When I was still a prospective MEP candidate for UKIP in the North East (before being disqualified for exposing ballot rigging and failing to convince Party Leader Roger Knapman after almost an hour on the telephone that something was seriously amiss with the party), I was asked at the Newcastle hustings in March 2003, whether I would then support British involvement in the invasion of Iraq. I replied that I would, as with the troops then assembled in the Gulf and the full heat of a 'Gulf' summer rapidly approaching, (which I had personally often experienced) there was by then little other choice.
To get the troops to such a position it must have been perfectly clear to all involved that prior planning and co-ordination with the US had to have been underway for some months. The debate that thereafter followed clearly came almost one year too late.
Now the Evening Standard has finally publicised this obvious missing element in the Iraqi post mortem. This morning Michael Howard has realised the significance of Blair's original lies, a report of which in this morning's Daily Telegraph is linked from here, from which this is a quote:-
...fresh questions about Mr Blair's account of when Britain began planning for war were raised yesterday by a leaked document published by the London Evening Standard newspaper.
The classified document from the Pentagon revealed that British commanders began high-level military planning with US counterparts nine months before the war started.
At the time, Mr Blair was denying publicly that any such preparation was taking place.
Mr Howard told the New Statesman: "I think people hold the view pretty firmly now that they were lied to over Iraq. I don't think that's the only thing they were lied to about - but Iraq is the great catalyst for the loss of trust in the Government."
Asked whether he believed the British people were lied to, Mr Howard replied: "Over Iraq? Yes."
Mr Howard said Mr Blair had "lied" when he had intelligence "which was hedged with qualifications, caveats, warnings, which he translated into certainty. That was the unambiguous evidence that he put to the country".
The leaked documents and Mr Howard's attack indicate that the controversy over Iraq is continuing to dog the Prime Minister and his half-apology has not satisfied critics. Labour's conference will today debate Iraq, when activists opposed to the war are likely to criticise Mr Blair strongly.
Memorandum from Mike Mansfield c 1947 Economic Cooperation Administration Special Session of Congress Subject file 1916 1960 Clark Clifford Papers
"........reported to the President that in my opinion the countries of Western Europe should form an economic union to bring about a freer exchange of goods to stabilise their currency and to consider and work through towards the idea of a political union - a United States of Europe. While these goals will take time they would in my opinion do much towards alleviating the hatred, fear, and discontent so prevalent on that Continent"
"Instead of being on the timid defense with respect to France and Germany, and particularly attempting to decide which we would defend if we had to make a choice. I should prefer that we adopt a policy of trying to unify all of Europe"
Kindleberger to de Wilde March 24 1947 Memoranda 1947 State Dept File Charles P
A huge split is opening in the French governing party over the possibility of the EU Constitutional Referendum (scheduled for next year) becoming mixed-up with the hugely controversial question of Turkey's admission to the European Union, read from here.
If that situation seems complicated just wait to see what might develop in Germany!
As the original federalists of 'the rich-men's club' saw their treachery to democracy rewarded by the expansionist 'European-Nationalistic Ode to Joyists' they in turn now face the possibility of underhand betrayal as those believing in the 'Global Civil Society' and perhaps even more secretively - eventual 'World Government' now push the EU onwards into Asia Minor, Arabia, Africa and beyond.
What worth the twelve starred flag and shades of the Holy Roman Empire then, I wonder?
This blog is neutral on Turkey's admission - if it speeds the demise of the EU as presently constructed and constituted I am in favour - if not then I am against!
Britain's Home Secretary, the equivalent of most nations' Interior Minister, will today address his party's annual conference in Brighton. He will not, of course, disclose that this occasion might well be the last such conference where the delegates can assemble as freeborn British citizens with rights stretching back to the signing of the Magna Carta.
The Government of Tony Blair, of which Blunkett is proud to serve as one of its most repressive members (see example here), is now pushing through parliament a measure that will, seemingly at a stroke, destroy the freedoms which for generations British men and women have proudly considered their birthright. Quaint phrases, that already have an old-fashioned ring, will never again be able to truthfully be stated if the Civil Contingencies Bill is passed into law. I give only two as an example - others will surely have their own - 'I know my rights' - individual rights will in future be instantly withdrawable at the whim of even the most junior minister AND ' an Englishman's home is his castle' you can forget such a concept for good.
This Bill is presently being pushed through the House of Lords under a camouflage of media distractions such as smacking debates and the Parliament Square hunting protests over the one day Commons' passage of that oppressive bill.
In spite of this there is ample evidence that passage of the Bill could itself be contrary to our own constitution, just as the signing of the European Communities Act in 1972 is now considered by many to have been - more visibly as the true loss of sovereignty becomes daily more obvious, and the toothlessness of our Parliament and the deception and disinguousness of its members, become plain.
One view placed recently on the internet is as follows:-
"The CCB could not legally be passed by Parliament as it would most certainly disrupt the Constitution and so would be subject to the Treason Felony Act 1848". These Constitutional laws are here to be obeyed by all and this Government need reminding of that.
Separately came this point regarding 'Oaths of Allegiance' which in Britain are made to the Crown, one has recently written about their personal oath as follows - " My oath of allegiance remains with the Crown until such time as this Government gets its way and this Country becomes just REGIONS of the European Union. I will have allegiance to no one other than myself then."
"MP's are sworn to defend the Queen's status as sovereign and she can only remain sovereign if she is head of a sovereign state, which means an independent self-governing state, subordinate to no other authority. Not only does the Oath of Allegiance bind our MPs, it also binds each and every one of us, whether spoken out loud or not, for from the moment we are born here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain, we have the protection of the Crown just as if we had each of us said the Oath of Allegiance out loud."
"The following comes from Lord Renton in the Lords, he said (Lords Hansard 20th July 2000) Quote "My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggests that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta." (Unquote)"
"Our Constitution cannot be altered. No written British Constitution can replace it, because it always remains there as the underlying Constitution. It cannot lawfully be dislodged."
Members of the government, the legal profession, councillors etc., need to receive your complaints over the implications of the passage of this Civil Contingencies Bill. This blog joins those more closely involved in resisting this repressive legislation by passing on these further points to be urgently brought to the attention of as many of those in authority as possible:-
Direct your letters to where they are most needed. Direct your anger where it is also most needed to be felt. Direct the frustration you feel, upon those that are frustrating you in the
protection of this, your Country, your way of life and the customs upon which you have come to rely, and for the freedom you have perhaps at times taken for granted, but recognise that this freedom you have so casually enjoyed was paid for by the blood of those that died fighting for it.
The following legal points might well be made in addition to stating your own particular concerns:-
Whereas it is an offence under section 1 of the treason Act 1795 to engage in actions "tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution" of the United Kingdom".
And whereas according to the Act of Settlement 1700 s4 "The Laws of England are the birthright of the people". And whereas Sir Robert Megarry (Blackburn v Attorney General, Chancery Division 1983 Ch77, 89 has stated that:
"And as a matter of the law the Courts of England recognise Parliament as being omnipotent in all save the power to destroy its omnipotence,"
Whereas it is an offence under the Act of Settlement (1700) for any person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto shall be capable to be Member of either House of Parliament".
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 "to destroy the constitution of this Country" is an act of treason.
Whereas it is an offence under Section 1 of the treason Act 1795 "within the realm or without to devise constraint of the person of our sovereign...his heirs or successors."
Whereas, in accordance with the Coronation Oath Act, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11 swore at Her Coronation in 1953 that she would govern Her subjects "according to their laws".
Whereas it is established by state in force, the Magna Carta (Chapter 29) confirmed in 1927 and last reviewed at the passing of the Statute Law Repeals Act 1967 that:
"No freeman may be desseised of his liberties of free customs nor will we not pass upon him but by the law of the land."
Whereas it was established in 1932 that "No parliament may bind its successors" (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation 1, KB 733)
And whereas according to R v Thistlewood 1820 to destroy the constitution is an act of treason.
The Civil Contingencies Bill must not pass if Britain is to remain a Free Nation!
Blair challenged over fitness to be PM on Radio 4 'Today' Programme
Tony Blair, to the nation's shame Britain's continuing Prime Minister, was challenged by John Humphries this morning as to whether he could be believed if he once again went to Parliament to request the use of armed force by stating the nation was under threat.
Blair pretended not to understand the thrust of the question - that he was now a man nobody could believe and thus unsuited and unfit to continue to lead the country
A link to the broadcast is now available from here.
Office of Deputy Prime Minister involved in Referendum Funding Designation Stitch-up!
Proof of the fact that the decision to award the government funding for a campaign not really opposed to a Regional Assembly and backed by the Tories making them immediately ineffective in the North East has now come from a Parliamentary Document itself from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It may be read in full from this link. I quote the words of the real NO campaign leader Neil Herron in explaining the significance of this document:-
"It may also puzzle some people that NESNO were listed as the No Campaign on the ODPM agenda for the Select Committee produced on 9th September for a meeting that was scheduled for the 15th. Click here for the agenda.
Puzzling because the Electoral Commission did not designate the official No campaign until 14th September.
Puzzling because the North East No Campaign was not invited to present evidence despite the fact that everyone comes to us, even when trying to contact NESNO.
Puzzling as to how NESNO were contacted by the Select Committee when even the House of Commons Library doesn't appear to have their number. Had the 'establishment' already made the decision?
Puzzling as to why the Electoral Commission, were still giving out our telephone number as the ' No Campaign' after designation.
The mess is gradually unravelling and more and more evidence of an establishment stitch-up of the People's No Campaign by the ODPM and the Electoral Commission is becoming apparent.
When Colin Moran of the No Campaign stated to Sam Younger, Chairman of the Electoral Commission, at an arranged meeting (Thursday 23rdSeptember) at Trevelyan House, that weeks ago Professor Tomaney of the Yes Campaign had stated, "you lot (No Campaign) will not get the money because you are not part of the 'establishment'," Sam Younger said nothing. He broke eye contact and did not refute or challenge the statement."
I recently added the blog of the above title to the list of links on my side-bar to the left (also from here).
I recommend a visit to that site, as the most recent posts give first-rate background to the North East Referendum issue and raise some interesting questions on the designation of funds and the part played by the Electoral Commission.
As will be noted below, I have moved along to considering other strange aspects of the whole affair - notably the role, past funding and real motivations of the leader of the designated YES campaign, Professor John Tomaney of the Monnet Foundation of Newcastle Newcastle, whose lecture 'Governing the region past, present and future' I managed to fit in while in the North East in March last year.
'Absolute Rubbish' was his remark regarding any EU involvement in the project, perhaps anybody with further proof that he knew then and certainly knows now that such was a totally false statement could email a link.
Professor John Tomaney, 'Committed To AND Dependent Upon' Devolution and Public Funds.
The following information is all taken from the Professor's web site, which is linked from here:
John Tomaney is Professor of Regional Governance. He has recently conducted projects on devolution and constitutional change for the Leverhulme Trust and the ESRC. His current major interests include the relationship between devolved institutions and economic performance, territorial politics in the UK and the EU and all aspects of the development of North East England.
Apart from the massive public funding by the ESRC for projects working towards regionalisation as desired by the EU, to which we referred and linked last weekend see here and here, we now also see that the Professor has been receiving funding in his promotion of what I believe and have shown is EU inspired devolution from 'The Constitution Unit' linked here, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from here, One North East see here and the English Regional Development Agencies linked here.
It seems to me that very disturbing issues are raised here. Issues concerning the use of public funds for political purposes that would never be tolerated or permitted if these were business donations to a political cause - let alone a matter drastically changing and undermining the very basis of the democratic governance of this country.
Professor Tomaney is leader of the YES campaign in the 4th Novemeber referendum for a Regional Assembly in the North East. The government has awarded his group, and a Conservative Party backed newly formed, ineffective No campaign one hundred thousand pounds fighting fund each.
Neil Herron's blog describes Friday's events from here.
Meantime Sam Younger has unsuccessfully attempted to justify and explain his decision not designate the real North East NO campaign for government funding, linked here. This contribution has been taken from an internet discussion group and poses some exceptionally good questions:-
A letter from Sam Younger, Head of the Electoral Commission in today's Sunday
Telegraph says Christopher Booker got it all wrong when he said they ignored the
advice of their staff when awarding the designated NO Campaign status to NESNO
and not Neil Heron's group.
He said that it was agreed some time beforehand that the staff would not give
any opinion and the Commissioners alone would decide.
Mr Younger may think this is a clever way round Christopher Booker's very valid
criticism but I have three questions for him:
1. Why was that agreed?
2. Doesn't that ride rough-shod over government guidelines for this quango
3. In coming to this outrageous decision why don't they give proper reasons?
Why don't they justify in substance and fact instead of dodgy assertion and glib
innuendo? Just who do they think they are?
EU Constitutional Treaty and Civil Contingencies Bill linked.
I came across this comment on an internet forum this weekend:-
You all probably already know this link, but just in case, I am circulating this, because it is part of the proof that Tony Blair needs to and must destroy our Constitution, to satisfy his masters after signing up to the Constitution. He has got to the stage where hopefully he will become reckless, because he has committed himself.
In the Foreign and Commonwealth Office White Paper 2004 _"on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe_" I have just noticed this evening that on page 11 para 11 (page header; UKs Negotiating success at the IGC) "The Constitution cannot come into force until every Member State has ratified it according to its *own Constitutional procedures. * If any Member State were to find itself unable to ratify, the Constitution could not come into force."
This means that Tony Blair needs to have Clause 21 (3) j of the Civil Contingencies Bill 2004 unamended, so that he can sweep away the British Constitutional Acts of Parliament with it's Common Law entrenchment, and Constitutional Laws.
Professor Tomaney, the Jean Monnet Project and the EU
The EU Jean Monnet Project is described by the EU itself and linked from here.
Professor Tomaney, leader of the designated YES campaign in the scheduled referendum on the 4th Novemeber on a North East Regional Assembly, is part of the Jean Monnet Centre at Newcastle University, as may be verified from their own website linked here. That group describes its aims, in conjunction with the European Union, linked here, as follows:-
The Jean Monnet Project was launched in 1990 by the European Commission to support the teaching and learning of 'European integration' in universities and other higher education establishments.
Over the past decade the Project has helped to raise the visibility of European specialists and studies by establishing Jean Monnet Chairs, European Modules and Centres of Excellence at more than 600 universities in the European Union member states, and later in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
Each year, more than 200 000 young people benefit from Jean Monnet teaching activities, and a network of over one thousand professors specializing in European integration studies has now been developed.
It is quite clearly a propaganda organisation designed to indoctrinate Europe's youth towards ever deeper European integration.
The 'Monnet method' of attaining European integration was fully described in the book 'The Great Deception' by Christopher Booker and Richard North. I quote from page 429:-
"In the early post-war years others, inspired by Monnet, made premature bids to turn both the OEEC and the Council of Europe into supranational bodies. In each case these efforts were rebuffed, above all by the country which was the leading advocate of the intergovernmental co-operation Monnet despised, Britain. Nothing was more blatant in Monnet's plan for a Coal and Steel Community than the lengths to which he went to ensure the British were kept out, for fear they might corrupt it with their intergovernmentalism. It was indeed precisely its supranational element which the Attlee government was so quick to recognise and reject.
"All this was, of course, to be repeated even more dramatically a few years later when Monnet, now head of his Action Commmittee for a United States of Europe, began discussing with Spaak the next leap forward. It was Spaak who more than anyone was responsible for guiding the project towards its greatest breakthrough of all, the Treaty of Rome. And it was Spaak who steered Monnet into accepting what was to become the central deception of the whole story, when he urged that all mentions of political or 'federal' union should be suppressed and that the project should be sold to the world as no more than a 'a common market', designed to promote peaceful economic co-operation, trade and general prosperity."
Monnet, the guiding force of the project to which Professor Tomaney seems to have devoted his life, was a master of conspiracy and deceit in the cause of an integrated European Continent. As that has now developed, particularly if Regionalisation and the EU Constitution are put in place, that integrated continent will have, if any, only the pretence of any democratic structures. Nowhere will the governed be able to vote for or replace their true leaders.
Professor Tomaney, as reported in my blog of yesterday morning, 'Public funding to destroy democracy', ( see below or linked here) has lied about the EU involvement in the project he and his network of fellow academics have been clearly promoting. In seeking to pretend the undeniable facts of the EU's ambitions, such as theCommittee of the Regions' document, 'Major Steps towards a Europe of Regiona and Cities in an Integrated Continent', linked here, and his own involvement in the Jean Monnet project, Professor Tomaney must be supremely confident that the conspiracy to gain these ends cannot be questioned either by the Government of the day, the official opposition, the national press or indeed the local daily press such as, TheNewcastle Journal and TheNorthern Echo, to which papers I will forward a copy of this posting.
The document may be reached from this link. Its conclusion is quoted below. I hope to provide a link with some comment shortly.
2.2.6. Conclusions Despite the adoption of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between the Member States, which constitutes major progress in mutual recognition, and even if there is reason to hope that drafts now under discussion or in preparation on the recognition of financial penalties and confiscation and disqualification decisions will be adopted in the near future, the fact remains that the range of mutual recognition instruments in the European Union is still somewhat incomplete. In particular, there are virtually no rules on the mutual recognition of custodial penalties and their enforcement in another Member State.
CCB - the suppression of 'Individual Freedom and Liberties'
The Civil Contingencies Bill still worms its way towards the Statute Book. Anybody concerned with the continuation of some small degree of individual liberties and/or personal rights against the might of the state could do worse than write a letter of protest to anybody they might know in any position of authority.
The format below has been prepared by the tireless campaigner for justice and freedom Anne Palmer. I feel certain she would not object in the slightest if it was adapted in any way one might choose - just as long as the main thrust of the argument is delivered to those now innocently involved in betraying the democratic heritage of our nation. Anne's open letter is as follows:-
Dear <>The Civil Contingencies Bill and the protection of this Country’s Common Law Constitution by Coalition Government in an Emergency situation.>
At the time of writing, the government have so far ignored a request to protect our Constitution by inserting a paragraph ‘of protection’ in the Civil Contingencies Bill. At the moment Clause 21 (3) (j). allows regulations to disapply or modify any Act of Parliament. IN THE WRONG HANDS, THIS COULD BE USED TO REMOVE ALL PAST LEGISLATION WHICH MAKES UP THE STATUTORY PATCHWORK OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION".
<>However, our Common Law Constitution, (Which includes the Bill of Rights 1688 and Magna Carta) are a contract between the Crown and the sovereign people of this country.Parliament cannot amend, alter or repeal either;all that Parliament can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.>
There is a Clause for ‘times of war’, for Clause 42 of the Magna Carta which states that all men shall be free to come and go except -for a short period-in time of war”.It is limited to movement of people but I think that is clear enough until a decision is made as to the interpretation of a “short period”.Therefore the removal of our Constitution would be unlawful/illegitimate.
There is absolutely no authority for parliament, whatever the situation, to remove any part of our Common Law Constitution, and it must be remembered that when and if an unexpected attack comes-the ‘emergency’ situation is over-it is not an ongoing invasion, it is purely a matter for seeing to the dead and dying and a clearing up operation.There is certainly no need to remove the people’s RIGHTS, or any part of our Constitution.
There have been a number of occasions when an ‘emergency situation’ has been declared in this Country, so there is an urgent need for the people to be protected by their own Constitution and we cannot afford to be complacent about the matter or the powers that (any) Government could use to their own advantage in an emergency situation.I dislike very much the use of the words “thinks” or “believes” (used in the Bill) in an emergency situation that ‘may’ arise, and for proof of the dangers in the use of those or similar ambiguous words becomes clear when we look at what is happening in the on going situation in Iraq at the moment, and the words used that led us into that war situation.We need to be sure, not just “think”!
<>This Country, in living memory, has fought two world wars to protect our way of life and to prevent this country from being governed by any other than our own laws, most certainly not governed by a written European Union Constitution in preference to our own.> <>The people of ‘today’ cannot allow those who died to give us the freedom we have enjoyed, to have made that supreme sacrifice for us, in vain.> <>I therefore respectfully suggest and request that we look to history and what took place during the last war, and because of the emergency situation then, a Coalition Government was formed.As loyal and true subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II we have looked to the steadying hand of Her Majesty in times of stress and disasters. I feel now, because we have found over recent years that Her Majesty is “guided by the advice of Her Ministers”, that even the speeches she makes and particularly the recent speech made in France “Entente Cordiale” (6.4.2004) was written for Her Majesty by Her Majesty’s Government Ministers, this is not the third element of protection we understood it to be.The proposed exclusion of Her Majesty to be replaced by a Minister in an ‘emergency situation’ is wholly unacceptable to many people. Her Majesty is Head of State, and Her people will not easily allow her to be side tracked.In the present situation a great many people would like Her Majesty (the Crown) to play a much bigger role, and would like the Royal Prerogative to be used only by Her Majesty and not be delegated. > <>Without the desired ‘protection’ paragraph for our Constitution written into the Bill, and with the government’s apparent intent on ignoring our Constitution in this way, then should a ‘state of emergency’ be declared, then I respectfully suggest that as a precautionary measure to prevent an authoritarian state situation developing or a prevention of any outside interference, a Coalition Government be formed immediately any emergency situation is declared.
This clause to be written into the Bill, so that an Opposition Party may create the steadying influence so needed where any oppressive legislation is being proposed. > <>I am mindful of the European Union’s COM (2004) 200 final, (dated 25.3.2004), “Reinforcing the Civil Protection Capacity of the European Union”, with its “Common insignia for the intervention teams will contribute to identify the ad-hoc EU Civil Protection Force and enhance the visibility of European Solidarity.”
> <>How involved would the proposed European Gendarmerie Force be?This Force was welcomed by ‘Britain’ ‘but it has no plans to take part’.Will Britain be given a choice?I doubt it very much.The people here may even look upon such an intervention, as an invasion force.
> We must also take into consideration the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” and its reference to Article 1-43 with particular regard to Articles 111-300, 111-344 and 111-261, and the detailed arrangements for implementing this provision in Article 111-329. <>
If the EU Constitution is accepted and ratified it would override and thus destroy our Constitution. That according to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy our Constitution “is an act of treason”. A referendum on the EU Constitution is basically asking the people to choose between keeping their own Constitution, (savagely attacked already by this Government) or having a new written EU constitution, a constitution that if acceptedand any emergency situation arose, our government would not be able to remove one dot or comma, disapply, ignore or remove.> <>
A state of emergency in the UK has been declared on 12 occasions since 1920, the last being 1974 and only ever in times of industrial unrest.This Government has already shown an increased willingness to declare an emergency, hence not just my unease of the proposed Civil Contingencies Bill but a definite unease by many people.I think Members of our Parliament are realising that by the number of letters they have received already.To ignore the people would be a tragedy, because many letters are written in an effort to prevent the deep unrest felt by many at what is happening already to their Country.The people of this country, which includes all of us, have a duty to protect our Constitution, this is what people fight for, it is what they fought for in 1939, and what they will fight for, for their country again if need be.> <>
A “technical” state of emergency was declared in 2001 following 9/11 to enable the Government to derogate from Article 5 of the ECHR by reliance on Art 15 thereby permitting indefinite detention without trial under the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001. (It created our own Guantanamo Bay)This happened only months after incorporating the ECHR into our legislation.None of the other 43 Signatories to the Convention felt the need to derogate. > <>
Why do people want a ‘protective’ paragraph for their Common Law Constitution> to be written in this Bill?Sadly, they no longer trust the government of the day, not only that, at present they now have a deep suspicion of any Member of Parliament.
If there is no intention of using that power, why is it in the Bill?If they have no intention of using that power, why not include the protective paragraph as requested?
The people have been fed far too much spin; so much so, they can no longer distinguish truth from fiction.The Government has lost the people’s trust. That is sad, so very sad.
<>I have made a request for inclusion of a protective paragraph for our Constitution or alternatively the formation of Coalition Government immediately in power in an emergency situation.A Coalition Government worked very well in the last war.It had to, it had no choice.I write this letter in an effort to prevent any unrest or civil disobedience that might occur as a result of this or future governments inability in listening to the sovereign people of this country.The people will not take kindly to any oppressive legislation that is brought in on the back of any “emergency” situation as at the time of 9/11. >
As this concerns our Common Law Constitution, this is an open letter.
In last evening's posting on UKIP Uncovered, linked here, I revealed the curiosity of the one hundred thousand pounds of public funding for the NO campaign for the Regional Assembly referendum in the North East having been designated to a group backed by the Conservative Party. History, as that posting clearly proves, has, in fact, been the prime mover within this country for such Regional Assemblies, in accordance with an EU integrationist master plan which is quoted in detail.
On this post I wish to examine the one hundred thousand pound equivalent funding which has been designated to the YES group, led by Professor John Tomaney, and reveal its insignificance compared with the actual amount of public money expended over recent years to promote this anti-democratic cause.
I attended a lecture by Professor Tomaney's in Newcastle on 20th March 2003, when he made much of the supposed new independence Regionalisation would bring the North East while totally concealing the real devolution of powers upwards to Brussels, that he well knows is truly involved.
In his remarks Professor Tomaney stated " I must be careful here as I get a lot of flak from UKIP members, some of it quite unpleasant.......(Loud laughter followed by mention of a 1970's EU map of devolved regions written in French, as discovered in Brussels). He then continued along the lines that UKIP and others often talk about a 'European Plot' and affirmed "as an academic I am not supposed to use terms like 'absolute rubbish' and so I will leave it like that".
The EUROPEAN PLOT to destroy Westminster democracy by passing regional control to Brussels cannot be directly revealed and demonstrated but its footprints have by now been left all over the internet as revealed yesterday on UKIP Uncovered. There follow some further facts regarding the huge funding of our Universities to swing the climate of public opinion and the political establishment, such that the imposition of this effective EU tyranny can be soon deviously attained.
As an academic Professor Tomaney knew that his St Cuthbert's day speech was a deception. He knew of the existence of the 'ESRC' (linked here) and its extensive well-funded offshoot 'Devolution and Constitutional Change' (linked from here). I list below some of the projects that have been recently funded, the large amounts of taxpayers money spent and links for details of the pernicious propaganda and direct action to influence establishment figures that is clearly involved:-
'Asymmetric' Devolution and EU Policy making in the UK - One hundred and sixty-four thousand, nine hundred and sixty-three pounds - linked here.
British Island Stories: History, Identity and Nationhood - Two hundred and sixty-three thousand, seven hundred and ninety-one pounds - linked here. (This is a particularly outrageous programme designed no less than to - " examine the conceptual relationship between history, nationhood and state-formation, and consider the implications for the re-configuration of British national identity."
Constitutional Change and Economic Governance: Territories and Institutions - One hundred and thirty-six thousand , eight hundred and eighty-two pounds - linked here.
EU Policy Making in the UK - One hundred and sixty-six thousand, three hundred and thirty-nine pounds - (Link no longer available)
The Financial Arrangements for Devolved Government within the United Kingdom - One hundred and twenty-seven thousand, eight hundred and sixty-five pounds - linked here.
National Identity and Constitutional Change in England - one hundred and five thousand, eight hundred and ninety-seven pounds - linked here.
That is a mere selection of the thirty-five projects presently listed. All massively funded by taxpayers, and all, it would seem without any single exception, driving one way - towards devolution within England.
Britain's academia has thus clearly been bought to promote regionalisation, influence our youth AND apparently to disgracefully rubbish any thoughtful or considered oppostion, as coming only from crackpots - just as Professor Tomaney did as quoted above in his Newcastle St Cuthbert's day lecture. What then matters the mere one hundred thousand pounds of public funds now awarded to the Professor to fight for a YES vote in the North East referendum? The amount is peanuts compared to the sums that have been for years directed at the Professors across Britain, apparently for promoting and facilitating the selling out of the rights of the people of Britain to select and eject their own rulers. It is indeed nothing less than the deliberate promotion of a 'Tyranny' as defined by Karl Popper, that is now clearly in train.
The Electoral Commission's decision to award the one hundred thousand funds of public money to a pro Regionalisation Conservative Party led ineffectual and newly formed group such as NESNO is quite disgraceful - BUT IT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE EXTENT OF THE SUBVERSION OF BRITAIN'S UNIVERSITIES IN MOUNTING A SUSTAINED PRO-DEVOLUTION CAMPAIGN FROM BEHIND THE SCENES!
Some might argue that the Regional Assemblies are intended to be democratic. Nobody, however, could reasonably maintain the stance that the devolution resulting will itself be democratic if they have once viewed the EU Committee of the Regions' 'Organisation Charts' dated 11th June 2001, titled "Devolution in the United Kingdom (before May 1997) and its sister with the same title but for (Post May 1997) the latter showing all Councils subservient to the Regional Authorities and the 'Evolution of Powers" as "Role played by territorial authorities in promoting European Integration and cross border relations (for information)!
The link for the above document has now been kindly provided by a reader, the document in pdf format may therefore be read from here. The link for the COR Organisation Chart "Major Steps Towards a Europe of the Regions and Cities in an Integrated Continent" from the same source is HERE.
North East Assembly Referendum Designation Scandal!
I have been researching the background behind the curious goings on in the run-up to the first Brititsh referendum on the Regional Assemblies by which the EU hopes to finally break the back of British democracy. My latest comments may be read on Ukip Uncovered linked from here, while regular and blow by blow reporting on all developments can be followed from Neil Herron's blog linked here.
Would Attempts by the EU to Use Force to Impose Their Legislation on the UK be Lawful?
That question has been posed by someone with the amusing e-mail address of 'anoneumouse'.
The e-mail was clearly prompted by yesterday's post on the new paramilitary police force, the implications of which the British Government has pretended to try to ignore with this ludicrous statement found in the EUobserver report - "Britain welcomed the scheme but without its own tradition of a militarised police it has no plans to take part, the Daily Telegraph reported".
The answer to the headlined query was also provided by my correspondent as follows:
Answer: 'yes' and they now have the Armed Police Force to do it. And once the Civil Contingency Bill is passed, a personal invitation from which ever minister wishes to ask them from our Government
Existing "Article 224 ( of the European Treaty) states that Member States shall consult one another with a view to taking in common the necessary steps to avoid the operation of the Common Market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in case of serious internal disturbances affecting public policy or the maintenance of law and order ( "ordre public"), in case of war or serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out undertakings into which it has entered for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security".
Deliberate Government deception in the North East?
The following letter from the Chairman of the real North East NO campaign was found on this link. Further regularly updated newsdirect from the real referendum campaign is regularly updated on that link to Neil Herron's blog:-
North East No Campaign
16th September 2004
Referendum on a Regional Assembly in the North East
I refer to my letter to you dated 7th September, asking you to investigate my complaint about the money wrongly spent by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, issuing advertisements and leaflets which are inaccurate and misleading and which promote a particular political view.
Two further inaccuracies have now come to light; both are contained in the leaflet entitled "Have Your Say", which I enclosed with my original letter:
1.On the page headed "A new opportunity for the North East", there is a section entitled "How would the new elected assembly operate?" It reads
"The Government intends that a North East assembly would consist of around 25 elected members to represent different views and parts of the region. They would be elected – as in Scotland, Wales and London – by a system of proportional representation to help prevent domination by a single party.."
This is a lie.
The Draft Regional Assemblies Bill, section 3, states that an assembly is to consist of both constituency members and regional members; the constituency members will be members for electoral areas (known as constituencies) within the region, whilst the regional members will be members for the whole region.
Section 10 states that "each constituency member of an assembly is to be returned under the simple majority system".
In the Explanatory Notes, point number 15, it states that "the precise division between the number of each type of elected member would be decided by an order of the Secretary of State but it is expected that the constituency members would make up the majority"; thus, in other words, the bulk of the members will be elected on the first–past–the post system, not by proportional representation.
The statements in the leaflet are untrue.
2. The second additional accuracy relates to the part of the leaflet which covers local government reorganisation in County Durham. (In Northumberland and Durham, voters will be asked in the referendum a second question on the alteration of the current system). Two options are given to the voters, A and B, and the leaflet states that the Government will pay the upfront costs; "these costs should be less than £37 million for option A and £38 million for option B".
This is a lie.
It has now come to light that the costs for option B will actually be £47 million. The electorate is being asked to vote on the basis of incorrect information.
These are further examples of the misuse of taxpayers’ money: please investigate.
Five EU nations have formed a paramilitary police unit as reported by EUobserver linked here.
One presumes this unit will be utilised to quell dissent against EU decisions in countries other than those from which the troops will come, namely: France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands.
Watch for other units, who will we presume, be intended to put down any local dissent against the decisions of the non-democratic EU in these five founding countries.
The Deliberate Destruction of Britain's Constitution
The debate in the House of Lords on a written constitution followed that on the Civil Contingencies Bill. It may be found from this link, having immediately followed the debate on the CCB which may be found on the preceding pages.
Anne Palmer has provided these comments to those who participated in that debate:-
Re the Debate in the House of Lords, “Constitution” 15th September 2004.
With the greatest respect to you all, I draw your attention to the fact that we already have a Constitution and one which must still be ‘active’ because over the last two or three years, it has been either quoted or referred to over two hundred times. It has however, been unlawfully ignored or overridden, and I write “unlawfully” because as far as the ordinary subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II are concerned, they/we still have a Constitution which must be obeyed by all.
Mentioned in your debate, is the following: The Civil Contingencies Bill, and to quote from previous debates "The list of possible constitutional issues raised by the draft Bill is extensive. Clause 21 (3) (j) allows regulations to disapply or modify any Act of Parliament. IN THE WRONG HANDS, THIS COULD BE USED TO REMOVE ALL PAST LEGISLATION WHICH MAKES UP THE STATUTORY PATCHWORK OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION".
It would remove all the people's rights embedded in our Constitution.All who sit in our Houses of Parliament have a duty to preserve OUR Constitution, not remove or destroy it, and it is my duty, as a loyal and true subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, also to protect and preserve both.
However, our Common Law Constitution, our Bill of Rights 1688 and Magna Carta are a contract between the Crown and the sovereign people of this country.Parliament cannot amend, alter or repeal either;all that Parliament can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.
There is a Clause for ‘times of war’, for Clause 42 of the Magna Carta which states that all men shall be free to come and go except -for a short period-in time of war”.It is limited to movement of people but I think that is clear enough until a decision is made as to the interpretation of a “short period”.
There is absolutely no authority for parliament, whatever the situation, to remove any part of our Common Law Constitution, and it must be remembered that when and if an unexpected attack comes-the ‘emergency’ situation is over-it is not an ongoing invasion, it is purely a matter for seeing to the dead and dying and a clearing up operation.There is certainly no need to remove the people’s Rights.
There is no doubt what-so-ever that if the EU constitution is accepted and ratified and an “emergency” situation follows, there will not be one dot or comma our government can alter, and certainly no way at all that the EU constitution could be dissaplied, suspended, or removed for the good of the people in this Country, or against the people as is proposed by this present Government as put forward in the Civil Contingencies Bill as it presently stands.It is most certainly a Bill against the people, yet the government will eventually need the people as much as the people need will need their Government at a time of a true “emergency”.But will this Government ‘be there’ for them?I will not hold my breath.
Re EU constitution, this is how an ordinary person will view the use of Royal Prerogative.A Minister of the Crown uses the Royal Prerogative and he/she has the precious gift of signing the following on the Queen’s behalf-
·The making and signing of treaties,
·The declaration of war,
·The deployment of armed forces,
·The recognition of foreign states,
·The accreditation and reception of diplomats.
There are other internal matters, which are also important, but I place here the ones mostly affected by Article 1-6 [now 1-7] (Legal personality) in the proposed EU constitutional document.If the EU constitution is accepted, it becomes obvious that this precious gift of Royal Prerogative is to be handed over to the Union forever.The Union will sign treaties on our behalf; it will have the ability to alter them.The Union may be able to declare war and deploy our armed forces wherever they should think the need arises.An EU/USA agreement has already been made without debate in the British Parliament and without debate in the European Parliament. (Hansard 18.6.2003, col 287-294)
A further note regarding the Government’s use of The Royal Prerogative:(Which I doubt the European Union would take note of). It cannot be used in an innovatory way. It may not be subversive of the rights and liberties of the subject. (The case of Nichols v Nichols, 1576, stated, “Prerogative is created for the benefit of the subject and cannot be exercised to their prejudice”.
I would also argue that the use of Royal Prerogative is somewhat limited in that it cannot (Lawfully) be passed on to a government outside these shores for them to impose their law on the people here in this country, or for them to remove the freedoms and rights they have had and fought for over the centuries.
I refer to the delegated use of the Royal Prerogative. “No Prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other Statute, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject. Etc”.(Sir Robert Howard.)The Government may not lawfully suspend our Common Laws.
Our Constitution applies to all.Each of you, like me, has a duty through your oath of allegiance to obey and protect the Constitution of this Country.This is what I am about now and I will continue to fight (lawfully so) for my Queen and Country.Finally, I beg you, please do not underestimate the depth of feeling ‘abroad’ in this country at present, for should it spill over; it will affect each and every one of us, for many, many years to come.
An Opinion article from yesterday's Daily Telegraph by Adam Nicoloson is linked from here and is recommended.
The now confirmed certain failure of the three days of talks at Leeds Castle is a good example of how the 'illegimate' (in the terms of that article) is inevitably doomed to failure. Blair's slipperyiness, doubletalk and all-round disingenuousness will certainly lead Britain into further appalling situations, not least with the EU Constitution if some means is not found to alert the general public to the true nature of the government and opposition by which they are now run.
The apparent local matter of the referendum rigging in the North East of England provides a good foretaste of the likely dangers ahead in the bigger referendum over the EU. An excellent summary of recent events is in the Christopher Booker column of today's Sunday Telegraph linked from here.
The following is a circular e-mail put out by Neil Herron of the real NO campaign in the North East following this week's startling events. Please visit their website and if possible send support via this link.
It has been a very busy week with a press and media maelstrom following the shock announcement by the Electoral Commission to award Designation as the 'official' No Campaign in the NE to the recently formed Conservative construct NESNO, dubbed by the press and media YESNO.
The 'Peoples' No Campaign will continue the fight free from party politics, but as it will be seen, the decision by the Electoral Commission will see this Conservative group lurch from crisis to crisis because of their lack of understanding of the issue and their naievity in hand to hand combat as campaigners. London Tory boys do not know the North East and this is becoming increasingly evident.
We warned of this months ago that this would happen, but they still went ahead and formed a rival group to challenge the hugely successful 'Peoples' Campaign' who had had the opposition on the ropes since exposing the unelected Assembly for misusing public money nearly two years ago.
The spotlight is shining on the YESNO Campaign and who they really are. Unfortunately for them they will not be yesterday's fish and chip wrappers because the story goes too deep and is intertwined with the bizarre decision by the Electoral Commission to award them designation.
The Labour Party and the Yes Campaign are preparing to carve them up on a daily basis.They have walked straight into the trap.
The soap opera that will unfold over the coming weeks will see the Conservative Party suffering death by a thousand cuts and their incompetence exposed with embarassing consequences for all concerned.
The implications for those in the Electoral Commission who have been party to this unbelievable decision will unfold in time.We are making preparations to make the North East No Campaign's application available to the House of Lords Library. The consequences of the decision by the
Electoral Commission has implications for the big battle ahead...the referendum on the European Constitution.
At the minute, as self-preservation kicks in, we are receiving more leaks than a judge in a Working Men's Club annual horticultural contest...and speaking of judges, there is a remarkable ironic twist in this saga of deceit, back-stabbing and betrayal that will make everyone's jaws drop. The implications are far reaching and we could see scenes reminiscent of the Pinochet case.
As events unfold over the coming weeks you will be staggered.
The Peoples' North East No Campaign will achieve a 'No' vote on November 4th. The die will be cast next week after the revelations in tomorrows Sunday Telegraph.
The following is the beginning of a press release on new cartel powers issued today by the EU, which may be read in full from here:
New cartel procedure under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003
Commitments as a basic instrument for bringing infringements to an end
An important new instrument under the Cartel Regulation is the possibility for the Commission to declare commitments by undertakings binding under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. Where, in a procedure relating to a prohibition decision, undertakings offer commitments such as to meet the concerns expressed to them by the Commission in a preliminary assessment or a statement of objections, the Commission may, by decision, declare those commitments binding on the undertakings.
I started a blog in French as I have increasingly come to believe that the best opportunity to halt the EU's march towards a Popperian tyranny might well lie in the French referendum on the constitution which is expected to be held in 2005.
This has necessarily forced me to pay greater attention to the French language press than I otherwise might have done. This morning I read a fascinating article in the Nouvel Observateur, linked from the blog, here, which gives the date for the likely Spanish referendum as 27th February and carries the clear statement by the new Spanish Prime Minister, in the company of both Chirac and Schroeder, that the EU Constitution is self-evidently a social document:
Zapatero, se réjouissant que des peuples qui se sont fait la guerre pendant des siècles soient aujourd'hui parvenus à adopter une Constitution commune.
Il a également mis en valeur "l'identité de l'Europe sociale", en jugeant, comme le chancelier, que cette identité était "bien prise en compte" dans la Constitution européenne.
My non-guaranteed translation:
Zapatero, rejoices that the people who have fought down the centuries such that they have today reached a point where they can adopt a 'communal' Constitution. This equally enshrines "the social identity of Europe", and he (Zapatero) judges, as does the Chancellor (Schroeder) that such an identity was " very well reflected" in the European Constitution.
When Zapatero says social we can all be certain of exactly what he means!
I find it interesting that the US deficit is running at eye-boggling levels of indebtedness yet the interest rate in the USA for their 10 year bond hovers around 4 per cent. I explain this to myself as having to be due to the dollar being linked to something of greater intrinsic value than itself, which I choose to explain as the Greenspan standard.
Although re-confirmed in office as Chairman of the Federal Reserve for another term, eventually even Alan Greenspan must fade away - what then will underpin the free-world's economic system?
I believe the chosen interviewers should perhaps pose this question to the two Presidential candidates in the upcoming televised debates. Would each of them, at some point in the future, favour a return to the Gold Standard, or perhaps tie the value of the dollar to some other precious but even rarer metal? Or will they risk it being set loose to the whims of world opinion once Greenspan is gone?
Non-British based readers of this blog, who generally make-up more than half the number of our readers, might be confused by the so-called 'Hunting' question and surrounding events in Britain this week.
A first class summary of the real issues at stake appears in this week's The Spectator in a column by Simon Heffer, linked from here . (Free Registration might be necessary). British readers, aware of the facts and the dangers posed to our very liberty and democrcay, will probably find it sufficient to read the concluding sentence:-
If Mr Blair is not careful, such defecation over our institutions will cause the public — and not just the countryside protesters — to look for other, and less attractive, ways of seeking remedies for their ills.
The Swiss Central Bank raised its interest rates by a quarter point again yesterday, as its economy expanded. The report by Reuters may be read from here.
Nothing remarkable about that statement, of course, until you look at the contrast of the self-imposed economic purgatory in all the countries that neighbour Switzerland, (excepting Lichenstein which remains happy to use the Swiss Franc.)
The Central Banks of France, Germany, Italy and Austria, due to the folly of their elected politicians, are left powerless to adjust interest rates in accordance with the ever changing economic circumstances which now buffet their separate economies. The citizens of those countries bear the economic brunt, soon their political leaders should pay the political cost - is that why the non-democratic EU Constitution is being pushed through with such indecent haste?
Sweden Thrives on Exports One Year After Voters Reject the Euro
Such is the headline on a report from Bloomberg confirming what many commentators (such as this blog) have maintained all along. Read the article from here.
Meantime Euroland inflation stays steady at 2.3 per cent according to the EU - still above the ECB target AND of course way above Eurozone growth rates! The Euro is killing Europe's jobs, growth and the aspirations of its citizens - but still no governing EU politician or EU Commissioner will speak the truth!
Parliament Square protests and Police Stun Gun Approval
As five demonstrators broke into the chamber of the House of Commons to protest the proposed ban on hunting with dogs and Countryside Alliance protesters were confronting riot-gear clad police outside, Reuters has announced that the Government has simultaneously reported that in future the police will be allowed to use electric stun guns delivering 50,000 volts. That report may be read from this link.
Background on the misnamed, breached and disregarded agreement is comprehensively provided on this useful Europa link - just click here.
Information as to why France and Germany are permitted to continually break the deficit provisions- to which they are bound under the Maastricht Treaty - and I presume, are now hoping to avoid by the EU Constitutional Treaty effectively drawing all the teeth - without any apparent penalty, will not, of course, be found!
Interestingly the FT carried an article by Wolfgang Munchau, while I was on my recent break, suggesting the Euro was doomed just as earlier monetary union failures: Germany/Austria 1857 - 1867, Scandinavia 1872 - 1931 and the Latin monetary union of 1865 - 1926 - unless tax and other policies could be harmonised. According to the EUobserver (report linked from here) that is what again seems the plan following last Saturday's EU Finance Ministers' meeting.
What are we to make of the funding decision for the North East Regional Assembly referendum on 4th November? The closer one looks, the more disgraceful the facts appear.
Regional Assemblies are creations of the EU. In Britain they were introduced under the John Major Government, presumably under the control and authority of Michael Howard, then Home Secretary and thus responsible for local government. Their effect, whether appointed as at present or elected as proposed, will be to allow the EU to control England without recourse to Westminster. John Prescott likes to imply they are his brainchild and will extend local democracy - neither is correct.
The Electoral Commission is a creation of Tony Blair's government and its head an appointee of that administration, which among many other defects is the fact that it is renowned for its cronyism. That body yesterday awarded one hundred thousand pounds of taxpayers money to a NO group largely formed and supported by the Conservative Party, the very political unit that created these assemblies and led by the individual almost certainly personally responsible.
Can the British public really believe that this process bears any relationship to a democratic sounding of public opinion? Especially when the vote will be undertaken by a postal ballot declared as unacceptable by the very body that has just handed two hundred thousand pounds to groups none can truly believe are really against the permanent imposition of these EU beholden prefectures.
The delight of the YES campaign at this obvious stitch-up was evident, one involved informs me that Professor Tomaney was so transported with the coup that he virtually admitted as much on local TV, crowing that the YES group's spokesman actually worked for the Tory party. The conspiracy between the two main parties in Britain, now apparently supported by UKIP, to hand this nation to foreign control has probably never been more clearly illustrated.
There was a real alternative. NEARA (North East Agaianst Regional Assemblie) chaired by Judith Wallace and fronted by Metric Martyr Neil Herron had been actively campaigning for years against this non-democratic deceit. The North East was the driving force behind the great liberal revival towards the end of the nineteenth century - today it remains a centre for sturdy British independence.
Those pushed aside by UKIP to advance the candidacies of second rate MEP candidates such as Troy and Merchant, are largely the same founders and backers of NEARA - genuine eurosceptics concerned for their country and its democracy - had the foresight and ability to revitalise that spirit. As may be read from the the concluding paragraphs in this item from today's Guardian on this topic, linked here, amazing efforts have been undertaken to prevent this from happening:-
If electors vote yes on November 4, the government says a full-blown election for a 25-member north-east assembly could be held in 2006.
· Labour will retain Peter Mandelson's former seat of Hartlepool, according to an NOP poll for Channel 4 News yesterday. It puts Labour on 53% - 33 points ahead of the Liberal Democrats. With byelection successes in Leicester South and Brent East, the Lib Dems have high hopes. However, the poll is also bad news for the Conservatives; they were in third place, just four points ahead of Ukip.
Is Countryside March and Contingencies Bill consideration coincidence a coincidence?
The last time the House of Lords considered the Civil Contingencies Bill, (read here) which will grant dictatorial powers to any government of the day, Britain's ineffective fourth estate were distracted by a smacking debate which both precluded proper debate and grabbed both headlines and air time.
Today the Lords will again consider this most draconian bill ever to threaten our freedoms and democracy. Is the backdrop of a planned Countryside march(read here) in the capital today to be allowed to provide similar cover - or even worse, perhaps, demonstrate the possible need for some of its more extreme provisions. Watch for provocateurs!
Thanks to The New Nation of Bangladesh and Channel News Asia for the most recent links to be found on Google for these serious items - worrying enough in itself!
It has just been announced by the Electoral Commission that the one hundred thousand pounds of taxpayers funds to be spent by those campaigning against the EU inspired Regional Assembly in the North East of England on 4th November will go to the largelyConservative backed 'North East says No' campaign. The report may be read from The Scotsmanlinked here.
The longstanding real 'NO' campaign, fronted by renowned euro-sceptic and Metric Martyr Neil Herron has been left out in the cold. Reports of this further underhandedness (after the refusal to ban the postal ballot), have been suspected for some time and were almost certainly confirmed when UKIP joined with the Conservatives offering this pathetic justification by one of their MEPs in a circular e-mail to their members on 3rd September:-
" From: JOHN WHITTAKER MEP
UKIP in the North East
UKIP is facing two important challenges, both in the North East: the Hartlepool by-election and the referendum on the regional assembly. The referendum is to be on November 4 and the by-election may be on the same day or earlier.
As for the referendum, UKIP has joined the existing broadly-based North East Says No group consisting of a number of prominent business people plus members of the Conservative and Labour parties (see www.northeastsaysno.co.uk). The group is applying to be the 'Designated Organisation' for the NO campaign which brings government money and a free mail delivery. An important factor in reaching this decision is agreement that we shall retain our identity and shall be campaigning as UKIP.
There are other groups campaigning for NO, including that led by Neil Herron. We have not joined with him because this would compromise our identity. Neil stood AGAINST UKIP in the Euro-election."
What identity can UKIP possibly be concerned to protect? Joining with the ultra-federalist EPP allied and permanently EU committed Conservative Party to supposedly fight a clear and obvious devestating encroachment on our parliamentary democracy by the EU is hardly likely to give UKIP a reputation as either believing in the principles they proclaim nor being interested in anything other than state provided funds and perks!
As revealingly described by former EU adviser to UKIP, Dr Richard North on his own blog last week, linked from here, it really does seem ever more beyond doubt that UKIP merely exists to destroy effective opposition to the EU from within the UK.
The press release on Robert Kilroy-Silk's visit to Parliament last week, quoted in full below, at least indicates he has clearly seen the reality:-
MEDIA ADVICE Thurs, 9 September 2004
KILROY-SILK SPEAKS TODAY AT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS PRESS GALLERY: ‘I WILL STAND FOR PARLIAMENT IN THE EAST MIDLANDS’ “Funds offered to me personally for UKIP to fight seats across the East Midlands”
Robert Kilroy-Silk announces today that he will be fighting a Parliamentary seat in the East Midlands at the next General Election - and leading the U.K. Independence Party’s campaign in the 44 Parliamentary constituencies in the East Midlands.
He is guest speaker at the House of Commons Press Gallery lunch today (Thursday). The East Midlands MEP said to the Press Gallery that he had personally been promised funds to fight any seat of his choosing in the East Midlands - and in addition had been personally promised funding to fight a campaign in all marginal seats in the Region, and throughout the country, and in any other seats where he thinks the U.K. Independence Party could make an impact.
UKIP came top in the recent elections to the European Parliament in nine East Midlands constituencies, beating Labour into second place in three of them and the Tories in another six. The Party recorded 37.6% of the vote in Boston and Skegness and over 30% in six other East Midland constituencies, including Ashfield and Mansfield in Nottinghamshire, Erewash in Derbyshire and South Holland in Lincolnshire.
Mr Kilroy-Silk said: “There will be no shoddy deals with the old parties. No pacts, no alliances, no compromises. We are not anti-Labour nor pro-Tory. We are concerned only with getting our independence and sovereignty back and what is in the interests of British people.
“The General Election presents us with a great opportunity. The people do not trust the old parties or their politicians. They are fed up of being lied to - over Weapons of Mass Destruction, immigration, asylum and much else. They are fed up of being taken for granted and not listened to by the metropolitan political elite in London. They are fed up of being told what to think, of the stifling effects of political correctness and of being made to feel ashamed of being British.
“They are sick and tired of the politics of name-calling, of smear, of slanging matches and the tired old political labels of left and right. What they want is straight-talking politicians. Ones who are honest; ones they can trust.
“They want a Party that will speak loudly, clearly and positively for Britain, British values and the British way of life. They want a Party which will hold a conversation with them, not talk down to them; a Party that will listen to them and not take them for granted. “We shall provide the leadership. We shall concentrate on the issues that concern people now: Europe, of course, immigration, asylum, crime, security and defence, tax, pensions and health.
“I shall be setting out our policies on these in more detail in the next few months. For the first time for generations the British people will have the opportunity to vote for a Party that puts Britain and its way of life first, which will talk straight, will speak only the truth, and which will not let them down. We will change the face of British politics for ever”.
What an incredible contrast between the two statements above - on the one hand UKIP joining with the Tories to deprive a hard-working team of dedicated volunteers struggling against the might of the EU and the government of the funds that might make them effective and on the other the statements of supposed solid principle and no party pacts claimed by Kilroy above!
No surprise Kilroy has now been invited to lead the English Democrats!