It’s being reported, and not denied, that the EU is demanding a clause in the agreement being negotiated for an SPS agreement to reduce border checks, that Britain will compensate the Bloc if Farage becomes PM and tears up the deal, as he is very likely to do. The amount they want to receive if we pull out is £4.7 billion, which is the amount Brussels paid out to member states affected by Brexit to allow them to build and staff new border posts. UK diplomats say this is normal in international agreements, and we will get money if the EU withdraw. I think it might be normal in commercial contracts, but not in intergovernmental agreements. It smacks of suspicion and lack of trust.
The chances of the EU reneging on a deal are slim to none, while the chances of a Farage-led government pulling out are pretty well 100%. If money changes hands after the next election, we all know which direction it will be travelling.
It reveals which side has the upper hand. If the EU wanted us back so desperately, they wouldn't put hurdles in the way. These are take-it-or-leave-it terms. And we'll take it, I'm sure. It is a small price to pay. Probably, much less than losing the budget rebate.
Iran
Trump has acquired a taste for international adventures, and his next target appears to be Iran, which is sinking into chaos with over 2,000 protesters killed so far in riots against a brutal theocracy that has ruled the country since 1979. If there is one place where US military might ought to be used, apart from Ukraine, it's Iran.
An intervention would remove an oppressive regime and cut-off the supply of Shahed drones to Putin, who cannot be happy with Trump proclaiming "help is on the way" for the millions of protesters.
The only irony is that his ICE agents are killing protesters in America on a weekly basis, at his instigation.
Helios
Today is the last day that opponents of the Helios Solar farm were able to lodge a request for a judicial review. And it won’t happen.
The objectors were not able to get counsel to argue their case before a judge, even to get permission to take it to the high court. The only counsel with the time and capacity to take it on said there was little chance of success, and he said it would be a waste of money, perhaps £50-£60,000 to try.
I have a copy of his written opinion, which is troubling, to say the least. This is paragraph 21:
"Furthermore, having regard to the underlying objective of the policy as a whole, which is to emphasise the benefits of renewable energy development as a means of meeting net zero and improving the UK’s energy security, it seems to me that any policy which purported to impose some kind of restriction or limit on such development in a particular locality would have to be set out in the most explicit terms."
The policy is National Planning Statement EN-3, which deals with wind farms and solar farms.
This legal counsel claims (and he's an expert on it) there is no policy in it that sets out, "in the most explicit terms" any restrictions on where solar farms can go.
It effectively means there is no point in writing in with objections and no purpose served in attending any public examinations. The planning process for solar farms is a charade. They will go wherever the developer can put them. We are all falling under the juggernaut.
NYC and three Parish councils objected, and 351 people registered as interested parties, 98% of whom opposed the development, which will "industrialise" (the inspector's word) 476 hectares of prime agricultural land west of Camblesforth, a village not far from mine. This is in addition to Drax Power Station, a wind farm, and two solar farms being built as I type.
A huge swathe of agricultural land immediately surrounding Camblesforth has effectively been turned over to industry, perhaps 2,000 hectares in all. It is truly shocking.
