More Lab/Lib Dem betrayal

Labour and Lib Dem MEPs vote to give Brussels the power to raise its own taxes

By Mark Wallace

 

Yesterday, the European Parliament carried out a series of votes on the catchily titled ’Report on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: Annual Growth Survey 2014‘ – in essence, a series of proposals on economic and budgetary matters.

So far, so boring.

Amid all the jargon, though, was something rather important. Here’s paragraph 44 of the report:

“[The European Parliament] Recalls its view that the fiscal situation of Member States can be eased through a new system of own resources to finance the Union budget that will reduce gross national income contributions, thus enabling Member States to meet their consolidation efforts without jeopardising EU funding to support investment in economic recovery and reform measures; underlines, therefore, the importance it attaches to the new high-level group on own resources, which should lead to a true reform of EU financing;”

In translation, “a new system of own resources” means the idea of the EU being able to create and raise its own taxes, taken directly from individuals and companies. One of the most fundamental powers of the nation state would be taken up by Brussels.

The motivation for such a huge step towards EU integration is as follows: “enabling Member States to meet their consolidation efforts without jeopardising EU funding to support investment in economic recovery and reform measures”.

There it is in black and white – not only does the EU want to have its own tax-raising powers, it wants them specifically in order to stop national governments being able to reduce the amount paid into the EU budget. This is the fiscal enabler to allow Brussels to wield fiscal power without the consent of democratically elected national governments.

Having been burned by recently being forced to accept a cut in their budget, the eurocrats are apparently intent on preventing that from ever happening again.

Conservative (and UKIP) MEPs voted against the proposal for obvious reasons. To their shame, Labour and the Lib Dems enthusiastically voted in favour of it.

As Syed Kamall MEP puts it:

“Conservative MEPs and the Conservative Government have just delivered the first ever cut to the EU’s overall budget, showing that we are beginning to win the argument about bringing down the cost of Europe. Now the Liberals and Socialists want to hand Brussels the right to stick its own hand straight in our citizens’ pockets.”

It’s bad enough that Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg don’t want the people to have a say on our EU membership , and want to continue handing billions to Brussels. Now they want an EU which can tax us directly, too.

MAMMON versus GOD

Excerpt from:

                                              Mammon versus God

Kitty Little

The Bankers' New World Disorder

 

 

 

MAMMON versus GOD

THE BANKERS' "NEW WORLD" DISORDER

 by Kitty Little

First Edition June 1993

Published by Inter-City Research Press

Until a year ago, like many people, I took a fairly humourous view of "Europe", as something we had to accept and which there was nothing much we could do about.

But having spent the past few months examining its workings in considerable detail, I confess I now see it not just as a huge, crazy disaster, but as something that is truly evil. And I don't think anything has shocked me more than to discover just how astonishingly little most of those in favour of it, from Mr Major, Mr Hurd and Mr Garel-Jones downwards, actually know about this monster which has them all so under its spell. This is why almost everything they say about it turns out, on investigation, to be the reverse of the truth. It is indeed a very strange situation we are in.

THIS EUROPE

THE 2,500-strong British garrison on the Falklands eats a lot of meat. But our servicemen are not allowed to eat the local product because Brussels has ruled that the slaughterhouse in Port Stanley is not "up to EEC hygiene standard". So, at great expense, beef is imported from Uruguay via London and large quantities of lamb have to be brought all the way from New Zealand — while 60,000 Falklands sheep every year are bulldozed over cliffs because there is no demand for them. I am officially informed that the only recorded cases of food poisoning in the islands have been "in the garrison". At least, however, a happy ending is now on its way. Last week an official came out 8,000 miles from Brussels to say that EEC funds are to be made available to bring the slaughterhouse "up to standard". What our own abattoir-owners will make of this, as they are driven out of business by lack of cash to pay for the absurd version of "EEC standards" being imposed on them by Mr Cummer, is another story.

ANNEXE B Financial Recipe for World Domination

(a) "In order that freedom may once and for all disintegrate, and ruin the nations, we must put industry on a speculative basis. The result of this will be that" the profits "will slip through the hands of the speculators, and into the hands of" the international bankers. 
 "The absence of speculative industry would multiply capital in private hands, and would restore agriculture by freeing the land from debt. What we want is that . . . speculation transfer into our hands all the assets of the world".

(b) We shall establish huge monopolies, reservoirs of colossal riches" and then "Economic crises can be produced by us by no means other than the withdrawal of money from circulation. Huge capitals stagnate, having been withdrawn from nations, which are then obliged to apply to those same stagnant capitals for loans. These loans burden the finances of the State with the payment of interest, and make them the bond slaves of the capitalists" — the international bankers — "The concentration of industry in the hands of the capitalists out of the hands of small masters draws away all the assets of the peoples and with them also of States".

(c) "Every kind of loan proves infirmity in the State and a want of understanding of the rights of the State. Loans hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers, who come begging for further loans to us bankers. Foreign loans are like leeches which there is no possibility of removing from the body of the State unless ...the State flings them off. But political rulers do not tear them off, they go on in persisting in putting more onto themselves", with yet more loans needed to pay off increasing interest, "so that the State must inevitably perish, killed by voluntary blood-letting".

"What indeed is a loan, especially a foreign loan? It is an issue of bills of exchange/ containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital. If the loan bears a charge of 5 percent, then in 20 years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in 40 years it 'is paying double the sum, in 60 treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt".

(d) "We shall replace money markets by grandiose credit institutions, the object of which will be to fix the price of industrial values in accordance with our views. These institutions will be in a position to fling upon the market hundreds of millions of industrial paper in one day, or to buy up the same amount. In this way all industrial undertakings will come into dependence upon us. You may imagine for yourselves the immense power we shall thereby secure for ourselves".

The late Kitty Little

Somerset flooding - man made disaster

The flooding of the Somerset Levels is without doubt a man made disaster.This being so, those responsible for it should accept their appropriate responsibility and take steps to ensure no such catastrophe happens again. At present blame is being directed at the government who in turn apportion blame on the various environment agencies who turn it back on central government, thus creating a maize of confusion for the much suffering flood victims. So who are the people who not only allowed it to happen but created the circumstances of its occasion? The answer to this is to be found where no one wishes to look, for the responsibility lies with the victims themselves, supported by the remainder of the British people.

The British people simply refuse to accept that in 1972 the then Conservative government surrendered the sovereignty of the nation to a foreign political power by accepting and ratifying the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Rome. The object of that treaty was, and remains, to dismantle and dissolve the nation states of Europe and create a centrally controlled country called Europe. The signing of that treaty meant that from that moment on we ceased to exist as a nation state.

The supremacy of the Crown, our common law Constitution and our law became subordinate to the European Community which was soon to emerge as the EU. All was done without the people's consent, nor could the people have given such consent for to so do would have amounted to them engaging in an act of treason against themselves. Never the less treason it was and since 1972 Parliament has been an unlawful assembly simply because formerly Parliament drew its legitimacy from the Crown and the Crown is supreme or it is as nothing at all.

The amazing, indeed staggering, thing is the structure of the former nation state continued as though nothing had happened, despite the fact that since 1972 all our governments have been no more than illegitimate agencies for the unelected and unaccountable central EU government to which they accept unquestionable subordination in all things. For the last forty two years the leadership and administration of this country has been a sham, a charade hiding behind its strongest weapon, the incredulity factor.

Apparently the deliberate partial silting up of our rivers came as a directive from the unelected unaccountable central government in Europe, and was in turn administered by its unlawful agency now posing as our government in Westminster; the leader of which has recently been photographed standing out in the open air in Somerset wearing a safety helmet as per health and safety directive imposed by foreigners in a foreign government.

None of this has been kept secret, it is simply a case of the people either not wishing to accept the truth or too content with the deceit to do anything about it. In typical Micawber fashion the people have continued to vote for the Conservative, Labour and LibDem politicians who continue to take false oaths of allegiance to the British people, their fingers crossed behind their backs, whilst giving total commitment to the EU dictatorship they serve.

The sad truth is, the suffering victims of the floods are getting what they voted for, and doubtless they will continue to vote for more of the same.

Only by refusing to vote for any political party or politician that refuses to take this country out of the EU will the British people regain their lawful right to political self determination and self governance.

Yours Faithfully, Bob Lomas. The Magna Carta Society.

It is European Water NOW.

It is European Water NOW.    15.2.2014.  
Dredging those waterways over the years was done for a purpose.  All in those Houses of Parliament now know exactly why they were dredged regularly.  Yet they seem to have rejected their British instincts and turned to foreigners in the EU Parliament who apparently “know what is better” for our Country.
Recorded in Hansard 20th November 2003. Watercourses (Silt Removal) HC Deb 20 November 2003 vol 413 cc942-4  Andrew Selous asked, “What her policy is regarding the removal of silt from watercourses in respect of the (a) European waste framework directive and (b) nitrate directive.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr Elliot Morley) answered, “ Neither the waste framework directive nor the nitrates directive applies to the removal of silt from watercourses. However, the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 control the application of dredged material to land and the Government have made use of their discretion under article 11 of the waste framework directive to provide licensing exemptions for dredging from inland waters.
Andrew Selous,  “Flooding is a real concern to many of my constituents in their towns and villages. What advice would the Minister give to the Bedford group of drainage boards, among others, who wrote to me recently, as they believed that an increased risk of flooding would result from reduced dredging, which they think will happen when silt removed from watercourses cannot be sent to approved landfill sites after 2006?
Mr Morley: “In my experience, it is rare for a drainage board to send dredging to landfill sites, so that should not have an effect. There has been some concern about whether traditional dredging methods, which leave spoil and vegetation along the side of dykes will be restricted in some way. That will not be restricted. The regulations will prevent spoil from going to landfill, but the hon. Gentleman will find that that is a very unusual procedure in drainage. If there is a major problem, I shall be happy to speak to him and to look into it in further detail”.   End of quotes, although he does not answer fully the main question, the rest-which is not too long- is on,
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/2003/nov/20/watercourses-silt-removal
"Then 20 years ago the Environment Agency decided to stop spending money on river maintenance and now this winter we've seen what has happened as a result." http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Money-heart-crisis/story-20634392-detail/story.html
The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into force in December 2000 and became part of UK law in December 2003. It provides an opportunity to plan and deliver a better water environment, focussing on ecology. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33362.aspx
Farmers outraged as Agency prepared to auction dredging kit. http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Farmers-outraged-Agency-prepared-auction-dredging/story-20634505-detail/story.html
With the fiasco that is on going at present-was it worth turning out to vote for anyone here in the UK House of Commons?    Did they REALLY not dredge because of EU Legislation as reported in one Newspaper? 
Let us see Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy".  Oh! And by the way, it is "European Union WATER" now and apparently has been for some time. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:EN:NOT    WHICH ALSO READS "(10) The Council on 25 June 1996, the Committee of the Regions on 19 September 1996, the Economic and Social Committee on 26 September 1996, and the European Parliament on 23 October 1996 all requested the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for a European water policy."
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1.  Purpose. "The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater which: 
(a) prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems.
From Directive L. 288/27 6.11.2007, at point (5) reads. "The Commission Communication of 12 July 2004 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the regions, 'Flood Risk Management   ... Flood prevention, protection and mitigation sets out its analysis and approach to managing flood risks at Community level, and states that concerted and coordinated action at Community level would bring considerable added value and improve the overall level of flood protection." 
Dredging those waterways over the years was done for a purpose. All in that Houses of Parliament now know exactly why they were dredged regularly. Where did that money go to that we “SAVED” by not dredging?  Did they REALLY not dredge because of EU Legislation as reported in one Newspaper?  A NEW EU Floods Directive. Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks entered into force on 26 November 2007. This Directive now requires Member States to assess if all water courses and coast lines are at risk from flooding, to map the flood extent and assets and humans at risk in these areas and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk. With this Directive also reinforces the rights of the public to access this information and to have a say in the planning process.  ETC on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/flood_risk/
(1) “Floods have the potential to cause fatalities, displacement of people and damage to the environment, to severely compromise economic development and to undermine the economic activities of the Community”.   Sadly, this has come to be.
(14) Flood risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. With a view to giving rivers more space, they should consider where possible the maintenance and/or restoration of floodplains, as well as measures to prevent and reduce damage to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity. The elements of flood risk management plans should be periodically reviewed and if necessary updated, taking into account the likely impacts of climate change on the occurrence of floods. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32007L0060:EN:NOT
See also. NEWISH.  The EU Water Framework Directive - integrated river basin management for Europe  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/  This more or less tells you much of what you want to know.
 I wonder what is in the WASTE water in people’s Houses at present?  Some halfway up the Ground floors.  I hope some of our present MP’s share the pain of those poor people we have seen on TV.  I do, I really do, maybe they may realize that they are in Parliament to GOVERN this Country according to our Constitution-not to those treaties THEY have signed-without ever letting the people have a say. 
Perhaps the people will have a say in 2015 and only vote for any Organisation or Political Party that wants OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION-FOREVER.
The EU Website proudly states “WATER IS FOR LIFE”.  Sadly, if water is not managed correctly and professionally, it can also “ TAKE LIFE” as we have witnessed so very recently in February 2014. 
Anne Palmer.

Solution to the Flooding Situation Caused by HAARP

Solution to the Flooding Situation Caused by HAARP for

The benefit of Agenda 21 and Fracking Companies

 

Dear Traitors in Power, Bankers and Corporations,

Those of us that are consciously aware know of the geo-engineered flooding project associated with Agenda 21, HAARP, Chem.-trails and weather modification under the pretext of “Climate Change”, for the benefit of the fracking companies. We are definitely certain that the game is up for you, as your project of sustained flooding has gone completely wrong, out of your control. From your statement of money is no object to sort this mess out, now all of you have to foot the bill, however not from tax payers’ money.

YOU, YOUR CRONIES AND THE TRAITORS OF THE EU, HAVE BEEN FOUND OUT, and therefore SHALL NOT GET AWAY WITH THIS.

Your solutions to the problem of increased flooding will not work, you cannot contain this ongoing flooding, providing that continuous depressions/storms keep on forming mid Atlantic off Azores or south west of the Western Approaches, due to the engineered position of the Jet Stream. HAARP could quiet easily shift the jet stream so that these low pressures take a natural course clear of the UK in a NEly direction by the spinning of the earth “Coriolis force.” Maybe some MET Office person can explain this to you lot.

Solution to the Flooding

1. Sack the idiots in the Environment Agency- they have caused enough damage already and have lost public trust from the affected population.
2. Insurance companies to pay out whatever is required until they go bust, because they rob off the needy to line their own pockets. Flood victims should not have to fork out extra premiums for the engineered flooding by all of you.
3. You and the other 649 politicians, Whitehall civil servants admit that you are guilty of this fiddling the weather for corporate means – Agenda 21 and Fracking.
4. The army and royal navy personnel do not have experience in dealing with this crisis. It needs personnel from the Merchant Navy whether active on ships, on leave or those whom were recently at sea, last 10 years, or retired. Set up a helpline for Merchant Navy Personnel to contact, particularly us chaps that have tanker ship experience.
5. Merchant Navy personnel put in charge of the operation to co-ordinate, distribute, equipment and resources, personnel and direct fire brigade, rescue organisations police, and volunteers, etc.

Tackling the flooding

Everything in the natural world is always in a state of equilibrium; therefore whatever happens in one locality has the opposite effect somewhere else.

When it rains the water is soaked up by the land and travels through into underground streams and ends up eventually into the rivers, and flows to the estuaries and out to sea.

Large volumes of water need to be removed and deposited into the sea from the rivers at the point where the banks burst.

There are 2 ways of transporting this water to the sea, as the rivers are unable to cope with the large volumes of collected water; hence the rivers burst their banks. The two ways are either by 35m3 size road tankers or by low draught barges.

The water would need to be pumped from the river at many locations into the road tankers and these are driven to the nearest coastline to pump on to the beach and the tide will take it out.

Tanker barges would use their pumping system on board to fill up or portable transfer pumps.

Road Tankers
many road tankers would be needed for this operation, in each area Thames or Somerset Levels minimum 50 in each region. Ancillary equipment required Heavy duty mud pumps pneumatically driven from portable diesel air compressors (building site, road work companies provide). If not mud pumps then Wilden pumps/ Sand piper pumps size capable of transferring water at 20m3/hr. Reels of transfer hose 2”-4” dia, Rafts or booms capable of positioning these pumps in the centre of the river and permanently made fast to the bank or very strong point using shackles rope or chain. Reels of compressed air hose.

The road tankers fuel is free for this operation, likewise all the equipment is supplied from the various companies that stock and manufacture this equipment in the UK, all expenses for this equipment from Government.

Tanker Barges

Quickest and easiest solution, however the barges would need to be of a width to fit through the Thames Barrier and also to be able to have sufficient draft in order not to go aground at shallowest parts of the river Thames. The barges would be filled either using the above pumps (many for one barge) or using the pumping arrangements on board these vessels to fill up quickly.

If the barges are inland waterway type then they will have restrictions on proceeding into The Thames Estuary, where the water would be pumped out, or if the barges are too wide to pass safely through Thames Barrier, then another solution would be required.

This would involve the water being pumped from the barges into coastal tankers stationed the sea ward side of the Thames barrier by using flexible hoses connected from barges to the tankers. The tankers would then proceed to say Margate Roads or Sunk and discharge this water. The coastal tankers would only need to keep ballast water on board to a minimum condition for stress, bending moments minimum draft for propeller and rudder immersion, therefore when receiving this water no de ballasting is required.

Using, either method the results would not happen quickly but over the course of 5 days round the clock operation, a noticeable change would be observed because the water would recede back from the residential areas, fields and highways to the lowest point that being the river with a drop in water level between the river banks. Sand bags and other containment arrangements are a complete waste of time as the damage has been done; these methods are ok providing it is on a small scale, not at this stage of the game. By utilising one of these methods or both would speed up the cleanup operation, if left to nature, the flood water would not dissipate by natural evaporation to at least June.

Mr Cameron get the Merchant Navy chaps to do the job because other organisations are not up to the task. British Merchant Navy Officers and Crew (when we had a Merchant Navy thanks to you traitors whom have made us extinct), where the best in the World at the tasks we were trained to do.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Mitchell

 

A Merchant Navy Chief Officer

It's all EU water now.

Look at Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy". Oh! and by the way, it is European Union water now and apparently has been for some time.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:EN:NOT WHICH ALSO READS "(10) The Council on 25 June 1996, the Committee of the Regions on 19 September 1996, the Economic and Social Committee on 26 September 1996, and the European Parliament on 23 October 1996 all requested the Commission to come forward with a proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for a European water policy.".

From Directive L. 288/27 6.11.2007, at point (5) reads. "The Commission Communication of 12 July 2004 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the regions, 'Flood Risk Management. Flood prevention, protection and mitigation sets out its analysis and approach to managing flood risks at Community level, and states that concerted and coordinated action at Community level would bring considerable added value and improve the overall level of flood protection."

http://order-order.com/2014/02/10/the-whole-house-is-implicated-in-the-failure-of-the-environment-agency/#comments

Anne.

EU policy, deliberately flooding the Somerset levels

 

Alvechurch Bugle 4 - 008 ( 4 – 1 – 14 )

Somerset drowning, in EU waters.

The current crisis on the Somerset Levels , is a personal tragedy for its residents, and an event which has brought this little known corner of England to the nation's attention, and simultaneously turned the spotlight on those who must accept some part of the blame.

It will surprise no one to learn that the bungling, overpaid occupants, of London centric government, are more than a minor part of the problem.

Their failure to observe what the EU is deciding in Brussels, and implementing in the UK, without 95% of our : Lib Lab Con M.E.P.s and M.P.s even noticing, is central to understanding the situation.

Lib Lab Con have, for forty years, been very reluctant to make themselves conspicuous in Brussels, or question what goes on there, for fear of drawing attention to the fact that all three were party to the events of 1972/73, when they turned a blind eye to Heath’s treasonous activities, and ever since as a result, have totally failed to act in the best interests of the British electorate.

Today’s crisis in the West Country is we learn, not entirely unconnected with our cripplingly expensive involvement with the EU and its flawed environmental policies, in this case, via a conference in Warsaw in 2003 , and Directive No. 2007/60/EC.

How could anyone expect Lib Lab Con to be aware of this, when they are so deeply engrossed in pretending that our EU membership is legal, and good value for money ? - - WHICH IT ISN’T.

Hence super quango : The Environment Agency, under pressure from : over borrowed – cash strapped Westminster, dutifully slashed their departmental spending with little regard for the catastrophic effect this would have on those who reside in Somerset, and pay their taxes .

Lord Smith predictably, has made a puerile attempt to throw the blame back onto the electorate by piously declaring that :

We must make difficult choices, and decide whether we protect town or country - we can’t afford to do both !

We could of course if we stopped sending £ 50 million a day to unaudited Brussels.

The simple choice for the British electorate, is to cease to vote for Lib Lab Con in all future elections at every level, for to do otherwise, so is to vote for more of the same, something we can’t afford and don’t want.

A much used short phrase in recent times, has been : REGIME CHANGE, and it is usually applied to troubled nations far away, but no nation ever needed this to happen to them, more than we do at this time.

Ed. - - - - Bromsgrovia.

Click here: Inside the Environment Agency - Welcome to Inside the Environment Agency

Dr Richard North explains the EU angle to the Flooding story. Strange that no one else seems over inclined to point this out.

No surprise that the pro EU Westminster troika forget to mention it. Nor is it any surprise that the
media fails to point this out. But what about EUKIP? Any comment from UKIP's MEP's? If there have been they've kept it very quiet - haven't they!

EU policy: deliberately flooding the Somerset Levels

 

Monday 3 February 2014

 

It is all very well for Chris Smith, Chairman of the Environment Agency, to prattle on about "difficult choices", and to tell us that "more must be done to protect the Somerset Levels". But in the flooding crisis over which he is presiding, there is one which Smith's Agency, at the behest of the EU, deliberately allowed to happen.

Allowing the flooding is a matter EU policy, introduced by a 2007 Directive and consciously adopted by the Environment Agency in 2008, which then sought to increase the frequency of flooding on the Somerset Levels.

What then makes it impossible for the people on the spot, like Owen Paterson, is that they are having to deal with decisions made years ago. Only now are the consequences of those decisions becoming evident, while the people (or agencies) who contributed to this disaster are entirely invisible.

In the "invisible" class is that classic elephant in the room, the European Union, which was behind the last great change in British strategy, heralded by a Defra consultation document in July 2004 called "making space for water", introducing "a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England".

The clue as to its provenance came on page 23, under the heading "European Dimension", which told us that flood risk management was being discussed at the EU level, and the themes under discussion were "all consistent with this consultation and the current approach in England".

The outline of the EU approach had in fact been published in a COM final, (2004)472, the very same month as the Defra document, signalling the "European" interest and warning of further activity to come.

At the time, Charles Clover, writing in the Telegraph was very far from being impressed. He complained that, while Defra calls it "Making Space for Water", others called it "flooding". And, in those few words, the future government policy was revealed. Flood defence was to give way to "management".

Government consultation continued into 2005, making it very clear that a "new strategic direction" was involved, one which involved changing the emphasis from flood protection to allowing certain areas to flood.

For Somerset, this had already been spelled out in an EU-funded conference in Warsaw in 2003. Flood defence for farm land, along with high levels of subsidies, was for many years an important element of Britain's production-orientated agricultural policy, wrote the authors. Many floodplain areas benefited from publicly-funded flood defence and land drainage schemes which reduced crop damage and facilitated a change to more intensive farming systems.

Recently, however, they continued, policy emphasis has been placed on environmental enhancement, on greater diversity of economic activity as a basis for sustainable rural livelihoods, and on public enjoyment of the countryside. Funds previously committed to support farm output are increasingly diverted to encourage land managers to deliver environmental benefits.

In this context, we were told, there is reduced justification for high standards of flood defence for agriculture. Indeed, there may be substantial benefits if some floodplain land is returned to its previous unprotected, un-drained condition.

Therein lay the death knell for the Somerset Levels, as a new term was to dominate policy: "Washland". This was an area of the floodplain that was to be allowed to flood or was deliberately flooded by a watercourse for flood management purposes.

Unacknowledged by either government, the media or even Chris Smith in his current diatribe, this policy was given legislative force, not by the Westminster parliament but by an EU directive 2007/60/EC of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks.

There, in recital 14, we saw spelled out the requirement that flood risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. But, "with a view to giving rivers more space, they should consider where possible the maintenance and/or restoration of floodplains, as well as measures to prevent and reduce damage to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity".

There, writ large, was Defra's "making space for water" policy and all that was needed for an already Green-dominated Environment Agency to abandon the Somerset Levels.

The shift in policy can be seen with brutal clarity on the Coimmission website which gives priority to the "environment", citing a raft of EU measures, including the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. The Floods Directive, we are sternly warned, has to be implemented by 2015.

Just so that there should be no doubts as to where the policy thrust law, DG Environment in 2011 issued a note, stressing that flood risk management "should work with nature, rather than against it", building up the "green infrastructure" and thus offering a "triple-win" which included restoration (i.e., flooding) of the floodplain.

By then, the Environment Agency needed no encouragement. In its March 2008 plan it had decided that, "providing a robust economic case for maintenance works on the Somerset Levels and Moors remains a challenge" (p.131).

We believe, the Agency said, that "it is appropriate to look again at the benefits derived from our work, particularly focussing more on the infrastructure and the environmental benefits, which previous studies have probably [been] underestimated".

We have, they said, "international obligations to maintain and enhance the habitats and species in the Somerset Levels and Moors, and it is within this context that all decisions have to be made".

And, with that, they were "doubtful that all the pumping stations on the Somerset Levels and Moors are required for flood risk management purposes. Many pumping stations are relatively old and in some cases difficult to maintain. It is necessary to decide which ones are necessary particularly in the context of redistributing water".

Of six policy options, the Agency thus adopted the sixth, to: "Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere, which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction". This policy option, they said, "involves a strategic increase in flooding in allocated areas" (p.141). The Levels were to be allowed to flood, as a matter of deliberate policy.

Thus, when the BBC reported that the government had been "slow to act", it could not have been more wrong. It had been there years before, planning to make the disaster that has overtaken the people of that part of Somerset a routine occurrence, not so much man-made as made by government.

By the time Owen Peterson arrived to try to deal with the situation, he was years too late. Between the EU, the previous Labour government and the Environment Agency, the damage had already been done.