Sunday, 9 February 2014

Mud-loving Green idiots or Treasury rectitude?

As Christopher Booker points out in his Telegraph comments piece, it is Dr Richard North's skills as an expert researcher that have exposed so clearly the EU strategies behind the Environment Agency's deliberate flooding of the Somerset Levels. Booker fears that the Berlaymont will find willing ears in Whitehall if it protests against any change in the EU policy of surrender. 

What no-one has yet adequately explained is why the Dutch, with their refusal to give up so much as a square centimetre of sea-won land back to the brine, is getting away with it? It costs of course - they pay £4bn a year for sea defence compared to the UK's £0.5bn - but I don't see the EU harassing the Binnenhof. And they're not even protecting their pumping stations against Baroness Young's enviro-terrorists and their limpet mines.

Could it be that whilst Richard North is undoubtedly correct, the EU policy is just too attractive to the Treasury not to be implemented?

Dutch Pumping Station that Lady Young wants to destroy 'with a limpet mine'

5 comments:

right_writes said...

Isn't the situation in the Netherlands a bit more substantial that the problems we have in parts of the British Isles? Would the bill in the Netherlands not be reasonably expected to be much more substantial than that here?

Like "levels" and "broads"... "nether" indicates low and flat lands. The Dutch taught the people of Somerset and the people of East Anglia how to drain and maintain these areas.

Christopher Booker makes the point, and no doubt much is due to excellent research by Dr. North, that the local people have been merrily maintaining their land since the 16th century...

It is in reality a policy to drive these people off of their land, due to some half baked idea that the land should be returned to "nature"...

I am no expert but I spent many childhood holidays right in the middle of the levels and there was no shortage or lack of variety of wildlife there.

Rather, the EU policy is far more likely to be part of the "new religion" and heretics must be taught their lesson, and not only that, we must pay the EU and the government to make sure that they learn it.

Of course another illuminating point made by Christopher (and likely North too), is that the people of the Broads successfully resisted the muscling in by the EA, that the people of the Levels, succumbed to in the 1990's, which is curiously where the problems began for the Somersetters.

Anonymous said...

It is illuminating, the EU is a smorgabord of pick and choose.

In the UK, 'our' the government chooses to willingly obey every EU diktat - no doubt our civil servants spent time and effort in the primary preparation of said diktats and does it not lead one to ponder......

That, the most biased and fundamentalist environmental loonies actually alight in Brussels from Britain and really that, the British government pays full lip service to the green mantras because 'we' drafted them in the first place.

The EA, was in fact enacting government policy - let us sit back to take stock and be wary of labouring under any illusions and delusions, this is chicanery of HMG sleight..... nor should we now listen to the government waffle their equivocation and lies.

Know this, Britain is at the forefront of the green madness, in the UN, the EU and in the EA.

right_writes said...

As one commenter pointed out in Booker's piece on this subject in the Telegraph...

This has got quite a bit to do with "Agenda 21", which is the UN plan for us plebs in the 21st century and beyond...

But you may be right that there are a number of Britons involved in this communitarian chicanery.

On balance, I think that you have your argument upside down and inside out anon.

Tom said...

Whilst there is I believe considerable cause for concern about the encroachment of remote EU bureaucracy I feel that I can safely declare after 4 years of hand to hand combat with the EA that EU directives and regulation do not bother the toxic EA management goons at all... apart from if they're useful to whack opponents over the head with.

The EA work on the principle that handing out millions every year to barristers chambers means that if they're challenged they bury actions for years can easily outspend almost anybody by splurging public funds that have little or no oversight.

The telling part is they only actually wheel out directives/regulation from Brussels when their initial arbitrary whims aren't complied with.

Oh yeah - and they are almost incapable of honesty...

Bonfire of the Quangos? The EA are a strong contender

G. Tingey said...

One wonders.

The Treasury's desire to waste money in ways it want to, and not sensible spending on, say, flood prevention & the Navy ....

Gives me pause.
Maybe, just maybe,the "Environment Agency" are not 100% to blame?