Happy Danes - What makes a people Happy?

What actually makes a people happy?

Columbia University’s Earth Institute has recently publicised their “Happiness Report” concerning the happiest people in the world. The Danish professor, Christian Bjørnskov from the University of Aarhus (Denmark), has subsequently summed up the perhaps surprisingly simple causes for general happiness in a nation.

Denmark has again landed at the top of the world.

If you believe in the ordinary leftist explanation, that happiness in a population comes from the re-distribution of material wealth, like taxing the rich and giving to the poor, you’re apparently off- track. Research does not support this notion.

Material wealth is perhaps an underlying fact, but as the aphorism goes: “If I have to be sick, I prefer to be a rich sick, rather than a poor sick!”

Three specific condition appear to be really significant; Trust, self determination and political freedom and stability.

In Denmark 70% of people indicate, that they implicitly trust other people. The international average is a miserable 27%.

94% of people asked thought they could change their lives if they wished to do so, indicating a high level of personal freedom. Again the international average trails at a mere 65%.

According to the professor, it is a major mistake to believe in the political big brother games, that have as an objective to create happy people through a manifesto of intervention, usually found in the blocks to the left.
It is more important to create the framework that supports the two first conditions. This can best be done through a stable political system, that ensures the individual’s ability to choose the life he or she wants – with an ability to change if the choice didn’t work out.

In short: Reasonably well off people in a stable and hands-off political society with strong norms of trust are the most happy.

In a way this is not a surprise to me.
In my career as a Management Consultant I always emphasised, that lots of research indicated ‘Trust’ in the Leaders of a company to be a necessary condition for success.

Surely, ‘Trust’ is not there by default – it has to be generated, earned.
This goes for politicians too!
But once there, it is incredible what a company – and a country – can achieve.

This lesson leads to some serious questions.

How come that muslim countries around the world experience mass emigration, violence and internal unrest? If the underlying conditions for happiness are general (self- determination, stable political hands-off regimes and trust) then that answers the question. An environment, where everything in life is dictated, where deviation is severely punished and half the population (women) are subservient to, and dependent on, the other half, does not seem to promote happiness.

And even more so: How about the attempts of the EU massively to grab power over people’s lives, issuing decrees, standards, directives and laws from a central ivory tower while eliminating the people of the member nations’ right to determine their own destinies?

The research of Columbia University’s Earth Institute seems to have proven beyond doubt that the EU, in particular the Spinelli Group, is on the way to create chaos and unhappiness.

Think about that when you vote next time, e.g. 2014 and 2015 in the UK and Denmark.

There’s still time to get it right.

Better off out – UKIP.

PS – UK is nr. 22 - - - - -

EU, the Spinelli Group and a Federal disaster suggestion

A Fundamental (F)Law

The Spinelli Group of the EU has just given birth to their proposed European Constitution, a revised Lisbon Treaty, of the future.
It is dire reading.

On the surface it looks thorough and with due consideration to the obvious – and admitted – flaws of the present system. They even admit to the mess the rest of us have been able to see for a long time.
But when you dive into the details it is nothing less than a horror story!

First of all: Who are these guys?

The Spinelli Group was formed in 2010 with the purpose of actively promoting European federalism and ultimately pushing the already existing attempts to eliminate the national state.

Well known members are Jacques Delors, Mario Monti, Joschka Fischer, Guy Verhofstadt, Daniel Cohn Bendit, Andrew Duff and Isabelle Durant and 100 more – all names that I am sure history will judge NOT as post-war peace makers, but as people who destroyed the uniqueness, competitiveness and strength of loosely united countries, that should have learnt from past wars and mistakes and realised that cooperation under diversity was a strength to cherish.

But here's news for you, guys: Centralisation doesn’t work!

We now have a monster of un-democracy, bribery of everything from states, companies and charities to NGOs and individual Consultants. Unbelievable waste of astronomically large funds is a daily occurrence and self-service and sufficiency is a standard that makes the officers of the EU monstrosity and their supporters rich beyond reason.
EU has become an organisation that mixes itself in a dangerous and uncontrolled way into the world’s politics, disregarding member states’ laws and sending money to terrorist organisations like Hamas while consistently blaming Israel for everything.

The failure of the Euro proves beyond doubt, that the founders had no idea about economics while pushing a political dreamscape down peoples’ throat. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are the external proof of this statement. Internally the costs to maintain the illusion continue to rise while everyone involved stuff their own pockets to the cost of taxpayers in the 28 participating states, in the UK £55 mill/day – except Greece, where no one pays tax.

Baroness Ashton, the EU “Foreign Secretary” maintains a budget of 500 mill Euro/year – for what? What is there to show for it?
And how about the 900 Bill Euro/year that floats around the Brussels labyrinth without proper accounting and audit?

So the Spinelli Group of MEPs has ostensibly set out to remedy some of the negative issues in the EU construction, at the same time as they are making an attempt to bring the derailed train back on the federal track through a new draft treaty of the European Union, published by Bertelsmann Stiftung.

A Fundamental Law of the European Union, as it is called, is offered as a major contribution to the debate on the future of Europe.
So far so good – but then one reads on - - - - -

The group admits that there is an economic crisis – well, none of the founding fathers had any idea about economics, so what to expect?

They also admit that there’s insufficient governance to deliver the EU objectives – let alone leadership. (Is that one in the eye for Baroso, Schultz and this guy, whom Nigel Farage calls a “wet cloth” – whazz’is name? Oh, Van Rompuy! Yes, again: who’s he?)

The Spinelli Group admits that the public opinion is hostile (how about asking why?) and they believe this is a barrier for the (stupid) national states to ignore their (stupid) citizens, as they refrain from explaining the golden future of joining a centralised colossus while releasing them from any form of autonomy.
EU knows best.

Wasn’t that the approach of Lenin and Stalin?
If just people understood that the government knew best and people only needed to be better informed in order to grasp the centralised happiness?

Perhaps that’s why the EU has assigned 35 mill Euro to the information campaign before the next EU Parliamentary election?

Read this again, please, and let it sink in!

Let’s see what the Spinelli Group has to say!

“The European Union needs to assert itself. The European challenges can only be met in a European way.”

How about asserting itself through doing ‘a good job’? As a minimum with an agreed ROI, to common benefit, with an audited budget, with less waste and corruption – etc.

And what on earth is a European Way?

The Greek way? The German, French, Irish, Swedish way – or a mish-mash average? Or, as I suspect, the way decided unilaterally by the Spinelli Group. Or by Van Rompuy?

This seems to me to be a further departure from democracy – and this, in my opinion, is exactly what it is about: Total centralisation.

I think we have just seen what that means during 70 years central governance in the Soviet Union.

It didn’t work.

Again, history shows it: Centralisation in general just doesn’t work.

The following pearl is equally bland:

“People grumble about the EU’s democratic deficit, when what it really suffers from is a deficit of government”.Who says we want this government at all?

The Commissioners, the Council and most of the EU Parliament seem to have no idea what is going on beyond the tip of their noses, committing hubris about own importance and looking only at what they want and do themselves, not being concerned about what a growing majority of citizens say. Look at the election participation as a measure: it has gone from 62% in 1979 to 43% in 2009. The election in 2014 may become a tell tale, although a higher turnout is possible, if people understand that enough is enough: we don’t want this any more – and the ballot box is the way, both the European one and the National one (while we have it!!)

But the nightmare really begins, when we read the Headline Proposals.

Here is a selection of the 25 that are mentioned:

Headline Proposals:

2. The Constitutions of the EU states must respect EU values.

What this really says is, that the national states’ values and constitutions shall become null and void as the centralised EU Federation develops its own constitution and laws.

3. The [EU] Comission becomes the EU Government answerable to the legislation of the [EU]Council and the [EU]Parliament.It cannot be said more clearly: The National state, its parliaments and legislators will become obsolete and be eliminated. Point 4 following, as an attempt to express the harsh reality in a milder form, does say: Limited right of legislative initiative – but it takes only the removal of one word, limited, or to re-define it, to explode the meaning of this point.

10. Widen the Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.This is an entry to all laws becoming generated and determined by the EU Federal State and not the National State.

12. Ending rigid unanimity for future treaty change and entry into force.In other words: whatever the electorate votes, the EU will decide the outcome. We saw that in Holland, France, and Ireland when they voted no the Lisbon treaty. The message was: vote again and now vote yes. Or the threat to impeach Vaclav Havel, if he didn’t sign up.

13. Ending opt-outs in justice and home affairs.Several countries have special arrangements, e.g. Denmark. This must stop, according to the Spinelli Group – everyone must live under the same hat and the EU will take responsibility for all home affairs laws. (I read this 4-5 times, shook my head and thought: Have they become mad? Home affairs directed from Brussels?)

15. EU tax revenue to fund EU spending.So now there must be a special tax, payable by all member state citizens, to the EU circus? Who will audit? Who will budget? How will it be distributed? (Greece/Ireland vs Germany?)

19. New powers for the European Parliament in Economic and employment policies.How much new power? This is the gateway to complete national secession of decision making. Unbelievable.

The Spinelli Group does admit, that “national policies have been coordinated by a bossy European Council in an ever tighter technocratic manner (sure - see how EU installed technocratic managers in Greece and Italy over the head of the populations!) leading to over-centralisation and lack of democratic legitimacy”.But hold on – isn’t that exactly what they are now proposing to do in an even more concentrated, centralised and disempowering fashion?

I believe it is time to stand up and say NO, NO and again NO.

In England there only seems to be one way: Vote UKIP.

The Tories are too weak, indecisive and waffling – and Cameron is unlikely to form a majority government next time. His promise of a Yes-No referendum is therefore void.

Labour has shown their incompetence and inability through 13 years of mismanagement by first the war criminal Blair and later the bully Brown, bankrupting the country (forget about the present leadership!)

The Lib Dems are a joke.

Denmark may still have a chance if they vote for Dansk Folkeparti (the People’s Party) getting rid of the social democratic disaster.

Sweden seems lost in political correctness and an immigration quota that will take them from 9 to 40 mill people in 30 years, going from one of the richest to one of the poorest countries in Europe – and a muslim one to boot.

Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein are safe as non-paying, all enjoying associates and the Faroe Islands may go the same way.

This surely must be the model for England and Denmark. That way the UK can begin to trade itself back to prosperity, forgetting about EU demands, tariffs and ridiculous remote legislation.

The next 2 years will be very exciting: elections in 2014 to the EU Parliament, secession elections in Scotland and country elections in 2015 in the UK and Denmark.

Remember: If we fail to put things right now, it will be too late.

See the Spinelli proposal on

http://www.spinelligroup.eu/article/fundamental-law-european-union

Jyske Lov - the law of the Jutes, 1241

English and Danish Text
We are closing in on the anniversary of Magna Carta, this magnificent document that in 1215 produced one of the most important pillars of our modern society's freedom: The Law of the Land.
It was not the kings will, not some squire's idiosyncrasies, but a law, under which we are all equal, that would help form the society we have today.

About the same time, at the start of the 13th Century, the customs and habits of Denmark were assembled in the complex called "Jyske Lov", which was valid for Jutland, Funen and the duchies Schleswig and Holstein.

One must not underestimate the level of communication amongst the states in the middle ages and I am convinced, that the Magna Carta effect would not have gone unnoticed by the Danish king at the time, Valdemar the Victorious (Sejr). What I find truly amazing though is, that when Jyske Lov was put in print in March 1241, it already represented a civilised society - civilised in our 21st Century meaning.
It is even more amazing, that the content has remained by and large valid, albeit with many clarifications and additions, to our times - and that at least in 2 instances references to Jyske Lov have been crucial in court cases in Schleswig in the 20th Century (concerning heritage and land ownership).
This is a better performance than by Magna Carta, where only the statement "The Law of the Land" has present validity.

Magna Carta didn't come out of the blue either.
Like with Jyske Lov the content represented customs, habits or long standing desires, but common to both laws is one crucial matter:
It was the law of the land that mattered and - at least in principle! - that everyone was equal under the law.

Jyske Lov has an introduction, making it distinct from most other law complexes as it describes the essence of the law.
I found that it has so much in common with the essence of Magna Carta, that it was worth highlighting this introduction, in particular as our laws and freedoms are coming under severe threat these years.
A medieval complex called Sharia, which is as far removed from Magna Carta and Jyske Lov as possible has already become a de facto law in many areas of England and Scandinavia and an increasing portion of the UK law system has now been transported to the European Court, giving a completely new meaning to the concept "The Law of the Land". These are good examples of the potential break up and elimination of our free society.

There is one important difference between Magna Carta and Jyske Lov: Magna Carta was dictated by and made for the Barons in order to curb the King's power; Jyske Lov was made for the People!
Does that make Jyske Lov even more advanced than Magna Carta in "civilisation terms"?
I think so!
I have therefore tried to translate the rather wrinkled old Danish language in Jyske Lov into an understandable, but correspondingly "olde English"(and left the Danish translation from Wikipedia at the bottom) for anyone who has an interest to see.
It ought to be everyone!

LAW OF THE JUTES, March 1241

Through law the country must be built. But if anyone would settle for his own and let others enjoy the same right, one did not need any law. No law is as good to follow as the truth, but if you are in doubt about what is the truth, then the law must show the truth.

Were there no law in the country, then he who has opportunity would also acquire most. Therefore, the law must concern everyone, that the righteous and peaceful and innocent can enjoy their peace, and he, who has evil acts in mind can become fearful of the law.

The law must be honest and fair and bearable, after the country's custom, appropriate and useful and clear, so that all may know and understand what the law says. The law should not be done or written to provide any man special favours, but look after the best interests of the people, who live in the country. The law which the king gives and the country adopts, can not be changed or repealed without the will of the country, unless he obviously acts against God.

It is the king’s and the country's officials’ office to monitor judgments and do right and save those who are forced by violence, such as widows and defenseless, children, pilgrims and foreigners and the poor, who are all those most often subject to violence - and not let bad people, who will not improve, live in the country. As he punishes and kills such evil people, he acts as God's servant and the custodian of the country. For as the Holy Church is controlled by the pope and bishop, so every country must be controlled and guarded by the king and his officials. It is the duty of everyone who lives in his country to obey him and be obedient and submissive, and in return he must give them peace. All [secular] chieftains must know, that with the power that God gave them in this world, he also transferred to them the duty to defend his holy church against all claims.

But if they become forgetful or biased and do not fulfill their duty as guardians of the law, then they shall be held accountable on the day of judgement, if the church's freedom and the country's peace have suffered due to their failure.

Be aware, anyone who sees this book, that King Valdemar the second, son of Valdemar, who was Saint Canute's son, as he had been king in thirty-nine winters, and thousand and two hundred and forty years have gone after our Lord was born, wrote this book and gave this law in the month of March, which here is written in Danish, together with the consent of his sons , who were present, King Erik, Duke Abel and squires Christoffer and Uffe, the then Archbishop of Lund, and Bishop Niels Rodkilde, Bishop Iver in Fyn, Bishop Peter in Aarhus, Bishop Gunner in Ribe, Bishop Gunner of Viborg, Bishop Stephen in Vensyssel and Bishop Stephen in Hedeby and also with the consent of all the best men who are in his kingdom.
March 1241.

Original text in half modern transcription:

Med lov skal land bygges, men ville enhver nøjes med sit eget og lade andre nyde samme ret, da behøvede man ikke nogen lov. Men ingen lov er jævngod at følge som sandheden, men hvor man er i tvivl om, hvad der er sandhed, der skal loven vise sandheden.
Var der ikke lov i landet, da havde den mest, som kunne tilegne sig mest. Derfor skal loven gøres efter alles tarv, at retsindige og fredsommelige og sagesløse kan nyde deres fred, og uretfærdige og onde kan ræddes for det, der er skrevet i loven, og derfor ikke tør fuldbyrde den ondskab, som de har i sinde. Det er også rigtigt, dersom nogen ikke af frygt for Gud og kærlighed til retten kan lokkes til det gode, at frygten for øvrigheden og landets straffelov da kan hindre dem i at gøre ilde og straffe dem, hvis de gør det.
Loven skal være ærlig og retfærdig, tålelig, efter landets sædvane, passende og nyttig og tydelig, så at alle kan vide og forstå, hvad loven siger. Loven skal ikke gøres eller skrives til nogen mands særlige fordel, men efter alle deres tarv, som bor i landet. Heller ikke skal nogen mand dømme mod den lov, som kongen giver, og landet vedtager; men efter den lov skal landet dømmes og styres. Den lov, som kongen giver, og landet vedtager, den kan han heller ikke ændre eller ophæve uden landets vilje, medmindre han åbenbart handler mod Gud.
Det er kongens og landets høvdingers embede at overvåge domme og gøre ret og frelse dem, der tvinges med vold, såsom enker og værgeløse, børn, pilgrimme og udlændinge og fattige - dem overgår der tiest vold - og ikke lade slette mennesker, der ikke vil forbedre sig, leve i sit land; thi idet han straffer og dræber ugerningsmænd, da er han Guds tjener og landets vogter. Thi ligesom den hellige kirke styres af pave og biskop, således skal hvert land styres og værges af kongen eller hans embedsmænd. Derfor er også alle, der bor i hans land, skyldige at være ham hørige og lydige og underdanige, og til gengæld er han skyldig at give dem alle fred. Det skal alle verdslige høvdinger også vide, at med den magt, Gud gav dem i hænde i denne verden, overdrog han dem også at værge sin hellige kirke mod alle krav. Men bliver de glemsomme eller partiske og ikke værger, som ret er, da skal de på Dommens dag stå til ansvar, hvis kirkens frihed og landets fred mindskes ved deres skyld i deres tid.
Vide skal alle, der ser denne bog, at kong Valdemar, den anden søn af Valdemar, der var Sankt Knuds søn, da han havde været konge i ni og tredive vintre, og der var gået tusind og to hundrede og fyrretyve vintre, efter at Vor Herre var født, i den næstfølgende marts måned lod skrive denne bog og gav denne lov, som her står skrevet på dansk, i Vordingborg med samtykke af sine sønner, der var til stede, kong Erik, hertug Abel og junker Christoffer og Uffe, der da var ærkebiskop i Lund, og biskop Niels i Rodkilde, biskop Iver i Fyn, biskop Peder i Århus, biskop Gunner i Ribe, biskop Gunner i Viborg, biskop Jens i Vensyssel og biskop Jens i Hedeby og desuden med samtykke af alle de bedste mænd, der er i hans rige.