The Ethics of Ghost Writing in Politics. Professionals with social media training are inevitability going to be faced with the issue of whether or not to write blogs on the behalf of politicians. This new social media trend is known as ghost blogging. Ghost blogging. House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy told Breitbart News on Saturday a brutal combination of Chinese Communist Party lies and Democrat political gamesmanship led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have combined to inflict serious health and economic pain on the American people.

The reach of global governanceOne interminably dull aspect of the Brexit debate is just how much law comes from Brussels. InFacts, the Europhile propaganda unit, there's no meaningful answer. You would have to be quite scientific in devising a fair and accurate means of measuring. Laws invoke other laws and have accompanying judgements and even if you could devise a method of measuring, the figure would be meaningless and out of date by time of publishing.There are degrees of magnitude.

A technical law on marketing of cabbages is not really the same as a directive to close down power stations. It's largely a product of our media/internet age that everything has to be reduced to a single statistic. In this I would go with the InFacts conclusion - with certain caveats.That said, just because there is no meaningful statistic either way, we should not allow that to distract us from the fact that a massive proportion of technical rules and standards are not made by Westminster - and we adopt countless European and international standards with very little, if any scrutiny.Then there are those binding targets.

While some EU in origin some of the time, they may also be global agreements. Carbon reduction measures being a case and point. These are far reaching and in some cases have massive repercussions, costs and externalities. It's as much a product of our institutional political narcissism as it is our EU membership.

We can sulk all we like about the damaging energy targets but it is our own politicians who pressed for suicidal measures and then gold-plated them.If fact, objections to the EU are often misplaced. Critics are less railing against the EU as the chaos and confusion of conflicting agendas and the lack of a clear line of accountability. The narrative of 'meddling Brussels bureaucrats' is far easier to sell than 'we have a complex web of global laws, rulings and standards from regional, international and local public and private regulators'. In this I don't think the EU has done anything to us that our politicians haven't been salivating for - and since we elect them, the fault is largely ours.Even this blog waffles on constantly about the need for the UK to have a veto but that's largely pointless if our own administration would never in a billion years use it. And so we are stuck with a much more profound conundrum.

How do we get the best from globalisation and harmonisation, while protecting the traditions and customs that define our culture, heritage and spirituality?Ruthless modernists would dispense with the latter, but this is to ignore human element. If people are made to be passengers without a stake in the rules they must live by then they are mere economic units rather than social beings with moral agency.So we have a problem here don't we? As a society we are well aware that we must have standards and regulations and things work better with than without, but without understanding the reasons and the origin there will naturally be a resistance. That's what makes the EU the popular bogeyman. This is not to say I am exonerating the EU.

I'm just saying it's a little more complex.The problem we have when we receive global or regional standards they come with implementation costs that require us to adapt our business processes and override some long standing cultural practices. Since by the time the small business learns of such regulatory impositions, the chances are that it's already too late and there's nothing to be done, no means of raising an objection at the Westminster level and little point in going to an MEP - not least when the standards applied are little, if anything to do with them.So since we cannot block, prevent or amend the law we received it's fair to say we don't have a democracy and the politicians we employ to act on our behalf are part of the problem rather than being a defence mechanism. So clearly, what we need is a system whereby individuals and businesses can seek review and exemption.In some respects we already have this but it doesn't work very well in that it does not feed decisions back up the chain so that issues are taken into account at point of revision.

That means there is no balance struck between the need for harmonisation and the needs of people. It's a question that will plague humanity for as long as we have civil society - and that's really at the heart of the Brexit debate. Is the EU a sufficiently effective mechanism to harness the wealth giving powers of globalisation while preserving democracy?The answer to that is no.

The reason being is that the EU's regional supranationalism is largely based on telling nations what to do and how to do it, and if they don't like it and everybody else does, that's just tough. It is antithetical to both democracy and also globalism - not least when all it does is implement global conventions and laws on our behalf but still gold-plating them sufficiently to close Europe off from the world.Demonstrating the point, the coming into effect. The main changes focus on food production rather than where the food is made, control plans for higher risk operators and a national programme for those who are lower risk, and improving enforcement of the new laws. Businesses with poor safety records will be targeted more and the change means those who already have a good rating won't come under as much scrutiny as those who don't.The laws include all businesses that sell food - from restaurants, to corner dairies, market stalls, or internet cake sellers. It offers businesses greater flexibility and people can sell food they have made at home as long as it meets the same food safety standards as other businesses.So what has this got to do with anything? Well, the DNA of this Act is to effectively implement into New Zealand’s domestic food regime. Effectively the exact same regime as that which forms the basis of EU rules.Yet despite now conforming to the same rules as the UK and the rest of Europe we are not able to freely trade with New Zealand without going via the EU when really the vehicle for harmonisation is less the EU as it is Codex Alimentarius (CA). The reason being that as much as mutual conformity is required there must also be common inspection systems.

My concern is that we are going to have to grow and develop these institutions anyway since that is the direction of travel, and then annoyingly be caught between the two worlds where there the EU refuses to step aside in a battle of wills between two competing forces. The EU and the rest of the world. We will be propping up a redundant construct that causes masses of duplication, clouds the lines of accountability and adds only complexity and confusion in something that should be less complex and less confusing (I won't say should be simple). The push to remain in the EU is entirely driven by selfish concerns from those who profit most from things as they are. That would be fine if we were talking about innovators and wealth creators, but we're not. We're talking about parasites who largely steal our money and bribe us with it.

It works too. All the EU need do is to build a car assembly line and MEPs and MPs fall into line to sing EU praises, when what we really want is a jobs revolution for the North East, not crumbs from their table. And this is really the crux of it.

We don't want this central economic planning. We want real localism, real democracy real global participation and access to the levers of power. The EU is an obstacle to all three. In this morass we go in search of ever more clutter with which to decorate our government.

Regional assemblies, directly elected mayors, devolved assemblies - all in a never-ending search for democracy without addressing the root of the problem. Unless the people are sovereign, none of these voting rituals and high offices can add any value. From there I only see an increasing sense of frustration which eventually turns to anger - not least while the onslaught of ever more regulation from unknown sources freezes more and more people out of making their own way in the world and having a stake in society.Government wants to track and log every business transaction. Our security requires that we have strict mechanisms to protect identity and privacy and public safety.

Eden world builder free. Well-polished block building game like Minecraft. Build your own Eden in Eden World Builder. The ability to paint the game world to your favourite characters. Large variety of blocks that include some unique ones. The price tag also makes it an extremely attractive choice.Summary:.

All to some extent necessary, but as it advances, more and more of our customs and traditions are eroded. Eventually everything is sanitised, homogenised, stamped, sanctioned, numbered and approved - with everything being sacrificed on the altar of 'compromise' and the 'greater good'. Nothing is sacred, nothing is preserved, everything is up for sale and open to killer competition. Where is the soul in this? We need to ask why we should be held hostage to the paranoias and fears of the post-war generation.

Why should we be held back by their antiquated and ill-conceived construct? Why should we not have a say in global affairs? Why should we not have local control over our food and energy? Why should we not have the right to say no to our government?

Why should we allow banks and corporates to do as they please and pick and choose which laws they follow? Why should society be be designed for their convenience?