are very useful when one is crossing from one country to another. For example, driving from Dunquerque to Liege, one need only follow the E42 (I think that is the correct number). Moreover the E road numbers are published alongside the French and Belgian Route Nationale numbers.

What, like a supplementary indicator to give the consumer more helpful information?

SteveH wrote: "What, like a supplementary indicator to give the consumer more helpful information?"

Absolutely ! Moreover, it makes you look across the borders of the UK and it's a way to strenghten the feeling of being a European citizen.

"...make you look beyond the UK..."

er, yes, just like the U.K used to look to the Commonwealth - located in all continents on the globe - before our membership of the E.U. caused us to start looking inwards to Europe

"European citizen"

There is no such term. Every citizen of a member nation of the E.U. is simply a citizen of his/her member nation and *not* a citizen of the European Union. To quote a letter sent to a eurosceptic campaigner in 2000 from Mr Kevin Sheehan, Director of Operations, U.K. Passport Agency: "I have not told you that you are an E.U. Citizen. I do not believe there is such a concept. Citizenship and passports are matters that remain sovereign for E.U. Member States".

Thomas Jefferson's dictum is usful here:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none"

Tony,

you miss out a lot.

Ralf

"The English Channel is wider than the Atlantic Ocean. Across the Channel are neighbours. Across the Atlantic Ocean are family"

(and strange to say, they share basically the same system of weights and measures as we do)

I have dual nationality, Belgian (Flemish) and Canadian as well. I was born in Canada of Belgian parents. Of someone asks me what I am, I tend to say Belgian and very rarely do I say European (if at all, in fact).

However, I do have a sense of "belonging" to Europe in the context of sharing the continent with all the other millions of Europeans, sharing its history, its culture, its contrasts. I live in the UK and in all honesty I sometimes look rather longingly towards the continent, wondering why the UK government can't organize things as well as the Germans, the French etc. seem to do.

In reply to T Bennett's posting,

Well, if you made the effort to learn another language then you might find that they can also be "family".

Tony,

the more you say, the more you strike me as one of those people who always gets into fights with their next-door neighbours, calling them "mischievous" and of ill intention.
Eventually you end up in court with them over some ridiculous issue, like who the cherry tree belongs to for example.

[thinking]...

No, wait, you already ended up in court with your neighbours over a ridiculous issue !

Ralf

"European, sharing its history, its culture..."
-----------------------------------------------
The trouble is, to a very considerable extent the history and culture of the United Kingdomn is *not* the same as that of continental Europe. We have always had an arm's length relationship with the continent, encapsulated so well by Winston Churchill when he said: "We are associated with Europe, but not of it".

It would be difficult to discover a more outward-looking people than those of the United Kingdom - hence the spread of the British Empire, the current extent of the British Commonwealth and the loyalty of the peoples of those countries to Britain, and the spread of the English language to become the global language.

A signifiant part of British history is dealing with the ambitions of those on the continent, from the Spanish Armada down to Napoleon and two World Wars begun by German expansionist ambitions.

These are the reasons why, for example, in a raft of recent surveys, British people tend by a majority of over 2 to 1 to 'feel closer to America than Europe' - and so it is that the British consistently feel significantly less 'European' than those on the continent.

It's just part of the way we are, and it is not a matter for condemnation.

Where our culture and history depart from those of the continent of Europe is our long history as a separate nation - 1,200 years since Alfred the Great - our long history of individual liberty from Magna Carta through the Declaration and Bill of Rights, trial by jury etc. - and the two oldest Parliaments in in the world, the Tynwald and Westminster. There are a lot of us who do not want these things replaced by a Euro-dictatorship which is on the way. The prosecution of Steve Thoburn and the 'metric martyrs' was a marker warning us of further autocratic measures to come from the continent of Europe
_______________________________________________________

"Why the UK government can't organise things as well as the Germans, the French etc. seem to do..."
-------------------------------------------------------
Er, like UK unemployment under 1 million, German unemployment 4.2 million, French unemployment 2.5 million; UK inward investment having strongly outperformed both France and Germany during each of the past four years? And the recent statistic that the number of inventions in the U.K. during the past 50 years exceeded that of all other European countrees combined? (which can be ascribed to our tradition of allowing and encouraging individual freedom and initiative)

Of course, there are many things that we can learn from other European countries; in many respects the German and French health services are signiicantly better than ours, and their public transport systems, so by all means let's learn how to do those things better from them
_______________________________________________________

"...if you made the effort to learn another language..."
-------------------------------------------------------
Strange what assumptions people make. As it happens I have reasonably good German and French, my mother being German-speaking (and Serbo-Croat and now English), born in what is now Croatia of an Austrian father and a Hungarian mother.

One of my ancestors, Joachim Andreas Sclick, led the revolt of the Bohemian nobles against the Austro-Hungarian/Papal forces in 1620 (the start of the 'Thirty Years War'). For his part in the 'Battle of the White Mountain' (Bila Hora), he was beheaded and his head spiked on the famous Charles Bridge which crosses the Moldau in the centre of Prague. If you visit Prague you can see two memorials to him in the main sqaure (the one with the statue of Jan Hus in the middle). One of his ancestors, Count Stephan Schlick, was the founder of the 'thaler' currency, after he developed silver coinage from the silver mines around Joachimsthal (now Jachymov) in north-west Bohemia. The thaler, of course, gave its name to the American dollar - you can read about him and his contribution to the history of world coinage in any book on coins.

I've travelled in Europe many times, spending a few weeks for example in the Czechoslovak Republic and speaking German everywhere (and helping to build an S.O.S. children's village on an international workcamp). Mind you, I always had to say 'Mluvite Anglicky?' (do you speak English?) first, to establish my credentials as English, as the Germans remain unpopular in the Czech Republic. They'd always say 'no'. Then I'd say 'Mluvite Njemacky? (do you speak German?), to which the answer was invariably 'yes'. We could then carry on a good conversation in German.

The point I am getting around to making is that a defence of one's own culture and traditions is not inconsistent with speaking other languages, understanding the wider world and taking an interest in it

Tony Bennet wrote: "There's no such thing as a European citizen. Every citizen of a member nation of the E.U. is simply a citizen of his/her member nation and *not* a citizen of the European Union."

That's true, but things are changing. After the entry of the Central and Eastern European countries into the EU, we will probably all OFFICIALLY become "EUROPEANS".

And then we will finally get an ID card here in the UK with "EUROPEAN" printed on it in capital letters and "Briton" between brackets.

Isn't that a nice prospect Tony ?!? ;-)

Tony Bennet wrote: "The thaler, of course, gave its name to the American dollar - you can read about him and his contribution to the history of world coinage in any book on coins."

I recently read a book on American history in which the author claims that the word "dollar" comes from the Dutch "daalder" (=an old coin). Since there were many Dutch colonists - especially in New York - the "daalder" story seems more likely to me.

Tony Bennet wrote

<<
"The English Channel is wider than the Atlantic Ocean. Across the Channel are neighbours. Across the Atlantic Ocean are family"
>>

I have crossed the English Channel many times this year but have never crossed the Atlantic Ocean. To me therefore the Atlantic is much wider than the Channel (both literally and figuratively).

<<
(and strange to say, they share basically the same system of weights and measures as we do)
>>

... just over half of the US weights (disregarding metric units) are the same as the UK weights. Weights that are the same are pound, ounce, foot, inch, yard, mile, chain and furlong. Weights that are different are fluid ounce, gallon, pint, ton, hundredweight and stone (not used in the US)

Of course, the gramme, metre, litre etc are the samwe both sides of the Atlantic (apart from possibly the way in which they are spelt).

One specific proposal that was announcd last week by the European Constitutional Convention - a 105-member group led by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing planning to impose a 'Constitution for a United Europe' on the people of Europe.

As well as calling for the European Union to have legal personality so that it can be represented as a *nation* at the United Nations, in the World Trade Organisation etc., the Convention has indeed proposed the introduction of 'dual citizenship' - Euro Citizenship and British Citizenship to run side by side (it has also called for the new proposed Euro-government to have powers to directly over-rule national governments - no longer technically possible at present because Euro Directives still have to be converted into a British Act or Regulation before they become effective in the U.K.).

Users of this bulletin board might compare the process of introducing 'dual citizenship' with the first occasion on which dual marking of goods was proposed - namely adding metric units to the Imperial units we had used for centuries. That process has now culminated in the Regulation making it a *crime* to refer to pounds and ounces in a shop after 31 December 2009.

So it will be with 'Euro Citizenship'. Eventually British Citizenship will be scrapped.

I was born a British Subject. That status changed slightly in 1981 when the Nationality Act of that year abolished the term 'British subject' and substituted 'British Citizen'.

If offered dual 'Euro Citizenship', of course I shall refuse it. But eventually I may have no alternative to seeing it imposed on me

Ok Tony, I admit I'm wrong about you. Obviously you are from quite a mixed background and you even speak a foreign language.

However, I stand by my point in the sense that it certainly applies to many British people. You get those who don't speak any other languages but genuinely are interested in other countries and their peoples (I know a few of them, they always say to me "You know, I wish I could also speak another langauge as it would make things more interesting").

On the other hand, however, you also get those who don't speak any other languages, are hostile to and suspicious of anyone different to themselves and are happy to live in their own little blinkered world.

Conrad - you missed the point entirely! My point was to say that more information is best - thus dual labelling of food (metric/imperial) gives *more* information (duh!).

J Doe: "I live in the UK and in all honesty I sometimes look rather longingly towards the continent, wondering why the UK government can't organize things as well as the Germans, the French etc. seem to do"

Hmmm, you're totally open to ridicule their! Ok - you own a European passport? Well go and live there - there's nothing stopping you! And organize? Well ok, go and join the 4m (cue martin with his " 'm' means" )unemployed in Germany or perhaps get a job with the 50% backscratching public based companies of France!
Go on! Go and live in eurowonderland! (but take bottled water, know what i mean!)

Also - Family means decending from - hardly the case with are warmongering neighbours to the east (cue prehistoric claptrap)

Tony:
Churchill also said there should be an united states of europe with GB outside it - to prevent war in the future.
Also, you grace some people with the word "assumption" - I think you'll find they are rather more ignorant. They'll pigeon hole everyone (eg anti EU means anti Europe in their tiny world)

Conrad: Your ID card thing - did you have one of those "special" dreams last night?

Conrad: There's also a story of "Americk" (spelling?), a welshman, descovering America - i like that particular one.

Martin: You've never crossed the atlantic? Nice to see how your opinions are formulated then!!!

J Doe: "On the other hand, however, you also get those who don't speak any other languages, are hostile to and suspicious of anyone different to themselves and are happy to live in their own little blinkered world. "

This is called paranoia, and in reality what you say is in the minds of those who like to say such things.

Know what I mean? ;)

Oh, and excuse all my typos /spelling mistakes - its been one of those days!

Given the time of your posting, did you have a liquid lunch before you typed your tirade, eh Steve? Looks like it was "one of those days" for you.

Ok, so Germany and France and all the other countries in Europe do have high or highish unemployment (the Dutch unemployment rate is not so high for example) and ok, perhaps quite a bit of foreign investment comes into to UK, but look at the OVERALL quality of life. Where is it better if you look at it that way? It just seems as if successive UK governments are brilliant at screwing things up. Just look at the monolith known as the NHS. The government throws money at it but changes nothing about the way it is run. The OECD puts the NHS on a par with the Hungarian health care system and rates the French one as the best in the world.

The quality of life in Britain is higher because we use traditional weights and measures. Imagine how dull life must be on the Continent with sterile metric measurements.

Huh? How on EARTH does that have ANYTHING to do with it (appreciate your presumed sense of humour, though)?

"but look at the OVERALL quality of life. Where is it better if you look at it that way?"

1) Why - oh - why do foreigners risk all by smuggling thru Germany, Italy, France etc to get into the UK with its appalling quality of life? Forget Europe, why are Australians and South Africans travelling the breadth of the world to come in the poor old UK? For the weather?

2) You have the full right to move to any of the countries you mention yet you stay in the country of which the quality of life you hate - weird!


P.S. Dutch unemployment is so low because only 73 people live there - the rest are doing "cultural exchanges" and working in Marlow, Buckinghamshire. That's except on Saturday when the only person you're likely to bump into in Amsterdam is from Britain. Something to do with non-prescribed drugs being freely available.

[ps take the last comment with a pinch of salt]

SteveH wrote
<<
Martin: You've never crossed the atlantic? Nice to see how your opinions are formulated then!!!
>>

I have set foot in 29 different countries in three different continents (excluding countries where I did not formally pass through an existing passport control). I have also worked in five different counrties (seven if we include stays of under one month).

It just happens that the most westerly country that I have visited is Iceland and the most easterly is Hong Kong.

Steve,

Answer to No. 1:

Because the UK is seen as a "soft touch" and to a certain extent the most "generous". Germany used to be the country in Europe that received the most asylum applications but since they toughened up their laws, asylum applications have gone down a fair bit.

Answer to question 2:

Because I can't at the moment due to the fact that I'm actually looking for jobs, having recently finished a Masters programme.

As for all the Australians and South Africans, maybe the fact that quite a few of them have family ties in the UK as well as the fact that English is spoke here has something to do with it?

"As for all the Australians and South Africans, maybe the fact that quite a few of them have family ties in the UK as well as the fact that English is spoke here has something to do with it? "

No - they (the ones that work in my office) miss there families back home, with their parents etc being born in their respective countries.

If you go out in London on an evening you will find it hard to dodge a southern hemishpere accent - the place is teeming with them. I often find it difficult to find a Brit in the crowd.

The main reasons they give for coming here are:

1) Money
2) Standard of living (yes, really)
3) And above all - good social life.

Most say that they'll go back "one day" but only one has so far(because his fiancee didn't want to move "abroad")

Steve,

The reason that most Australians and New zealanders are hear is that it is part of their broader education. You will find that most are in their early twenties have recently graduated, completed an apprenticeship etc.

Some South Africans come with the same motive, but with the unstable political climate in RSA, they come with their options open. Other South Africans come specifically because of the policitcal situation - they saw the situation in Zimbabwe and seeing many Rhodesians/Zimbabweans of their parent's generation in deep financial straits, decide that it is better to get out of RSA than to risk being in the same position in their old age.

Your second point has a lot of merits to it and I know it to be true.

As far as your first point - some go home only to come back again.

Some have been here years.

Think deeper

Lots to say, so little time.

{Furthermore, the E roads are very useful when one is crossing from one country to another. For example, driving from Dunquerque to Liege, one need only follow the E42 (I think that is the correct number). Moreover the E road numbers are published alongside the French and Belgian Route Nationale numbers.}-Martin

Sounds like the U.S. interstate highway.

{I live in the UK and in all honesty I sometimes look rather longingly towards the continent, wondering why the UK government can't organize things as well as the Germans, the French etc. seem to do.}-J Doe

It can't, because of it's longtime dedication to human liberty. Liberty demands decentralization.

{German and French health services are signiicantly better than ours, and their public transport systems,}-T. Bennett.}

Both of these services are socialist moneypits.

{ recently read a book on American history in which the author claims that the word "dollar" comes from the Dutch "daalder" (=an old coin). Since there were many Dutch colonists - especially in New York - the "daalder" story seems more likely to me.}-Conrad

Dollar does come from "thaler." Never heard the "daalder" version before.

{to impose a 'Constitution for a United Europe' on the people of Europe"}-T. Bennett

This is backwards. A Constitution is a grant of power FROM the people authorizing a government to exist, it cannot be imposed by a government ONTO the people.

Trust the Europeans to get it wrong.

{the Convention has indeed proposed the introduction of 'dual citizenship' - Euro Citizenship and British Citizenship to run side by side (it has also called for the new proposed Euro-government to have powers to directly over-rule national governments}-T. Bennett.

Once again, I get the feeling they are modeling the "United Europe" after the United States. Strangely, I'm not flattered.

{There's also a story of "Americk" (spelling?), a welshman, descovering America - i like that particular one.}-SteveH

I think his name was Madoc. There's also a myth that his party founded the Mandan Indian tribe.

{It just seems as if successive UK governments are brilliant at screwing things up. Just look at the monolith known as the NHS. The government throws money at it but changes nothing about the way it is run. The OECD puts the NHS on a par with the Hungarian health care system and rates the French one as the best in the world.}-J Doe

If I'm not mistaken, the NHS is a socialist system and thus doomed to failure.

<<
{ recently read a book on American history in which the author claims that the word "dollar" comes from the Dutch "daalder" (=an old coin). Since there were many Dutch colonists - especially in New York - the "daalder" story seems more likely to me.}-Conrad
>>

Both Daalder and Thaler derive from the same Germanic root - just that the spelling diverged over time.

The Dutch 2.5 guilder coin (which was demonetised at the beginning of this year) was know as a Rijksdaalder.

One of the most famous thalers is the Maria Theresa [of Austria] taler which bore the date 1780. This coin was struck well into the middle of last century (1970's I think) bearing the date 1780 for use in certain Middle East countries.

Both coins are crown-sized coins.

Translation from "De Nederlandse Munten - 1972" (Mint = Coin).

Daalder 1. Generic name (origianlly Joachimsdaalder) in circulation in the 16th Century, first in Germnay, then elsewhere as a heavy silver coin ...

I love the way metricheads tell us stuff we know, and moreover, stuff about the history of the origin of various "British" or Ameircan things, in order to somehow educate us in the ways of Europe's greatness. As I have said before, the history of these things is good and not bad; metric is uneuropean and is uncivilised.

Whether or not it is connected to the 'Euro-path' issue I was discussing originally, I don't know...but at the U.K. Independence Party bonfire tonight in Nazeing (at which copious quantities of propaganda for the E.U., the euro and regional government helped the fire burn bright and long*), a report reached me of a brand spanking new long-distance sign at Toddington, reading: 'Hunstanton 187 km'. It's just behind the Oddfellows Arms.


* We'd been collecting it for some time, to help us celebrate a past British victory over traitors inspired by enemies abroad, and to try and do what we can to stem and reverse the activities of today's traitors

Tony,
you started a bonfire out of documents ?
What "freedom" are you exactly trying to defend ?
Since the 10th of May, 1933 doing such a thing has a certain connotation, you know...

Ralf

Come on, Ralf, please *think* before you post.

Your reference is only about occasions when *the authorities* burn books.

Remember we have paid for these propaganda booklets and leaflets through our taxes, and it is distributed to us whether we want it or not (and as it happens we bitterly oppose the contents). Once it has been distributed to us, as free people we are fully entitled to dispose of it either by flushing it down the toilet, putting it in the dustbin, or lighting a fire with it.

I you're really concerned about book-burning or any form of censorship, try booking an internet session in any library in the East of England right now. Hundreds of internet sites which are neither pornographic, nor violent nor incite violence, are barred by the new Cable and Wireless 'Smart Filter' software.

The message comes up: "Forbidden: Hate Speech", or "Forbidden: Religion", or "Forbidden: Politics".

Now that really *is* getting very close to book burning by the state. Someone is *already* deciding for us what we can and cannot read about.

-------------------------------------------------------

[NOTE: I am currently researching the extent of this censorhip and an official complaint has already been lodged with the Head of Essex Libraries. I expect to have a lot more information very soon]

>as free people we are fully entitled to dispose of it
>either by flushing it down the toilet, putting it in
>the dustbin, or lighting a fire with it.

Flushing documents down the toilet: No connotation
Putting documents in the dustbin: No connotation
Burning documents in a bonfire: 10.5.1933

Are you seriously telling me the connotation of Nazi book-burning hasn't even crossed your mind when you did that ? Especially when you're a candidate for a right-wing party ?

I would like to open up this discussion a bit: How many of the posters here think of Nazis when they hear somebody is burning documents in a bonfire ?

Ralf

Ralf,
You may not be aware but "Bonfire" has its own meaning in Britain at this time of the year: November 5th Bonfire Night, the origin of which was in the 1600s and was to celebrate the execution of plotters who committed treason (eg Guy Fawkes). Today, it is an annual event with no overt political implications. Clearly, Tony/UKIP are referring back to its origins.

Ralf,

Please identify *just one* policy from UKIP's manifesto (you can find it on the web) at the last General Election that in any way justifies the label 'right-wing'.

By the way, you are not allowed to say 'Leave the European Union', because this policy is supported by many on the left throughout Europe, and especially in Britain by the Socialist Labour Party and the Communist Party of Great Britain - and by the RMT Trade Union. And you are not allowed to say 'Keep the Pound' either because this policy is supported right across the board including by the Green Party and by a great many Trade Unions, including Britain's largest, UNISON. Oh - and by a signficant number of Labour MPs, who have formed 'Labour Against The Euro' (LATE).

If you cannot identify any 'right wing' policies, I respectfully invite you to withdraw the description of UKIP as 'right-wing', which currently has pejorative connotations.

I repeat that your target should be censorhip by the state and not what people choose to burn on their own private bonfires.

If we think back to 1933 and all that that year represented, we might reflect on the following:

* It began with an unholy alliance between the Nazi Party and the Roman Catholic Church - remember that the two of them signed the notorious 'Concordat' to work together in 1933

* It included the burning of the Reichstag, an event now known to have been perpetrated by Hitler himself but at the time was blamed on opponents of Nazism

* It ushered in a period of severe persecution of the Jews, and of opponents of Nazism

* It was based on ideas of racial superiority

* It included plans for a United Europe (under German hegemony) and a single currency

* It began a period of censorship of opposing views.

Consider this: might you personally have burned Nazi leaflets if you'd been alive in the years following 1933? Or would anyone now be criticised for having done so?

"It included plans for a United Europe (under German hegemony) and a single currency"

Ooooh yeah, Tony luuuuvzzz details that suit his political goals...

{It began with an unholy alliance between the Nazi Party and the Roman Catholic Church - remember that the two of them signed the notorious 'Concordat' to work together in 1933}

The Catholic involvement with Hitler is greatly exaggerated.

And I'm sure the involvement of the Catholic Church with the European Union is also greatly exagerated. If not, then where's the evidence?

As for the relations between Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church, the recent book "Hitler's Pope", I think by John Cornwall, is a good starting point. I am pretty sure that he was a Roman Catholic, and his research was based in years of original research in the Vatican library using documents the Vatican had hitherto kept secret from the world - until he was banned from there when the probable contents of his book became clear.

-------------------------------------------------------

The subject of Roman Catholic involvement in the development of the E.U. is a huge one, with much evidence. I'll start with just three points:

1. The symbols of both the European Union and the Council of Europe are 12 golden stars on a blue background (represeting the ight sky). This is based directly on the Roman Catholic interpretation of Revelation 12 vv. 1-2, in which they (wrongly) interpret 'the woman' as the Virgin Mary.

Go to any Roman Catholic country - France, Germany, Austria, Spain etc. - and you will see statues of the Virgin Mary in almost every church, commonly surrounded by a ring of exactly 12 golden stars.

Go to Strasbourg Cathedral (Strasbourg is the base for the Council of Europe and one of the E.U.'s *two* Parliament buildings) and you will see a huge stained glass window of the Virgin Mary, surrounded by the 12 golden stars, looking over a map of Europe, and wearing the crown of the former Holy Roman Emperor. It was dedicated to European integration on one of the key 'feast days' of the Roman Catholic Church - 11th December - the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception (another Roman Catholic invention).

The Treaty of Rome was signed on yet another Roman Catholic feast day. Many of these facts are set out in "The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the emerging Holy European Empire", by Adrian Hilton, Dorchester House (second edition, 2000), ISBN 0 9518386 2 8.


2. The Pope has recently beatified the three key founders of the E.U. - Jean Monnet, Robert Schumann and Alcido Gaspieri. Beatification is stage one of a two-stage process to being made a saint. To be made a saint requires the performance of a minimum of two 'miracles'.

I'm sure the Vatican will be able to find them (NOTE: Jean Monnet once told a meeting: "We will achieve our goal of European integration so long as we disguise each step in the process as having an economic purpose".


3. On 30 and 31 October this year (the eve of the Roman Catholic 'All Saints Day), the Chairman of the European Constitutional Convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, a Roman Catholic, had *two days* of meetings with the Pope - discussing the *shape of the future European Constitution*. You can check out the details on the Vatican's own web-sites or the web-sites of Roman Catholic newspapers. The European Constitutional Convention is a group of 105 key European politicians planning to introduce a Europe-wide Constitution which will be another step on the way to supplanting the national Constitutions of the nation-states of Europe.

I do nto really see what a debate about the actions of the Roman Catholic Church is doing a in debate about metrication apart from the fact that the people who first introducted the metric system were the French Revolutionaries who, by and large, were anti-religion (Catholic or otherwise).

Ralf - I read with interest your teachings of what the UKIP is about and blindly painting it "right wing".

Again, you do this as a German living in America.

Why not stick to things you know about rather than insult a bunch of people from afar?

As far as I can see the UKIP is not a traditional "wing" based party - rather it encompasses stuff from across the spectrum and is supported by people from across the spectrum.

BTW, I thought that it was a common fact that Hitler was Roman Catholic and the Papacy at the time was seeking to sort out the "Jewish Problem"?

You'll be telling me that Mugabe is a white fella next!

{As for the relations between Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church, the recent book "Hitler's Pope", I think by John Cornwall, is a good starting point. I am pretty sure that he was a Roman Catholic, and his research was based in years of original research in the Vatican library using documents the Vatican had hitherto kept secret from the world - until he was banned from there when the probable contents of his book became clear.}

"Hitler's Pope" is a work of fiction. Yes, he used historical documents in his work, but he ignored anything that didn't support his anti-Catholic beliefs.

The truth is that the Church denounced Hitler from the start.

The Concordat was not an alliance but an attempt to protect the 23 million Catholics living in Germany which were already feeling the iron fist of the Nazi regime. Naturally it was a failure, the Nazis slaughtered over 3 million Catholics by the wars end.

I don't suppose Cornwall mentioned the 800,000 Jews saved by the Catholic church. I doubt if he mentioned how the Pope attempted to convince Mussolini to break with the axis. Did he neglect the 11 volumes of letters sent by the Pope that clearly indicated his opposition the Nazis? Of course not!

{The symbols of both the European Union and the Council of Europe are 12 golden stars on a blue background (represeting the ight sky). This is based directly on the Roman Catholic interpretation of Revelation 12 vv. 1-2, in which they (wrongly) interpret 'the woman' as the Virgin Mary.}

1) That symbol was used by the Church centuries before the EU dicided to use it.

2) There is no connection between the 12 stars in Mary's symbol and the 12 stars of the EU. Mary's stars represent the Apostles.

3) The OFFICIAL catholic interpretation of Rev. 12:1-2 is that the woman with the child represented Isreal and the Church.

{Go to any Roman Catholic country - France, Germany, Austria, Spain etc. - and you will see statues of the Virgin Mary in almost every church, commonly surrounded by a ring of exactly 12 golden stars.}

Again, this means nothing. One of the early designs for the American flag included a star surrounded by 12 smaller stars. Does this indicate a Catholic conspiracy in the United States?

{It was dedicated to European integration on one of the key 'feast days' of the Roman Catholic Church - 11th December - the Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception (another Roman Catholic invention).}

Whether or not the Immaculate Conception was real is outside the scope of this board. However, it makes a great deal more sense than saying that Christ was born from a woman tainted by sin, which is the alternative.

{The Pope has recently beatified the three key founders of the E.U. - Jean Monnet, Robert Schumann and Alcido Gaspieri. Beatification is stage one of a two-stage process to being made a saint. To be made a saint requires the performance of a minimum of two 'miracles'.}

Not knowing what these people have done in their lifetimes, I cannot speak for or against their beatification.

{On 30 and 31 October this year (the eve of the Roman Catholic 'All Saints Day), the Chairman of the European Constitutional Convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, a Roman Catholic, had *two days* of meetings with the Pope - discussing the *shape of the future European Constitution*}

The current Popes opinion on European unity are not binding on the Church. His only authority in that matter would be as secular head of the Vatican.

re: "The truth is that the Catholic Church denounced Hitler from the start".

I pick up just this one point from your posting, Mike, though I could pick up all the others.

Let's look at Slovakia.

"On March 1939, Monsignor Tiso retired to his parish of Banovice...on the night of 12/13 March, two representatives of the German Secret Service came to him to ask him to get in touch with the other Slovak leaders at Presburg in order to form, under his Presidency, a new Slovak government, which would at last proclaim the sovereignty of Slovakia under German protection. Monsignor Tiso acceded to this suggestion..."

- Walter Hagen, "The Secret Front"

"How did the Vatican react? What did it do to prevent the mass assassinations of Jews in the concentration camps *where they were being sent by Monsignor Tiso*, who 'justified' this cruelty by asserting that 'all we do against the Jews, we do for the love of our nation. Loving one's neighbour and loving one's nation have developed into a fruitful battle against the enemies of Nazism'.

"The 'impartial' Vatican behaved towards Monsignor Tiso in a manner which corresponds to its political tendencies. In June 1940, Radio Vatican announced: 'The declaration of Monsignor Tiso, Chief of the Slovak state, asserting his intention to set up Slovakia according to a Christian plan, is greatly appreciated by the Holy See'".

- Henriette Feuillet, in 'France Nouvelle', 25.6.49


As for Roman Catholic participation in and indeed direction of the brutal treatment of Serbs (who are Orthodox) and other non-Catholics in the Ustashe regime of Croatia during the war, the role of Monsignor Stepinac, in personally overseeing assassinations and torture *carried out by Roman Catholic priests* is well attested in many sources. A good beginning is 'Monsignor Stepinac's Croatia' in 'Part IV, The Murderers' Hour', of 'The Vatican against Europe' by Frenchman Edmond Paris (2nd English edition, 1964).

INVESTIGATION:

The sign is a brand new large green-painted metal pole, around 10 feet tall, and sunk into concrete in the ground.

It is situated a few yards south of the Oddfellows Arms in Toddington, at the junction of three footpaths, and along an actiual road. It has been erected in the corner of the car park of Toddington Library, by road-side wall.

It is not yet known who erected the sign, but it does not appear to be of a type normally used by Bedfordshire County Council nor the local District Council. Some national body would appear to have paid for it therefore. We suspect a body involved in some way with long-distance footpaths.

There are three fingers on it, white lettering on a green background, bearing the following legend:

1. (pointing east)

"Icknield Way
Peddars Way
Hunstanton 235 km"

2. (pointing north)

"Monmouth Way
Greensand Ridge
Leighton Buzzard 21 km"

3. (pointing south)

"Icknield Way
Ridgeway
Overton Hill 161km".

There was no mention of miles on the signs. They are of course not authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.


ACTION:

The above distances have been obliterated and the following distances, respectively, substituted:

146 miles
13 miles
100 miles.

<<
There was no mention of miles on the signs. They are of course not authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.
>>

Did the signpost predate the 1994 regulations? If so, why were you modifying it?

As it happens, the Toddington signs were erected very recently.

But the 1994 set of Traffic Signs Regulations merely updated previous regulations - which also specified only miles, yards, feet and inches on Britsh road signs.

So they would have been illegal then and they are now.

It would be daft anyway if pre-1994 metric signs were allowed side by side with later ones in Imperial.

Went out to Toddington to be photographed for this weekend's edition of the 'Luton/Dustable on Sunday' - taking my Pakistani friend with me whom I've mentioned on another thread (the one who tells me that Pakistan is basically Imperial not metric).

We arranged to meet the photographer by the (now amended) sign and were on time. He arrived a few minutes late, parked his car 100 yards or so away, and wandered down the lane towards us. When he got close, we called out to him but he seemed deep in thought.

When he eventually responded, he apologised: "Sorry", he said, "I was miles away".

He immediately saw the funny side of this and we had a great few minutes as he took the photos. It seems he, the journalist, and the editor are all strong euro- and metric-sceptics.

For "sceptics" read "phobics"

From the 1984 Oxbridge Dictionary of Political Correctness:

-------------------------------------------------------

"xenophobe" - a person with a sense of patriotic feeling for his/her country (see war memorials in every town and village in the British Isles to those who died 'for King and country')

"homophobe" - any person who does not enthusiastically support the promotion of homosexuality in schools as an equally valid alternative lifestyle, and who points out inconvenient facts such as that the average homosexual relationship lasts one-seventh the length of the average heterosexual relationship, and that active homosexuals are likely to die at around 40-45 instead of 70-75 because of their unhealthy lifestyle

"Europhobe" - anyone who does not enthusiastically embrace the process of European integration, and especially those who point out inconvenient facts like: decisions being made by unelected unaccountable Commissioners, the fact that the European Parliament has no powers, the fact that being in the E.U. has cost the U.K. (net) over £40 billion to date (plus virtually closed the North and Irish Seas to fishing, after they took command of them in 1973)

"Islamophobe" - anyone who criticises any aspect of the Koran, or the systematic denial of human rights in many Islamic countries, or who warns against the danger of Al Qa'eda terrorist cells in British towns (as conceded by Tony Blair in his speech two nights ago).

-------------------------------------------------------

P.S. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines one of the above words, 'xenophobe', as "a person with a deep dislike of foreigners". Just how outdated and politically incorrect can you get?

"War is peace, slavery is freedom..."

Sad.

If I am a europhobe (rather tahn a eurosceptic) I must be scared of Europe.

I must rememebr that when I'm next on my (numerous) trips to Europe.

I'll remember to walk around with a menacing look of shock on my face.

Yes, Ralf, very sad!

It is of interest to note the E.U.'s definition of 'xenophobia'.

Strangely, they combine the two words 'racism' and 'xenophobia' and give a combined i.e. conflated definition of the two.

This is to be found in Paragraphs 3(3) and (3)4 of the European Commission's "Draft Framework Decision on Combatting Racism and Xenophobia" ('COM(2001)/664 - Final').

For those unversed in recondite E.U. procedures, a 'Draft Framework Decision' is approximately equivalent to the Second Reading of a Bill in Parliament - i.e. the key decision has already been reached and all that remains is for a few details to be discussed. Of course, the matter will be discussed by the European Parliament [Note 1} but any decision they make is only *advisory*. The European Commission and the Council of Ministers have the final say.

The Draft Framework Decision requires all E.U. countries to have legislation in place by June 2004, and these are the main features of it:

"The objectice is to ensure that, in the European Union, racism and xenophobia are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties which can give rise to extradition or surrender [sic] and to improve and encourage judicial co-operation".

Para 3(3) defines both 'racism and 'xenophobia' as:

"the belief in race, colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor in determining aversion to individuals or groups".

Para 3(4) defines the *offence* of racism as:

(1) "public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material containing expressions of racism or xenophobia"

(2) "public incitement to violence"

(3) "public incitement to hatred"

(4) "directing a racist or xenophobic group"

(5) "public condoning, or trivialising, of genocide"

(6) "public condoning, or trivialising, of crimes against humanity, as defined...by the International Criminal Court", or

(7) "instigating, aiding, abetting, or attempting to commit any of the above".


Note 1: The E.U.'s literature says that there is a 'co-decision' procedure between the European Parliament and the European Commission/Council of Ministers. In layman's terms, what this means is: "If the Parliament advises us to do something and we agree with it, fine. If not, er, tough".

Note 2: Today (14 Nov)in Parliament, John Prescott introduced a Bill to give effect to the E.U.'s cherished dream of a "European Arrest Warrant", which will mean that for the first time in hundreds of years, Britons can be extradited on the instructions of a foreign judicial officer without the need for a Court hearing - and indeed, under current proposals, as the government conceded in September, without even having a warrant, so long as the arresting officer "has reason to believe that a warrant will be granted" (!).

Note 3: The E.U. Arrest Warrant will apply to 32 different classes of offence. One of those 32 classes of offences is 'racism or xenophobia'.

Note 4: The arrest may be carried out by a Police Officer from EUROPOL, the E.U.'s own, and burgeoning, Police Force. Very tough if they commit a crime against you whilst arresting you or detaining you, because under E.U. - and now British - law, they are above the law and cannot be prosecuted during their entire lives for any offences committed whilst on duty, including murder. Even the most rabid 'Europhile' would have to concede that this is wrong.

Note 5: I believe you can find the up-to-date position on the new laws on racism and xenophobia at:

http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/133178.htm

The latest ARM raid in Toddington, Bedfordshire, is featured in today's 'Luton on Sunday'; the URL is at:

http://www.seriousaboutnews.co.uk/cgi/xtranews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1037491200,9128,

This morning, on the back of the 'Luton on Sunday' piece on our Toddington raid on kilometre signs, I was interviewed for a full 10 minutes between 7.48am and 7.58am on BBC Three Counties Radio [Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire).

There was opportunity to make all the points I wished, viz.

* Metric signs are illegal
* Councils are breaking the law
* People support Imperial overwhelmingly
* Metric signs are confusing ad dangeroous - I managed to explain the Adam Doggett case
* Converting our road signs would cost £1 billion plus.

The interviewer was hostile this time and struck back with 'stick-in-the-muds who are holding up progress'.

When he claimed his 16-year-old son was metric-trained and had no idea what yards, feet and inches were, I advised him to stop his son getting a provisional driving licence until he was familiar with these and could drive safely on British roads. After that, his hostile tone strengthened!

But he did allow me to give out the bwmaonline.com website at the end of the broadcast, and I concluded by inviting his station to carry out a listeners' poll on the subject. Listeners are now being asked to 'phone in with their views

O.S. 'Landranger' Map No. 164, 'Oxford', proudly emblazons on its back cover the route of: 'E2 European Long Distance Path', which runs NW to SE from Charlbury through Oxford and then along the Thames to Wallingford. It's marked with the new symbol for a European Long Distance Path or a 'National Trail' (*), a series of interconnected diamonds

[* I expect these in the future to be called 'Regional Trails' - once E.U.-approved regional parliaments come in]

What do you specifically have against these paths being called what they are, Mr. Bennett? Is it just because they have the dreaded "Euro" word in them? What if it was taken out, or would "European" in the sense of a trans-European path (not specifically EU) still be wrong?

The objection to 'Euro Paths' is because the *context* is a deliberate plan to Europeanise us. Without that context, I probably wouldn't object.

The plan to Europeanise us has often been explicitly stated by political leaders in Europe and is no longer denied, especially now that we are less than two years away from having a European Constitution imposed on us by the IGC due to take place in Berlin in June 2004. I won't rehearse all the objections to the process of Europeanisation except to note that the three most fundamental are:

a) loss of the ability to run one's own affairs

b) replacement of a democratic Parliamentary system of government by a highly autocratic and undemocratic system of government

c) the phasing out of the finest element of our criminal justice system e.g. 'habeas corpus' and trial by jury, as the E.U. implements its 'Corpus Juris' plans.

Historically, whilst there is much to learn from Europe and we have always tried to maintain friendly relations with our continental neighbours, nevertheless the grandiose schemes of European dictators like Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Hitler have cursed the continent - and apart from the Scandinavian countries and Holland, most continental countries do not have the lengthy experience of democratic national government that we have in the British Isles.

At the moment, Europe in my mind is associated very much with the disaster that has befallen the British fishing industry and indeed the catastrophic decline in North Sea fish stocks - a text-book example of why we'd be better off outside the E.U.

-------------------------------------------------------

Besides all that, Europe is named after Europa, a mysthical creature who had sexual relations with a bull

Problem No. 1 in respect of Britain in Europe:

In Britain far too many people consider 'Europe' to exist in the second or third persons only, and fail to recognise that we have always been part of this continent, our continent, and will continue to be so for some time to come.

What some see as a problem, others see as a blessing.

Let's consider the wise and accurate words of Winston Churchill on this subject:

"We are associated with Europe, but not of it".

In our history, that has been a blessing and not a handicap. Our associations, being a maritime nation, have tended to be across the seas.

Surveys consistently show that Britons feel significantly less European than any other European nation. That's not a 'problem', it's part of our history and culture and no bad thing for that. The same surveys show us to be much closer to the United States than any other European nation.

Perhaps not altogether surprising when you consider that in the last 100 years our good friends in the U.S. have rescued us from wars started by dictatorial regimes on the continent of Europe

"Besides all that, Europe is named after Europa, a mysthical creature who had sexual relations with a bull"

Was it John Bull?

We should recognise that our history and culture has and always will be very closely intertwined with the rest of Europe.

As for the two world wars, I believe we started those by declaring war on Germany and others in order to safeguard Belgium, Poland etc., fellow European nations that were under threat.

^Germany started both world wars by attacking their fellow countries in the first place. If the British had attempted to remain neutral the Germans would enventually have become too powerful to stop, and Britain itself would have been conquered.

So we chose to intervene in order to safeguard the collective fate of Europe, of which our own fate was clearly a part.

We had been involved in this sort of activity as early as the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

Some people, with a nostalgic tear in their eye for the good old days of empire, may wish for some sort of alliance with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.

However, apart from a few Republicans in the Senate, House of Representatives, whatever, in Washington DC, who in these countries wants to join up with Britain? Not very many, I would expect. Aren't these countries (with the exception of the USA, which wants to rule the world) more focued on their own respective parts of the world and didn't some Australian minister once say that Australia was pretty much a "European" nation with an Asian outlook? And also, isn't it the long-held view of successive US governments (Democrat and Republican) that Britain is better off playing an active role in Europe instead of sitting on the sidelines? As things stand, so many Eurosceptics would want Britain to behave with a "head in the sand" attitude (living in "splendid isolation" and all that).

All these countries were colonies of Britain, so the natural momentum for their political identity is to move away from Britain. However, such a move does not indicate hostility or alienation. The English-speaking world is close and does not need political union to get along.

A German associate of mine, visiting England, expressed surprise at the large number of references to Oz and NZ in newspapers, on television and in conversation. He said that in Germany, the only time such countries would be mentioned would be during the Olympic Games when the commentator would say, as the teams march by, "...here is the team from Australia".

In Britain, however, people refer to New Zealand or Canada or South Africa as frequently as they would France or Germany or Italy. We have a global outlook. This may be the reason why Britain tends to remain on the fringes of the EU; people perhaps do not see such an obvious need for it in the way that continental Europeans do.

The use of the above terms ('head in the sand' and 'splendid isolation') goes to show just how much the writer has been taken in by three decades of Euro propaganda. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

How do you think English came to be the most spoken language on the planet? Not by either 'heads in the sand' nor 'splendid isolation'.

The argument about Europe is simply about whether one would prefer to live in one's own house, or move into a large mansion and have your affairs run by a committee (undemocratically chosen at that). You'd have to have a common bank account into the bargain and live the way most of your fellow-residents wanted.

As any fool knows, living in one's house doesn't mean 'splendid isolation', but it *does* mean having a great deal of choice about how you live. And you can choose who your close friends are

<<
How do you think English came to be the most spoken language on the planet? Not by either 'heads in the sand' nor 'splendid isolation'.
>>

... and the most widely used system of measure is the metric system (or system where local units are tuned to map onto easy divisions of the basic metric units).

I think the USA, particularly after 1945, also had a large part to play in the spreading of the English language through the exporting of its culture around the world.

Just out of interest, how many people think it's a good idea to know a foreign language? It's always said that there's no need to learn one as "everyone speaks English anyways". Is that really true, based on your experiences?

"How do you think English came to be the most spoken language on the planet? Not by either 'heads in the sand' nor 'splendid isolation'."

If the answer is to be British colonialism, then we should bear in mind that this is now of the past, and the notion that we should glorify in the fact that we once owned much of the world and fail to take an effective role in Europe is backward and seems to suggest "heads in the sand", whereby we pretend that we are more important than we actually are.

English is the No. 1 world language now for the same reason that the dollar is the No. 1 world currency - the USA. Of course, there is scope for the euro to become the No. 1 world currency but it can only do so if we are a part of it.

Moreover, the EU could become the world's most powerful military and political power. But it can only do so if we are a part of it and support the "United States of Europe" wholeheartedly. Otherwise we're doomed to stay the inferior of the US.

Ross writes of "An effective role in Europe":
-----
Here are a few highlights of Britain's role in Europe pre-1972:

1588 Successfully resisting the Spanish Armada

1605 Discovering a Papal plot to kill the King and blow up Parliament

1685-1750 Admitting tens of thousands of persecuted Huguenots after France revoked the Edict of Nantes

1750-1850 Leading the Industrial Revolution

1795-1815 Helping to defeat French/Napoleonic dreams of a United Europe

1914-1918 Helping to defend smaller countries in Europe from German aggression

1933-1950 Admitting hundreds of thousands of Jews and Eastern Europeans seeking refuge first from Nazism and then from Communism in Europe

1939-1945 Helping to defeat German aggression against smaller countries of Europe a second time around and defeating Fascism

-------------------------------------------------------

Here are a few highlights of our relationship with Europe since 1972:

* Fishing grounds decimated

* £40 billion (net) drained from our economy to support the European Union and less well-off countries, at the expense of our public services

* Loss of our independence in several crucial areas

* Deterioration in our relationship with Commonwealth countries, partly due to the ending of 'Commonwealth preference

-------------------------------------------------------

The E.U. goal is a single Euro-state of 'regions' with no nation-states left

-------------------------------------------------------

Conrad: "Scope for the euro to become the No. 1 currency but only if we're in it"
-----
The short answer is that the euro is not delivering its stated goals and is unlikely to. Unemployment in the eurozone has been going up, eurozone economies are in an interest rate 'straitjacket' etc.

Unsurprisingly, opinion in the U.K. is more than 3 to 1 in favour of retaining our own currency

-------------------------------------------------------
Ross: "Most powerful military and political power in the world, with Britain in Europe"
-----
This reeks of jealously of the United States and rivalry with it. As Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Slovenia are proving, it's possible to be economically successful without being 'in Europe' i.e. in the European Union. And who really wants to be part of 'the most powerful military and political power'?

The U.K. is the world's 4th largest economy and we have a seat on the G8 and the U.N. Security Council. We will not have these when the proposed new E.U. Constitution, due to be ratified in 2004, takes away our right to be represented separately in the G8 and indeed at the United Nations.

Being part of the most powerful military and political power in the world? - no thanks. I'd gladly die for Britain. But never for 'Europe'

A Mr G F of Rotherham has queried a shiny new footpath sign in kilometres in the Barnsley area.

A Mr Robinson,'Regeneration Manager' for Brasnley M.D.C., has replied:

"The footpath sign is on the Trans Pennine Trail, which is part of European long-distance path E.8 and has been waymarked in Barnsley accordingly. The TPT is part of the E8 route beginning at Istanbul and ending in the Republic of Ireland in Kerry, following the Wicklow Way. When completed, it will take in parts of Bulgaria, Roumania, Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and The Netherlands, crossing the North Sea and then the Pennines. E8 currently ends at the Polish-Ukraine border. Daily sailings between the King George Dock in Hull and Rotterdam by North Sea ferries form a vital link between the mainland sections of the route.

"The timber waymarkers are non-standard elements of the TPT site furniture designed for both information and embellishment. I consider these to be outside the scope of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994"