Thursday, 31 December 2009

Fighting Polar Bears

That's a low blow, where's the referee.

Oh, the Nostalgia!

That is the opening for, in my opinion, a great article.

Have a read, and then tell me what you would do to have a leader, like Margaret Thatcher, who put Britain first.

The Thatcher years: no time for soundbites when we felt the handbag of history on our shoulders.

You may not of agreed with her policies, but you have to agree she had the strength of will to put Britain first, no matter what the opposition.

Remember she battled the whole of the EU to get a rebate for Britain, and got it. Only for Blair to give it back for nothing.

Wednesday, 30 December 2009

Is This a Major Shock?

Below is a the headline to this article from the Telegraph

Rising public sector pay cost £11bn in taxes

Britons would have been spared £11bn in taxes had public sector pay rises been kept in line with the private sector over the past two years, according to a think-tank.

I'm not shocked by this.

We all knew that the public sector was being paid more than the private sector, but finding out that they have cost us £11 Billion is unforgivable.

How many quangos are there that doesn't do much else apart than being a talking shop, and issuing useless and stupid new rules and regulations.

I would love to know the truth how much money has been wasted throughout the last 10 years on computer systems that don't work, bonuses for workers who save money on buying equipment that isn't up to the job (yes MOD i am talking about you)

Bonuses for workers who put their 'lives on the line' (yes that's right the immigration officials See This Blog).

The government, local and national, should be under the same rules as private business. They should be legal requirements to show the public, whose money it actually is, that the money isn't being wasted.

If someone in government does waste millions or billions on a computer system that doesn't work, for example, then the people responsible should be fired.

That's what normally happens in private business, but if that happens in government you get promoted and get a huge bonus.

How much of the tax payers money has helped some MPs become rich through house sales, where they buy them cheap, do the house up at the tax payers expense, and then sell at a profit. How many MPs have done that.

Will this all change next year?
Will the public sector pay get frozen next year?
Will we see a reduction in the amount of public sector employees?
Or will it be a token gesture and the status quo will carry on?

That is just what is wasted by the UK Government.
I would hate to know how much is wasted in the EU?

Have a Look and See What you Think

I have just found this and it has made me think.

Why have i become so negative, have i been brainwashed by the media?

With everything going on in the UK and the world you can be forgiven to be negative.

I've been guilty of it in the past, but not every youth is there to cause trouble.

Why has this Bridge Cost £1.6 Million?

I have just read this article in the pioneer and i am wondering why it has cost £1.6 million.

I have no problem with the bridge being built, but why has it cost so much?

The Maesdu bridge is costing from £1.5 million to £2.3 million, but Maesdu bridge is being demolished and rebuilt for use by cars, buses and lorries as well as pedestrians and cyclist.

Was it built to budget?
If it was built to budget, who approved the budget for the bridge?
Is the £1.6 Million part of a bigger scheme that included the bridge?

Call me a simpleton if you like, but i can't see how a bridge like that can cost £1.6 Million.

Monday, 28 December 2009

Council Snoopers

I have just been reading this article about how councils have the authority to go into our PRIVATE homes without police presence or a warrant.

Here is a quote from the article;

The average local authority has 47 employees authorised to enter private homes, although some councils have hundreds of such inspectors.

The Home Office recently admitted that 1,043 different laws permit state inspectors to enter people’s homes and premises.

Although many of the laws are necessary to ensure public order and safety, there are growing concerns that proper vetting and supervision may not be in place for those authorised to enter private homes.

Why do you need 1,043 different laws just to enter someones home. What happened to the legal way of if there was suspicion of certain activities, criminal or otherwise, you go to a court and get a warrant?

The old way was for the police, or other organisations, go in front of a judge and asked for a warrant to search a premises. The judge would ask what evidence there was, the police told them and the judge would either sign the warrant or dismiss it due to lack of evidence.

Now it looks like a council worker can just enter our homes for practically any reason.

For all that's holy, that just isn't right.

As the old saying goes 'A man's home is his castle'.

I'd like to see a council officer try to step into my home without a policeman and a warrant.

This information comes from a report by 'Big Brother Watch' .

I had a read of the report and i was wondering how many council workers have the' authority' to enter (or at least try) our homes in the Conwy county.

Below is the answer;

Clackmannanshire Council 39
Colchester Borough Council 8
Coleraine Borough Council 25
Conwy County Borough Council 361
Cookstown 16
Corby Borough Council 21
Coventry City Council Denied -cost
Craigavon Council 7

Now i am wondering, why does Conwy county council need 361 officers, when the average is 47, who have the 'authority' to enter our homes with out a warrant, when other councils have so many less?

The laws were introduced under the anti terrorist law, but councils have been using it for ridiculous reasons, like checking if parents lied to get their child in a good school and checking if we are recycling properly.

Now if i ever saw an abuse of power this is it. It has to stop before this COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY, OUR COUNTRY falls into a pit that we will never get out of.

In previous blogs i wrote about this country becoming like the old Soviet block Stasi controlled states. Well i have changed my opinion. We are living, right now, in a stasi controlled state.

We have to change this before it is too late.

Thursday, 24 December 2009


Well all presents are now wrapped and in bags ready to take to the in laws for Christmas.

As with tradition, all the men will be chatting away, wearing our new jumpers or cardigans (maybe even socks) our wives or parents have bought us, letting the women get Christmas dinner ready, and before you ask we have offered to help in the past but we all get told to go away.

Then we have our Christmas dinner and all the men go and watch tv, but all fall asleep after thirty minutes.

Does that ring any bells for anyone else?


Sunday, 20 December 2009

Interesting Quote From Copenhagan

Here is a quote from Mr Lumumba Di-aping, after the agreement at the conference was announced;

The quote is taken from this article in the Mail;

Mr Lumumba Di-aping, chairman of the G77 group, which represents 130 of the world's poorest nations, said the non-binding agreement would mean the deaths of millions because of the effects of global warming such as floods and droughts.

Mr Di-aping, a Sudanese diplomat, described the deal as 'devoid of any sense of responsibility or morality'.

'It is a solution based on the same values that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces,' he said.

I have a question;

Isn't Dafur in Sudan?

What is this guy up to?

Last week we heard the unfortunate news of 1700 jobs losses at the steelworks on Teeside.

I have just read this article and i am wondering what is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, up to?

Here is a quote from the article that links him to Corus;

The original power base from which Dr Pachauri has built up his worldwide network of influence over the past decade is the Delhi-based Tata Energy Research Institute, of which he became director in 1981 and director-general in 2001. Now renamed The Energy Research Institute, TERI was set up in 1974 by India’s largest privately-owned business empire, the Tata Group, with interests ranging from steel, cars and energy to chemicals, telecommunications and insurance (and now best-known in the UK as the owner of Jaguar, Land Rover, Tetley Tea and Corus, Britain’s largest steel company).

Here is a quote about his chairmanship of the IPCC;

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

Another quote;

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

Now if there is a conflict of interest with his business dealings outside of the IPCC he should resign.

A quote from the article relating to the Teeside job losses;

It is one of these deals, reported in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, which is enabling Tata to transfer three million tonnes of steel production from its Corus plant in Redcar to a new plant in Orissa, thus gaining a potential £1.2 billion in ‘carbon credits’ (and putting 1,700 people on Teesside out of work).

If the 1700 job losses in Teeside is just so India (Tata) can claim Carbon credits, then there is certainly suspicion of dirty dealing and it should be investigated by our government, wishful thinking i know.

Have a read of the Article and see what you think.

Let's Tax Charities Instead

This is a good one.

The Daily Telegraph today has an article about charities paying for a music licence when fund raising.

The government won't cut services to help with the massive debt we now have, but it will take money away from charities, who are having a hard time raising money as it is.

Although it isn't coming into effect till April 2010, it will cripple a lot of smaller charities.

Here is a quote from the article;

In its own impact assessment the Government admits that it will cost voluntary groups £20 million a year and will be "highly detrimental". Some organisations will "cease playing music" because they cannot afford a license, and it will hit a quarter of a million organisations - 140,000 charities, 6,750 charity shops, 66,440 sports clubs, 4,000 community buildings, 5,000 rural halls and 45,000 religious buildings.

If you think this is a new thing, it isn't. Read this quote;

The clampdown is part on an ongoing tightening of music licensing law which has already proved controversial. Last month this newspaper revealed that police forces were paying hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to allow officers to listen to music at their desks, in canteens and even in cell blocks.

In 2007, PRS launched a test case against Lancashire Police, which it argued was not paying enough money and secured a 20 fold increase. The music bill for Derbyshire Police rose from around £700 in 2007 to £60,000 the following year.

It won't be long before every workplace will have to pay this if they have a radio on site.

I know the government has to find money from somewhere, but to tax charities that is going a bit far.

Friday, 18 December 2009

How to Shoot Yourself in the Foot

Have a look at this picture and have a think about it.

They are two 22 year old young men in fancy dress. Who are they i hear you ask?

Well i don't know who the man on the left is, but the guy who looks like Ziggy Stardust of David Bowie fame is actually Nick Clegg the Liberal Democrat leader.

Here is a quote from the article from the Sky news website;

The Liberal Democrat leader has described his embarrassment after a photo of himself in "ridiculous fancy dress" has been turned into a Christmas card by a Labour MP.

Chief whip Nick Brown used the snap of Nick Clegg dressed as the David Bowie alter ego Ziggy Stardust.

Now in my opinion i find nothing to be embarrassed about in the picture, I'm sure many of us have been to a fancy dress party and have pictures like this somewhere.

What i do find embarrassing is Nick Brown trying to embarrass Nick Clegg like this. Is Nick Brown that desperate to knock another politician that he has to resort to using this sort of picture.

I do hope that someone finds a picture of Nick Brown from his youth and publishes it on the internet and then we will see who is the most embarrassed.

Someone should remind Nick Brown of this saying;

"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Copenhagen Climate Conference

I have been watching and reading about the climate conference these last two weeks and I have seen some things that worry me.

The main reason for the conference is to stop or reduce the effects of climate change (global warming), whether you believe in climate change or not that is another argument.

All i have seen is developed nations, like the US and the UK, desperately wanting to give billions of taxpayers money (OUR MONEY) into a global fund for climate change, and also saying they will reduce CO2 output by ridiculous amounts.

You have the developing nations, like China and India, being told that they must invest in renewable energy sources and not to use their own natural resouces like coal, but the developed nations would help them with money from this global fund.

Then we have the poor nations, who just want as much money as they can get from the global fund. Not because they want to invest it in renewable energy and to build up their country, but just so the leaders and their supporters can keep as much of the money for themselves.

Then we have the scientific research behind the IPCC. I'm no scientist but from what i have read on the subject there is still some doubt on the exact causes of climate change and if global warming is actually happening.

What i would expect is scientists on both sides debating it at the conference, but all i have seen is scientist and other people who are skeptics of climate change being refused entry or denied to ask questions on the subject to scientists and speakers at the conference.

Are they hiding something from us, or are they that afraid of debating the subject in case someone asks the wrong question?

Before this conference i wouldn't of put myself in either camp, if i am honest i was slightly with the skeptics, but after all that i have seen at the conference and the research i have done myself on the internet and the library i am definitely a skeptic.

All i ever wanted was the truth, but from what i have seen and read the IPCC scientists, world governments and the green movement don't want to here anything other than the world is heating up, the seas will rise 20 feet in the next 100 years, the North and South Poles are melting and that humans are the only reason for climate change.

This reminds me of the old Soviet Union where if someone spoke out against the government or communism they were taken away and never heard from again.

We live in a democracy, or are meant to, and it looks like we are being denied our right to free speech.

What with the UK being part of the EU, which is an unelected body, and now people being unable to speak out against something that clearly isn't 100% proven is very worrying indeed.

I maybe wrong, but i believe we are on a slope towards something that people died for in there thousands to prevent.


Thursday, 17 December 2009

I was Wondering

I was watching the news earlier and i was watching an article about the BA strike action and i noticed the union emblem.

Why is the BASSA union, which is part of the Unite union, using as it's emblem a classic WWII picture from the Battle of IWO JIMA?

See Below;
Spot the difference?
Picture taken from

Notice the difference?
Not much if you ask me.

Is it right that a union is recreating a picture where soldiers lost their lives?

Is the union saying that they will put their lives on the line for their members?

In my opinion it is an insult to the people who fought in the Battle of Iwo Jima that a union would recreate this picture.

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

Crime & Punishment?

I just read this on the Sky News website

Nursery worker Vanessa George will serve a minimum of seven years in jail as part of an indeterminate sentence after she sexually abused young children in her care.

The indeterminate sentence means that if she shows that she is not a danger to the public or children, then she will be let out in seven years.

I blogged about 'How Long is a Life Sentence' back in October and I was wondering how long her sentence would be.

I thought that because of the serious abuse that she gave those children she would get at least 20 years before she would be up for parole.

Well she didn't get 20 years, she got an indeterminate sentence, which could mean that she will be locked up for a lot longer than seven years, but all she has to do is trick the parole board into thinking she isn't a danger.

If she does get out, will she be given a new identity paid for by the tax payer?

I have tried to keep calm while writing this blog, but the thought of this scum of the earth being let out just makes me so damn angry and upset.

Why doesn't the punishment fit the crime any more?
Why is it that the government is letting serious offending criminals out from prison early only for them to rob, rape and murder again?

I want to feel safe in my own country again, i want to know that if someone is guilty of a crime that they will be punished accordingly. All they are getting now is a slap on the wrist.

When is Enough not Enough?

I have just read this article about the government buying twenty two new chinook helicopters.

Now this got me thinking back to the news early this year, so i went back and i found an article about the amount of helicopters needed in Afghanistan.

Here is a quote from the article from July;

Gordon Brown clashed today with the outgoing Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown when he insisted British troops in Afghanistan had enough helicopters for the tasks they faced, and denied he had failed to prepare the country for the recent spate of British military casualties.

Now which statement is true, does the Army have enough helicopters now or doesn't it?

I would also like to point out a paragraph from the article today, see below;

Mr Ainsworth said the first 10 Chinooks would be completed in 2013, and the procurement would increase the UK's fleet of the heavy-lift helicopters from 48 to 70.

If they wanted to increase the helicopter fleet in Afghanistan, why didn't they buy chinooks that were already built, so the military had them within a few months not in four years?

In the above quote it says the following;

"The first 10 chinooks would be completed in 2013."

I hope i am wrong in what i am reading into this, but I hope that what he said in the quote has nothing to do with how long our military will be in Afghanistan. I thought Gordon Brown said that we will be pulling out within a eighteen months to two years.

Spend money or Save Money?

This is something i have been thinking of since i read about Gordon Brown giving £1.5 Billion to the fund on helping developing countries to fight Climate Change.

If, and i mean if, the 'catastrophic' climate change occurs, wouldn't the money be better spent on updating and shoring up this country's flood defenses, or was this extra money found down the back of the sofa?

To be honest the flood defenses need fixing now, because as we have seen if it rains more than usual we get flooded. The drainage system in the UK is very poor. We need to build proper storm drains and keep flood plains as they are, so families won't get flooded out of their homes.

The UK is massively in dept and we cannot afford to give any extra money out. The government has to cut back on everything and make huge changes in what they spend on.

I know things are going to be hard over the next few years, but if you are in dept you only spend on essentials and if you have any extra money after that you put it away for a rainy day.

There needs to be a massive rethink of government spending now, and not in 6 months time.

How do you Spoil Christmas for People


Get airline staff to go on strike over Christmas and the New Year.

I know they have their reasons why they are going on strike, but to destroy family holidays with about a weeks notice is just wrong.

Why couldn't they strike after the New Year?
Because seeing people sitting around the airport missing out on their families Christmas, waiting for a possible flight, has a bigger impact.

I would like to ask the union exactly why they feel the need to destroy Christmas for these families. There maybe families flying out to see family members they haven't seen in years.

Also what about the families who have scrimped and saved for this Christmas holiday, and now they find it is in ruins.

If they keep this up, people will stop using British Airways and then BA will go under and then none of the staff will have a job.

I hope they resolve this before Christmas is spoilt for these families.

Saturday, 12 December 2009

Next Year (2010) to be the World’s Warmest on Record, Met Office predicts.

This is the the prediction that the Met office has given. (See article)

Here are some quotes from the article;

Next year is “more likely than not” to be the world’s warmest year on record and man-made climate change will be a factor, according to the Met Office.

It announced at the Copenhagen climate change summit that it expected the global average temperature next year to be almost 0.6C warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average. It forecast an annual average of 14.58C compared with 14.52C in 1998.

They maybe right, but they did predict a 'barbecue summer' for this year.

Let us come back to this next year as see if they were right.

Anyone want to make any bets on the outcome.

Wednesday, 9 December 2009

I'm Sorry but I Don't get it

I'm off to my local builders merchant in a minute to buy a brick.

Why, I hear you say.

Well i have just read this article, and i am going to see if i can make some money.

The artist, Gavin Turk, bought a brick which looks like any you can buy from any builders merchants, signed it and put on a plinth. (See Below)

It is now worth £3000.

The thing is it has been stolen and replaced with a brick like in the picture below.

Art to me is like a Constable or Van Gogh or a Monet, where the artist takes hours to create a piece of art, but this modern art i just don't get.

How can a single brick be called art?

This Gavin Turk who signed the brick is either a genius or someone who is having a big laugh.

What do you think?

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

"Immigration Officials Putting their Lives on the Line for the Country"

The above is a quote from Phil Woolas, the Home Office minister, from an article in the Telegraph.

Can death occur from a paper cut?

Or is it tripping over all the bonus money they received?

How can someone say that desk bound officials are 'putting their lives at risk for their country' when we have our military, who are putting their lives at risk everyday, in Afghanistan.

Is this what some of our politicians are thinking nowadays, that filing papers away is as dangerous as dodging bullets and bombs.

Mr Woolas, a word of advice, engage brain before opening mouth.

What i want to hear now is exactly how immigration staff are 'putting their lives on the line.'

I have a question;

Do politicians know anything about what is happening in the real world?

Monday, 7 December 2009

Ever wondered how to make a HUGE Carbon Footprint?

Well it's easy.

Just get a few thousand of your friends to come along, invite some press and have a chat about saving the planet.

I found this Article at Watts Up With That.

Here is a quote from the article;

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

Read the full article here.

The people going to this conference are telling us to reduce our CO2 output.

Is it a case of do as we say, not as we do.

Or is it a fact they are just hypocrites, who enjoy their luxuries to much.

We should be making small, but significant steps to help the environment.

Like i have said previously in this blog, we should start by stopping the deforestation of the rain forests, and to start planting more trees and plants.

I would love to know how much this conference is costing and who is paying for it?

Keeping Up with the Joneses 2

Well here is another street trying to compete with one another.

You can read the full article here.

Sunday, 6 December 2009

Keeping Up with the Joneses

Have you ever felt compelled to try and beat your neighbour when it comes to the Christmas lights on your house. Well one neighbour thought up a unique way of competing.

You can read the full article here.

Is This The Start of Things to Come?

Stitch-up? Now France excludes Britain from special talks on EU farm spending

France has triggered a fresh row over EU power-broking by excluding Britain from key-Europe wide talks on the future of farm subsidies to be held in Paris this week.

Well, well, well, It didn't take long did it.

Here is a quote from the article;

The French government has summoned a meeting of what it called the "G22" - senior ministers from 22 European states - in an attempt to influence a rethink of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

However, it has not invited Britain or other so-called "reform nations" - the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Malta - all of which have argued for a full overhaul of EU farm subsidies.

Bruno Le Maire, the French agriculture minister, said the aim was to "produce a battle plan to defend a strong common agriculture policy, to support a renewed CAP."

You can read the full Article here.

This might be a one off, but in my opinion i don't think so.

I wonder what will happen next?

Why doesn't this Shock Me

Police force 'tricks' to 'fiddle' crime figures

Police forces are using a series of tricks to manipulate crime figures to give a false picture of their performance, a former senior detective has revealed.

This is a headline to this article

I'm sure people have known this for years, but haven't any proof.

Just give us the truth about the crime figures, and then deal with it.

We all see the lawlessness in our towns and cities, but when they are caught they are just let off with a warning, or with an 'asbo' or get a light sentence if it is more serious.

I would like to see all these league tables for detection rates abolished so the police don't have to worry about how many crimes have been solved this month.

Getting rid of these league tables is a start, but the courts have to do their bit as well. They must give proper sentences to these criminals, not just a slap on the wrist.

The police and courts have a lot to do to gain the public trust again after all these years. I still have faith in the police, but it has gone down over the years. I just hope my faith in the police and courts doesn't go down any further.

Climate Change? What to do?

Yes i have been reading the papers again.

I read this article. It was about deforestation and how to stop it.

Why can't the Copenhagen conference start here with a way to stop deforestation. After all the rain forests have been called 'the lungs of the world' before now.

Here is a quote from the article;

Richer countries would need to put forward money to set up the mechanisms such as a satellite monitoring service to ensure countries being paid not to chop down trees are keeping their promises. There will also need to be cash to help provide alternative incomes for people in and around the forests.

WWF is calling for funding of around £27 billion per year by 2020 to keep the forests standing.

The money could be raised by making forests part of the carbon markets. This would mean industries could pay to protect forests to offset some of their pollution. People could even buy ‘forest bonds’ that grow in value over time as polluting becomes more expensive.

Now, as a start, £27 billion by 2020 is a hell of a lot cheaper than the TRILLIONS of pounds that politicians have said we need to spend to stop CO2 emissions.

If CO2 is increasing, in the atmosphere, then why not start by stopping the deforestation of the rain forests that helps regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I am sure the majority of the population of the world would agree with something like this. Also if everyone buys two or three plants to help off set there own emissions, I'm sure it could all help in the long run.

I haven't got all the answers, but what the politicians are proposing does make me suspicious of their motives.

Thursday, 3 December 2009

The Social Workers have been at it again.

I have a question.

If a child is slightly under weight would you feed him junk food, chocolate, sweets and crisps to get his weight up?

I wouldn't, and I'm sure nearly everyone else wouldn't. This couple didn't and for some reason some social workers, from Derbyshire, took the decision to take the child into care.

See Article Here

Here is a quote from the article

But in a decision that surprised the couple, a social worker from Derbyshire County Council later said that Zak needed to go into foster care so they could “assess his needs” and determine how he ate.

The couple, who have four other children aged under 10, were told that if they challenged the decision, social services would “go straight to court” where “all your parental rights would be taken away”.

I am shocked that they take a child into care because he is slightly under weight, but i am even more shocked that they then tell the parents that if they challenge them they will take their rights as parents away.

That is blackmail in my book.

They must of known they were on dodgy ground by taking the child into care. So what do they do, they tell the couple that their parental rights would be taken away if they challenge them.

It took them four months to get their child back, and guess what they fed him, yes junk food.

Another quote from the article;

Eventually they went to court to try to get Zak back, and after four months, he was allowed to return home after gaining less than a pound in four months.

Social services eventually said they were good and caring parents.

If they were good and caring parents why the hell did they take the child away from the parents in the first place?

I know the majority of social workers are genuine hard working and work with parents to see what is best for the child, but the minority of them, who cause unwarranted situations like the one above, have to be taken out of the profession.

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

Welcome to the UK, a province of the EU

Today is the day that the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. (See Article here)

I am curious to see what will happen in the next few months, and years.

I was against the Lisbon treaty and the EU Constitution before that.

Let us wait and see what Gordon Brown has signed us up to.

Let us see what is waiting around the corner.