I received two e-mails today from a reader of another of my blog's concentrating on the UK Independence Party. I felt the second would be of interest to readers here. Unhappily not all the problems of modern society can be laid at the door of the EU, they would be more quickly resolved if that were the case, but it is certain that much of society's ills can be laid at the door of the muddled thinking, democracy destroying, non-accountability that particular organisation so typifies. Here is the e-mail:-
I read today in the Daily Express of ordinary hard working, British citizens who are being hounded in the name of political correctness.
A green grocer in Grantham Lincs, who has been told to remove his outside display in the name of safety. He has set his wares out in this manner now since 1955 and apparently it suddenly constitutes a danger!
Portsmouth city council have told a guide who starts her walks with a prayer of thanks for the beautiful surrounding countryside, she can no longer do this! There are many such incidents every day.
These ideas and laws are coming in from the European Parliament
Health and safety - Soon we will not be able to walk along a street without filling out a risk assessment.
Political correctness - Friendly banter will be banned in case we slip, and call a spade a spade.
Parental guidance - Little Milly 13 years old, still a child, wants an abortion, but her parents do not have the right to be told.
Family values - Are being eroded with ever increasing pressure to get young Mothers out to work or education, so that the unemployment figures can be fudged.
Law and order - We can no longer believe in our past ideals, when a person whoever he or she was could say in Britain you are innocent until proven guilty.
Is an Englishman's home still his castle? or do we have to be nice to burglars, intruders and anyone else who wants to invade our homes.
Why have we allowed our laws, our heritage and our very island existence to be so eroded?
Why are we no longer proud of our home land? .......... Or are we still?
Why are we allowing our cities to become areas of violence and fear?
Why are we afraid to go and help a lost and crying child in a busy city street?
What is becoming of a once proud, fair, and law abiding nation?
I can tell you - The seeming need to kowtow to the European Union.
There is an answer, it won't be easy! We must all as one, stand up for what we feel is right, stand up and be counted.
I realise that as a proud and independent nation we will not all think alike, and I respect that. However, dissatisfaction breeds one of two things, apathy or anger.
Let us as many as we can take the middle road, stand up in unison and say NO MORE.
Give us back our pride, give us back our hard work ethic, give us back our Country.
I believe that at this moment in time UKIP can assist in these endeavours.
The other parties have all laid out their stalls, now let us lay out a stall for UKIP. We need all of you, no matter where you live, no matter who you are, we need your energy, your voice, your legs and your commitment.
Together let us make a change for a better future for our children and our grandchildren. If you are interested please feel free to contact me:
Two EU Business reports the first here has this interesting quote from a reportedly bitter soon to be ex-EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti:-
"France has become a problem for itself and for Europe. It cannot handle its successes, and often it doesn't see them, and attributes its setbacks, which are often imaginary, to Europe."
Monti's term as EU commissioner ends when the new Brussels executive team takes over in November.
The second linked here reports France outnumbered 24 - 1 and floundering at the WTO in Geneva:-
Jan Brinkhorst, minister of economy for the Netherlands, which holds the rotating EU presidency, "asked if anyone had a problem with the substance and the only (minister) to raise a hand was from France," recalled one of the participants.
A third states that it is rumoured Mandelson may be the next Trade Commissioner, possibly the only real job in the entire EU! Who is it that looks after their own - not Tony Blair alone it seems!
I was slow to catch this news, linked here as reported in The Guardian and there is no mention of the significance of the outcome in the editorial pages. Is this leading article item somehow significant?:-
Daily Telegraph Leading Article linked from here.
End of the pier tragedy (Filed: 31/07/2004)
The loss of Brighton's West Pier is a parable for everything that is wrong with Britain: disdain for the past, political incompetence, subjection before Brussels, asphyxiating bureaucracy, pointless vandalism. Above all, it shows us how the proudest achievements of the private sector can be torn down by government bungling.
The West Pier was built in 1866 through free enterprise. In 1975, citing health and safety, the council closed the construction to the public, and decay set in. In the 1990s, a private consortium came forward with a plan to redevelop the pier with shops and boutiques.
When John Major launched the Heritage Lottery Fund, he specifically cited the pier as an ideal recipient. As usual, Mr Major's promise proved worthless. While heritage bureaucrats fiddled around with flow charts and feasibility studies, the managers of Brighton's existing pier went to Brussels, claiming that the grant would violate EU competition rules. For years, civil servants ran up expenses and lawyers enriched themselves. Then nature intervened.
A storm tore away much of the pier, and suspected arsonists did for the rest. Yesterday, the Heritage Lottery Fund withdrew its offer, and Brighton's Labour council announced that it would clear away the remnants of the deck. The triumph of our state bureaucracy was complete.
.....is this portion a manifesto or statement of desired intent from the new proprieters I wonder, - 'a parable for everything that is wrong with Britain: disdain for the past, political incompetence, subjection before Brussels, asphyxiating bureaucracy, pointless vandalism. Above all, it shows us how the proudest achievements of the private sector can be torn down by government bungling.' - we can but hope!!
A report in The Independent this morning, linked here, illustrates the extraordinarily contradictory position the Prime Minister has now placed his country. I quote the final paragraphs:-
But last night the alliance's most senior diplomats came to a fudged agreement over the one outstanding issue: Washington's demand that a Nato training mission should come under the command of the US-led multilateral force in Iraq. That had been rejected by Paris and several other national capitals, which believe that such a decision could prejudge the nature of any future involvement by Nato in Iraq.
The command and control element of the decision will not be resolved until September. The fudge will allow the first phase of the mission - the despatch of the second fact-finding team - take place on 6 August.
The transatlantic rift revealed the depth of suspicions on both sides. Washington believed the French were seeking to postpone any decision and that Paris is determined to give little assistance to the American administration ahead of November's presidential elections. The French say the Americans are trying to entangle the alliance in Iraq as part of an exit strategy that would lumber the 26 nations with the security aftermath of a war they opposed.
As the Prime Minister effectively concedes control of our armed forces to foreigners (see our many posts of yesterday below) on the ground in Iraq British troops daily face death in support of our vital Trans-Atlantic ally - now apparently virtually detested (see post immediately below this) on the European Continent among the European Union members of which Blair is absolutely determined to make us a permanent, defenceless and insignificant part!
Retiring Labour North East MEP's views on the EU Parliament
Although this article in The Hexaham Courantlinked here, does not provide the author's name, his comments are of interest. Firstly after twenty five years in the parliament he can find little in the way of achievements of which to boast - funding for a marina seems about all! His views on the new assembly are interesting however and some are quoted here:
Two moods of this new Parliament are clearly evident.
The first is the strong anti-British feeling within the Socialist Group. Factors in this are the Iraq war, the UK’s refusal to accept Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt as the nominee for the presidency of the European Commission and the decision of the Labour Party not to back former Danish Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen for the Presidency of the Party of European Socialists.
The second is the wider antagonism towards the United States. Some of this stems from the Iraq war, some goes back to the last US Presidential elections, some is against war in any form, and some is anti-globalisation. I get no thrill from the prospect of the Cold War being replaced by an Atlantic Rift.
The following is an excerpt from the BBC's Foreign Press review just out:-
On Bastille Day, 14 July, Mr Chirac publicly rebuked the minister over his warning that defence expenditure would be cut. The president said there was no quarrel between himself and Mr Sarkozy "for the simple reason that I make the decisions and he carries them out".
All who follow European affairs closely well know that cutting defence spending is constantly the desired source for funds to prop up the creaking welfare states of the two main failing eurozone economies, namely France and Germany. Of course there are going to be more cuts. Europe without America is effectively defenceless! Meantime Russia, as demonstrated by the events over the Yukos oil company is abandoning its own pursuit of free enterprise and therefore probably the democracy on which such depends.
What would you call a group of countries that group themselves together on the European Continent and try to make Briatain defenceless? Friends or enemies?
Read the two postings below and then ask yourself the question again. Still think the EU has Britain's best interests at heart?
Our friends in the English speaking world could offer some clues if you are still struggling.
The government is embarked on a scheme to disarm the nation, think on that and then enter Civil Contingencies Bill in the Google Search bar at the head of this blog......Still not worried? I am!
EU Defence Chief in clear call for break with Nato!
This item from the EUobserver linked here coming as it does following the new EU Parliament President reportedly making similar demands and the outgoing comments of the EU Ambassador to the US, linked here, can lead to only one conclusion, its make your mind up time for Briatain.
There is only one choice, our nation's best defence lies with the still democratic nations of the USA, Canada and Norway in other words all those Nato members not within the EU. Blair is clearly taking the wrong route!
The immediately following post has more links on this topic.
This topic which has been something of an obsession on this blog for many months is once again coming to the forefront of the public's attention.
Geoff Hoon's statement to parliament on 21st July gave considerable cause for concern. It may be read in full by clicking here.
The Bruges Group have published a paper introduced as follows:-
THE END OF INDEPENDENCE: THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE 'FUTURE RAPID EFFECTS SYSTEM' FOR AN INDEPENDENT UK DEFENCE POLICY
The Secretary of State for Defence is committing Britain to a potentially
disastrous military system that may become a white elephant of Eurofighter
proportions and on the other it could mean the surrender of the
independence of our armed forces and the nation.
However, no procurement contracts have yet to be awarded so, before we are finally committed to spending huge amounts of money and going down a road from which there is no return, we should have that debate, we owe ourselves that .
Tony Blair has been reported as refusing to submit the names of two women along with his devious friend Mandelson's to next Commission President Barroso. This report is from The Scotsmanlinked here while an earlier report from EUBusinesslinked here, hints that the French are already working towards ensuring that once more their nominee will get the plum job of their choice, whoops it actually says the opposite - you make your own mind up:-
Standing at his side, visiting French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said he had not discussed the new commission make-up in the larger 25-member EU with Barroso, limiting his discussions to the friendly relationship between France and Portugal.
Probably the discussion went, does Portugal want France as a friend then.......!!!!
Can you credit this - a French Socialist has been chosen to head the European Parliament's monetary affairs committee - read from here.
Also from this morning's EUobserver we read that newly re-socialist Spain wants to be part of the stopped if not reversing Franco-German locomotive - linked here. Maybe the economically doomed Core countries can incorporate the siesta as included in their 35 hour week and 20 day RTT allowances - that should really get them going against the emerging asian economic threat, all the way to destitution!
PM Sharon at airport to greet emigrating French Jews!
New friction between France and Israel seems likely this evening as PM Sharon and his Foreign Minister plan to be at the airport to welcome some 200 French jews leaving France, apparently in response to Sharon's call to quit in the face of rising French anti-semitism. The BBC has a report linked here.
House of Lords again at forefront of protecting waning individual liberties!
A report from The Scotsmanlinked here, once again shows that the House of Lords, constantly under threat of being neutered by Blair, that seems to be in the vanguard of British citizens rapidly disappearing individual rights:-
Baroness Harris said: “Terrorism is a major threat to all the EU member states.
“We want to examine the proposals that the Commission and others have made for improving counter-terrorism arrangements in the EU.
“We will assess their effectiveness, practicability and the extent to which they protect the rights of the individual.”
The committee has asked for written evidence. It is expected to start taking oral evidence from mid September and report at the turn of the year.
The importance of this scrutiny and concern may be guaged from this report from 'Statewatch' on yet more erosion of our basic freedoms. (Once more I must thank Anne Palmer for forwarding this information):-
1. UK: Interception of communications up 20%
5. UK: Government publishes "Preparing for emergencies" leaflet
6. EU's Justice and Home Affairs 5 year work programme
7. Judicial Cooperation in the EU: the role of Eurojust
8. European Commission first annual report on migration
9. UK: Plan to create a national database on all school children
1. UK: Changes in telephone-tapping warrant procedures disguises true
figures. Since 1997 the surveillance of telecommunications has risen
more than two and a half times - the report from the Commissioner for
the year 2003 shows a 20% rise. See:
b. See also: How to spot a "terrorist" which includes: "Are you
suspicious about any tenants or guests? Have you seen anyone pay an
unusual amount of attention to security measures at any location?
[and] If you are a retailer, do you have any cause to be suspicious
about anything being bought? see:
The Committee's converns include: "i. The omission from the
Communication of an evaluation of the practical benefits achieved so
far as a result of the Tampere programme. and ii. The omission of a
statement of the practical benefits expected from the Commission's
proposals for the next five years."
'A satisfactory application of the "Television without Frontiers" Directive : television broadcasters are devoting an average 2/3 of their transmission time to European works' has been announced by the EU. Full details may be had from their website linked here
It begins: Today, the European Commission adopted a Communication on the implementation of Articles 4 and 5 of the "Television without Frontiers" Directive on promotion of the broadcasting of European works, including those of independent producers....................
Running four blogs as I do, all updated on a pretty regular basis one comes across vast amounts of total claptrap and absolute rubbish. This item from icTeesside linked here, has to be one of the worst examples of pure hypocrisy I have yet to read. Coming from Peter Mandelson, Britain's nextand only EU Commissioner, whose first fall from grace arose from an undisclosed loan to purchase a fashionable London home, is this:-
"Working in Europe is an exciting challenge, but it is also a huge wrench," said Mr Mandelson.
"I am leaving my town, my constituency, my home in Hartlepool and the people who have given me support."
It seems time that constituency was represented by a straight and honest talker - I have offered myself as a candidate for UKIP - they of course will prefer a non sincere Mandelson arch-crawler as described in the article linked here:
The mainstream media like to present Mandelson as a sinister figure who cunningly manipulates the saintly Blair.
In fact Mandelson has only one discernible talent—crawling. And Blair is only too happy to use him as a convenient fixer.
The OECD report, issued today, predicts further misery for the EU's citizens - as the elite who rule them plan to steal their last few remaining democratic rights while continuing to abuse the deliberate confusion surrounding the national/european interface responsibilty gap to gorge their way to ever greater self-enrichment.
Well that's my reading between the lines of this EU Observer report readable from here .
One OECD recommendation is this, read it and then the post immediately following, placed here earlier today:-
The 12 countries are urged to adhere more closely to the rules underpinning the euro - which cap budget deficits at three percent of GDP.
Research continues into the implications and consequences of the recent ruling. Certain reports and early comment have now become difficult to trace but a detailed response and commentary will be posted soon. This TEAM report is relevant and linked from here.
The Deutsche Welle report linked here, worryingly stated :-
Following the court's ruling, excessive deficit procedures may now be restarted against Germany and France but they need not fear fines, the ultimate sanction in the budget disciplinary procedure which may now have to be restarted.
This confidence seems hard to justify from the published material available, although startling comment was made at the time that it was unenforcable due to the lack of military means of the Commission....did I dream this or do others recall reading similar comment?
The press release from the court, linked here, in pdf format, makes no mention of the fines procedure and the Court Ruling supposedly available from that link repeatedly returns 'not available'.
I had many important things to say here today; family surpises have put them out of mind. No doubt they will ring more true tomorrow with the benefit of the extra experience those in the sixth decade of their lives must surely possess....Cheers!!!
The Sunday Herald has this interesting article (linked here), by Angus Roxburgh who 'gives us a ‘passerelle’ to some Euro-jargon'. Not familiar withe the term? Well it is the means by which the last few remaining national vetoes available to the EU member states will be slowly replaced by qualified majority voting under the new EU Constitution.
I read this article with interest having previously blogged about this concept and been unable to find or offer any realistic explanations. I received this morning a link to the House of Commons Library Research Paper 04/54 of 7th July 2004, titled The Extension of Qualified Majority Voting from the Treaty of Rome to the European Constitution, linked from here.
This attempts to offer some explanation of the passerelle or bridgingclauses which is to be found on page 41 of the pdf document:-
Passerelle articles The Constitution contains so-called passerelle or ‘bridging’ clauses, allowing the Councilto decide by unanimity to move to QMV for aspects of environmental and social policy, judicial cooperation and enhanced cooperation. There is also a general passerelle Article, IV-7a, which allows the European Council to decide unanimously to move to the ordinary legislative procedure, after consulting the European Parliament and informing national parliaments. N.B. The significance of the last words of the paragraph above. However the procedures are determined and decided NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS will merely be informed. Clearly this is a hugely significant concept, totally inadequately explained, but with an all too clear intent! The disgraceful , deceitful, devious and dissembling methods by which we have been robbed of our democracy are set to get even worse if this Constitution ever gets ratified.
The dreadful misconception that drives the EU project forewards?
The following is the opening of W.T. Stead's Europa Chapter V of Part 1 of The United States of Europe published in 1899, more of which may be found from this link
had the good fortune to be in Berlin two years ago. A great capital is always a great inspiration. And Berlin, with its heroic associations of past wars, is more inspiring than most of the younger cities of the world. But that which impressed me most on this visit was the new building of the Reichstag, which had not been completed the last time I was in Germany. It was not the building itself -although that is imposing, if rather squat, with noble equestrian statues standing boldly against the sky- but the political fact which it represented. Here under one roof, around the same tribune, gather in peaceful debate the representatives of as many States as those which now make up the anarchy of Europe. It is the fashion nowadays to speak of language as if it were a tie closer than all others. But the belief in the unity of the Fatherland because of its common speech is hardly a century old, and long after Arndt had embodied the idea in verse, German fought German with the utmost indifference to the German tongue. The intense individuality of the German, his tendency to construct a special theory of the universe entirely for his own use out of his own consciousness, made the German races the most intractable material for empire-building on the Continent. They fought each other for the love of God; they fought for the pride of place; they were capable of fighting for a theory of irregular verbs. They were divided, and sub-divided, and re-divided again into kingdoms, principalities, duchies, and all manner of smaller States. Every ruler was as touchy as a Spanish hidalgo about his precedence, and no miser ever clutched his gold with more savage determination to keep and to hold than every German princelet maintained to the uttermost the princely prerogative of making war and peace. Not even the constant pressure of foreign peril sufficed to overcome the centrifugal tendency of the German genius. Again and again the wiser heads amongst them had devised more or less elaborate plans for securing German unity. After the fall of Napoleon, the best that could be done was the Bund, which was almost as provoking in its deliberative inaction as the European Concert is to-day. But the Bund perished at the sword's point, to be succeeded by the North and South German Confederations, which in turn disappeared when the victories over France rendered it possible for the Prussian King to be proclaimed German Emperor in the Palace at Versailles. Since then unified Germany has been at peace. Germany has become a unit, and the Reichstag, although sorely distracted by the fissiparous tendency of the German parliamentary man, has been the parliament of the United Empire.
How long will it be, I wondered, as I wandered through the building of the Reichstag, before unified Europe has its Parliament House, and the Federation of Europe finds for itself a headquarters and a local habitation for a permanent representative assembly? What Germany has done, Europe may do.
W.T. Stead perished on the Titanic and was thus spared seeing the horrors of such misplaced 'idealistic internationalism' unleashed in the World Wars of the twentieth century. Those now driving the European Project forward, such as Peter Mandelson with his use of disguised terms such as 'third way' (see the link from our post below of yesterday) or Global Civil Society' or indeed 'Political Europe' can have no such excuses.
The following is an extract from a Comment in the EU Observer byGeorge Irvin a UHD Professor of Economics at ISS, The Hague from which comes this quote for weekend thought:-
"Where does that leave Great Britain? If, as now seems likely, British voters reject the EU constitution, and Britain retains control of its foreign policy, the UK would retain its permanent seat in recognition of its independent foreign policy and its importance as a US partner in the maintenance of world order.
But were it to adopt the constitution and the euro, the pressure from America to drop it from the UN, and to restructure still another international organisation, the G7, to exclude currency-less nations, would mount. Only the US, EU, China and Japan would be able to influence interest and exchange rates, and meetings without Chirac and Schröder in attendance would certainly be more pleasant …"
In case you think Stelzer is a mere hack with little influence on the British Government, recall that it was immediately after a visit to Downing Street by Stelzer that Blair agreed to a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty.
According to Neil Chenoweth's autobiography of Murdoch (Crown, 2002), Steltzer’s role as interlocutor between Murdoch and Blair dates back to the 1980s.
What Stelzer and the neo-cons are saying today to Blair is that if Britain wants to retain its influence in the world, New Labour should damn the Constitution with faint praise. And that of course is precisely what Blair has been doing.
Twice disgraced former British minister, Peter Mandelson - sole nominee is accepted by EU's Barroso!
In an astounding bonus for the anti-EU cause, the British Prime Minister in a bare-faced demonstration of the most outrageous cronyism, has nominated only Mandelson to the new EU President and his name - it is now being reported by the BBC, has been accepted.
Britain's new lone EU Commissioner will thus manage to start in office, incredibly enough, with even greater personal character stain than the two retiring incompetents combined!
Refresh your memories of the new Commissioner's seedy past prepared by the BBC from here.
I have been intending to provide a link to this Civitas report for some time. Click here.
The following is the introduction:
If the UK were to leave the EU, there would be no net loss of jobs or trade. In addition, we would be between £17 billion and £40 billion per year better off, possibly more. These are the findings of A Cost Too Far?, published by Civitas.
Prime Minister Blair often claims that 60 per cent of the UK’s trade and three million jobs ‘depend on’ our EU membership. Closer analysis reveals this to be a highly misleading claim.
The posting immediately beneath this has elicited this response from Mr Alex Dakers:
Is this another 5 year plan
Would Attempts by the EU to Use Force to Impose Their Legislation on the UK be Lawful?
Remember if we reject the EU constitution, the existing treaties still stand and now we will have depleted our only real form of Defence
"Article 224 Treaty Establishing the European Community - Part Six: General and Final Provisions 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".
Governments since the 1972 European Union treaty have claimed that European Law is "supreme" in the UK . What would be the position in law if the EU attempted to impose its will on British Subjects by force in the circumstances which are envisioned in Article 224 of the Treaty? Such an "emergency" could be manufactured at any time and it would be prudent to consider what could be done to protect the common law rights and liberties of British subjects in such a situation.
Yesterday's House of Commons announcement of swingeing defence cuts should be viewed in the light of this paper previously circulated on the internet. I agree with the introduction by Anne Palmer who resent this on to me, it also makes a fitting introduction to the ponderings in my posting here of yesterday which now then follows:-
In view of Hoon's savage proposed cuts, I am sending this to you again-even though it is dated 18.5.2003-and therefore 'old' news, because I would like those in Parliament to realise that they are not alone in knowing that Germany is building up its forces (I feel sure they do know-even if they wish to bury their heads in sand). Having sent our forces to war ill equipped and understaffed, it is time to spend more money on all our services, not cut them down. Up to date news can be found by clicking on the website shown below. Regards Anne
,,Downfall or ascent to world power"
MUNICH - A German strategy paper on the future of the European Union foresees the disintegration of the EU and a ,,return to the power politics of former days" if the Berlin-driven ,,ascent of Europe to global power" is hindered by the ,,blockade mentality" of some members. The politically influential authors contrast the threat of this scenario against that of a ,,Superpower Europe" which will reach ,,power parity" with the USA and thereby achieve its rightful ,,objective, world-power potential".
,,Downfall or ascent to world power" are the alternatives placed before the EU member states by the Centre for Applied Policy Research (CAP), an influential German think tank which co-operates closely with the German Foreign Office.1) The German political advisers assert that the railway points to the future should be reset in view of the dissension within the EU over the Iraq war. The Union and its member states must now define themselves new as a ,,future-orientated community for success" which was concerned at ,,fundamental attacks on the substance of European integration".
,,Power politics of bygone days"
If the attempt to ,,europeanise" national foreign and security policies failed, a ,,renationalisation" would follow. In the first of the future scenarios offered in the German paper, relationships between European states would be affected by ,,a marked return to the power politics of bygone days". The dominant influence of the USA in Europea would experience a renaissance. If the ,,blockade mentality" of some members hindered the ,,ascent of Europe to global power" then a group of member states could combine together in a ,,closed European nucleus" outside the framework of the EU treaties - thus the next threat. The strategic baselines would be agreed by the most powerful member states ,,which have at their disposal the necessary military capabilities and structures as well as the political will when necessary to commit military emphasis to their world-wide interests". The rest of the EU would then degrade into a ,,de luxe free trade area" without capability in political matters.
A development after the fashion of the last few decades and an ,,Avant Garde" inside the EU does not appear sufficient to the German world-power strategists ,,to activate the world-power potential of 500 million people": Only in the scenario of ,,Superpower Europe will Great Europe achieve its rightful world-power potential". Therefore it followed that the ,,final goal of a European state" should be pursued. All central political competences (interior, foreign policy, defence, social and economic policies) must be communitised. The EU, already developing in the direction of ,,Superpower Europe", would always be capable of accepting new members. Thus it would be ,,globally the only system which could continually expand its territory". Then the great political and economic power potential of the EU would achieve parity with the USA.
,,Unrestricted means of international power politics"
In particular the ,,building up of United Strategic Armed Forces (VESS) which could use the nuclear weapons capability of France and Britain under a unified European High Command", would alter the international role of the EU - thus the German vision. This would lead to ,,power parity with the USA". ,,Superpower Europe is finally saying goodbye to the idea of a civil power and is acquiring without restriction the means of international Great Power policy".
As I approach my sixtieth birthday, which I will be celebrating over the coming weekend, I cannot but help consider the apparent political pointlessness of this particular span of history.
In the summer of 1944 the Continent of Europe stood divided between two warring, totalitarian, dictatorial and tyrannical power blocks. On the one hand Communist Russia led by the atrocious tyrant Stalin, and on the other the Nazis, led by Adolf Hitler, who had the vast majority of other European nations firmly occupied and ruthlessly governed by his depraved followers. In 1944, however, hope, liberation and democracy were at hand. Such was my birthright, bought at great cost (as recent researches into my family tree have shown). How have I and my generation nurtured the freedom which lay at its heart?
This summer no such optimistic future is in view. On one side of the Continent, the recently sown seeds of democracy, freedom of expression and the very principle of free markets (which it had been hoped might eventually underpin individual liberties) seem to have fallen on barren land as the Yukos oil company saga daily continues, independent media outlets are apparently ruthlessly shut-down and Chechen dissent is bloodily suppressed before an uncomplaining world.
On the other-side of the Continent, similar moves are less obviously afoot. In a group of countries vaster and more numerous than those even Hitler could ever aspire to control, the democratic rights of Europe’s peoples become daily less as their Parliaments and other institutions, once guarantors of freedom, are seemingly blindly and carelessly cast aside.
Britain was instrumental in bringing the earlier tyranny in Europe to an end. Today it is a co-conspirator among the EU democracy destroyers; its Westminster Parliament shamed by the spineless time-servers and shameless manipulators who now occupy its benches without thought or care for the traditions they so blithely destroy together, of course, with the freedoms that such once protected.
Will those of my generation be able to say that they have ensured such an extended sixty year period of freedom from major power conflict, as I have enjoyed, for those born this summer? I fear not!
There is once again a madness across Europe and it is mainly characterised by an inability of the continent’s purported leaders to clearly see the obvious dangers of their apparently deliberate but dreadfully mistaken naivety and total disregard for the lessons of history.
Is it only bloggers such as me, who watch the news events of growing turmoil and injustice in horror, while Europe’s national leaders act out an elaborate charade that the common currency and proposed constitution really have relevance to the true dangers and problems that confront them and the peoples of the Continent they aspire to lead?
I left a piece of Kipling on this blog as I left on vacation. Mark Steyn also quotes the same poet in his Telegraph column this morning, linked here and partially quoted below:-
The UN system is broken beyond repair. In May, even as its proxies were getting stuck into their ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan was elected to a three-year term on the UN Human Rights Commission. This isn't an aberration: Zimbabwe is also a member. The very structure of the organisation, under which countries vote in regional blocs, encourages such affronts to decency..........................
One day, historians will wonder why the most militarily advanced nations could do nothing to halt men with machetes and a few rusting rifles. After Kitchener's victory over the dervishes at Omdurman, Belloc wrote:
"Whatever happens/ We have got/ The Maxim gun/ and they have not."
We've tossed out the Maxim gun for daisycutters and cruise missiles. In Darfur, meanwhile, the Janjaweed on their horses are no better armed than the dervishes were. But we're powerless against them because we've fetishised poseur-multilateralism as the only legitimate form of intervention. Who needs a "Kipling of today" when the old one works perfectly well:
"Take up the White Man's burden/ The savage wars of peace/ Fill full the mouth of famine /And bid the sickness cease;/ And when your goal is nearest/ The end for others sought,/ Watch Sloth and heathen Folly/ Bring all your hope to nought."
He didn't know the half of it. Today, we have devised a system of protean "world government" that amplifies both the Sloth of the West and the heathen Folly of the thug states. And, because of it, in Sudan as in Rwanda, hundreds of thousands will die.
Can any of us dare hope that the increasingly corrupt EU, that has been Arafat's main financier and political backer, might someday too collapse under the weight of its own contradictions and excesses? The Guardian report describes events in Gaza and is linked from here.
Simon Heffer writes on the above with much plain common sense in this week's The Spectator linked from here. A brief extract:-
" In England, we see Scotland acting as a foreign country, managing its own affairs from its own grotesquely extravagant and corrupt parliament. That is too small a stage for a big man like Mr Brown, but one with which he ought, in justice, to be content. If he and his sort wanted to be British they should never have dismantled Britain. They fear an English parliament — or, more to the point, English issues being voted on solely by English MPs — because it would soon mean that Labour would never rule in England again. They should have thought of that before they let the genie out of the bottle."
Being anti-EU is not anti-European A letter from Cllr Steve Radford, Chairman of The Liberal Party:-
It is widely being suggested that if anyone is critical of any policies or procedures of the EU them they are anti-european. What a disgraceful and childish way to detract from debating real issues and concerns.
The Economist article entitled "Dutch distemper"(19th July), points out that the Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot had made a profound speech at Humboldt University in which he argued that the EU had developed too fast for many of its ordinary citizens and that there was a crisis of legitimacy.
Further more the Dutch Foreign Minister went onto argue that various powers be repatriated from Brussels to the national governments, including social policy and elements of farm and regional policy.
In respect of the euro we have seen the regulations of member countries being tied to keep budget deficits below 3% of GDP being blatantly flouted by France and Germany
It is not just British public opinion which is seeing major problems with the operation of the EU, even some of its keenest and original founders, like the Netherlands are waking up to the political realities of an over centralised EU.
Smearing those of us who are critical of the EU as being anti-european is disingenuous in the extreme
The International Herald Tribune has this item on the French referendum announcement published today from The Boston Globe, and linked here. The following is an interesting quote:
"There is a very real danger that French voters - who are manifestly unhappy about high unemployment, pinched social benefits and street crime - will take out their discontent with Chirac's presidency by voting down a European Constitution that he has made a personal cause."
This report comes from the latest edition of the European Intelligence Digest issued today:-
PARLIAMENT OPPOSES BARROSO
The appointment of the new president of the European Commission, José Manuel
Durao Barroso, the former prime minister of Portugal and former Maoist is
meeting with considerable opposition from within the European Parliament.
(A photo of Barroso at a Communist demonstration in Lisbon 1976 can be seen
here: http://barnabe.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/100949.html) The European
Social Democrats are trying to obtain a majority to vote against Barroso's
appointment. If they succeed, then Barroso will not succeed Romano Prodi on
31st October, because the appointment has to be approved by the European
Parliament. The Socialists say that he is not experienced enough with the
European project, and the Greens say that he is too friendly with the USA.
The German Social Democrats are not necessarily going to follow the lead of
Chancellor Schröder, who supports Barroso. There is also a chance that the
new "Eurosceptics" in the European Parliament, including UKIP, might vote
against him for being too pro-European, or just to cause trouble. The
Liberals have also kept their cards close to their chest. Together, these
votes would theoretically make it possible to defeat the Christian Democrat
Centre-Right majority in the European Parliament. If this happened, then
the Dutch presidency would have to find a new candidate for Commission
president. Parliament has to vote on Barroso on 22nd July, by simple
majority. Prior to that the candidate has to appear before the Parliament
to be questioned. [Martin Halusa, Die Welt, 30th June 2004]
JACK STRAW SETS OUT UK CHANGES TO THE EU CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY
On 24 June the Rt Hon John Redwood MP tabled the following Parliamentary Question on amendments to the EU constitutional treaty text: 'To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which amendments tabled by the (a) Italian and (b) Irish presidencies of the EU to the draft EU Constitutional Treaty represented the UK Government's proposed changes to the Treaty.' On 8 July the Foreign Secretary replied: 'At the European Council on 18 June, the Government supported the agreement on the amendments to the Convention's draft EU Constitutional Treaty text as set out in documents CIG 81/04 and CIG 85/04 (copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House). All other proposals for amendments made by either the Italian or Irish Presidency during the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) were superseded.
The FCO press release may be read from this link, which in turn contains a link to the Constitution document in pdf format. CLICK HERE
As pointed out in our post of 3rd July titled 'Prodi moves to promote Britain's EU Withdrawal' linked here the threat to withdraw Britain's EU budget rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher has once more been placed on the table. Combined with plans to cope with Britain's late referendum discussed below on Tuesday in 'Euractiv the Constitutional non-ratification crisis' it is increasingly clear that Blair's policy of being at the heart of the union has been changed to putting Britain at the conjuction of the EU's cross wires!
EUobserver, paying the penalty for its five day week, has also finally come across this news item as may be read from here.
We have discussed the 'Hans Martin Tillack Case' at length on this blog, not least in our post of 31st March titled 'Totalitarian Police State Now Advancing at a Gallop' linked from here. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard returns to the scandal in today's Daily Telegraphlinked here and reports:-
"Leaked documents on the arrest of a fraud-busting journalist have intensified fears that the European Union is abusing its growing investigative powers to manipulate evidence and silence criticism."
The article is well worth reading in full, however another later significanr extract is the following:-
Olaf denies orchestrating the raids, claiming that it merely passed on suspicions to the police, and maintains that it acted correctly at all times.
But internal documents obtained by The Telegraph confirm that Olaf requested urgent "simultaneous searches" by the Belgian and German police.
The "Tillack affair" has become a test case of whether the EU can be trusted to handle its investigative and embryonic police powers.
Raymond Kendall, the former head of Interpol who heads Olaf's watchdog body, has accused the agency of pursuing a vendetta.
Addressing a recent House of Lords committee, he said the body was not subject to day-to-day judicial oversight. "Olaf can do whatever they want to do," he told peers. "There is absolutely no control whatsoever."The full leaked dossier, entitled "Special Case No 3", reveals that what Olaf termed its "reliable source" against Tillack was Joachim Gross, then spokesman for the budget commissioner Michaele Schreyer, who is ultimately in charge of Olaf. Mrs Schreyer denies playing any role in the affair.
Why are the people of an entire continent, once known as the cradle of democracy, apparently totally unconcerned as their democratic institutions are dismantled by the EU at the same time as that clearly corrupy and totally unaccountable organisiation uses its own anti-fraud office to illegally clamp-down on press reporting of its own corruption?
The Timeslinked here has an article on a Gordon Brown speech which they believe indicates the question in this post's headline may be valid.
"In a speech that could have passed muster as a bid for the leadership of the UK Independence Party, the Chancellor insisted that “the old integrationist project”, which went from the single market to a single currency, tax harmonisation, common fiscal policy and a “quasi-federal state” was doomed by globalisation. Only economic liberalisation policies making the bloc more open to the rest of the world would do.
To answer those who still insist that sterling is doomed, Mr Brown need only grab the latest inward investment figures. Britain was not only the favourite destination for investment into the European Union, but it also remained the most popular choice for corporate investors in other EU countries.
In 2003 the absolute level of inward investment rose sharply and the UK’s share of EU inward investment, which was already the biggest, rose further. Much of the investment also looks particularly useful for the economy. Some 25,000 jobs were created, mostly in small pockets connected to new industries such as software, biotechnology and the internet. Manufacturing jobs also featured strongly."
Liberal economies must bring greater prosperity than the corpoatism of the EU.
More reasons to reject the Constitution comes from this glowing endorsement of it by the TUC General Secretary reported in ePolitix linked here. Ardent trade unionists always appear ready to embrace any cause that appears to be most likely to diminish the longer term prosperity of ordinary people. as long as it is in return for the union leaders obtaining ever greater influence or powers.
Yesterday afternoon I posted an interesting proposal by Neil Herron regarding giving Westminster MPs greater responsibility for matters within their regions and dispensing with the need for Regional Authorities/Assemblies. Neil came back querying why I had indicated beneath his letter that this blog did not necessarily support the idea. The following was the main thrust of my reply:-
I guess my conceptual problem is that it accepts the MPs loss of powers to the EU and attempts to compensate for it. I am totally behind the
principal of your fight against the Regional Assemblies, but concerned that even when successful the question will be repeatedly put unless we can end the EU's authority and restore Westminster's, whereafter local powers should return where they belong.
Similar reasons as to why I cannot bring myself to support the English
Democrats who seek to consolidate the destruction of the UK....which nevertheless might be one alternative to consider as a constitutional change but only once a fully autonomous Westminster UK parliament, has been restored.
If our MPs began to be perceived as regional representatives would we not have turned Westminster into a glorified 'Grand Regional Council' and thus facilitated the EU's own aim of destroying both the nation state and its Parliament?
I believe Neil Herron's article will appear in The Journal the Newcastle daily paper where it should cause plenty of debate, into which, I feel sure, many will wish to become involved.
Lords Second Reading of the Civil Contingencies Bill
The debate opened at 8:31 PM and was introduced with the following exchange:-
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall comment on the timing of this debate. On behalf of everyone involved I apologise to the House that we are starting at this time. That is due to us underestimating the length of time that the Children Bill would take, which was longer than many of us anticipated.....
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I do not believe that it is normally acceptable to start the Second Reading of a Bill at this stage in the day......
Further EU favouritism for French as another Alstom bail-out approved
This report on the widely predicted and inevitable 'cave-in communitaire' is in EUBusiness linked here. As Sarkozy so correctly stated when asked by a French reporter in La Rochelle, whether the bail-out would be forthcoming in spite of breaking EU rules - 'what do you think?'
'No' Says Yes A Regional Assembly...of Current MP's
Agenda Piece by Neil Herron
A recent debate in the House of Commons, called by the Lib-Dem MP Andrew George, discussed the number of MP's we elect. He stated that 150 of the 659 MP's could very well be given the chop. It would save substantial money. In any case, much of their work has been handed over to Brussels, or to assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and London, and Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott aims to shift yet more to other Elected Regional Assemblies, if this Autumn's referenda in the three Northern Regions actually go ahead. It has become very unclear even what MPs think they are there for, other than authorising taxes on us and fixing pay rises for themselves.
But we have to watch Mr. George and what he is really up to. He is a Lib-Dem and wants to see the "Europe of Regions" in place, which means doing away entirely with meaningful national parliaments. Weakening Westminster by reducing the number of MPs is essential part of that package. However Mr. George certainly has a point in asking whether we need all these people now that they have given away most of the work we elected them to do. The fact that they never had permission from us, or lawful authority to do so is the ultimate battle and a one that will rise further up the agenda as the debate over the European Constitution grows.
Contrary to Mr. George's wish it is in fact vitally important that we maintain a strong parliament. A strong parliament is most likely to give us good governance, a weak parliament bad governance. There must be enough MPs to provide an adequate stock leadership talent. There is not an abundance of it even now. Moreover, the main political problem in Britain today is reconnecting the electorate with the ballot box. Voting gimmicks and desperate attempts seen to increase the turn-out are not the solution. More enfeeblement of Westminster could only advance it's divorce with the voter, further decay of parliamentary democracy, and further diminishing of democracy itself, all inevitable requirements of the europeanist calendar. We cannot afford any of that, and the public once fully aware, will reject any further the duplicitous theft of their democracy, and the handing back of what has been taken.
Nevertheless, the question remains: How can the seeming excess of MPs be used productively and parliament strengthened at the same time?
The 'Yes Campaign' and its supporters continually state that the 'No Campaign' is negative and has not come up with something positive. Well, we are simply rejecting the proposition that Prescott is attempting to foist upon us. Perhaps there is an alternative.
The answer is staring us in the face. Give the MPs regional responsibilities as well as constituency duties! The present arguments for English regionalisation are largely fraudulent, divisive and destructive. The Prescott plan requires us to turn out to vote for new people for new elective assemblies. The electorate knows that it has too much worthless government already, and will turn its back...hence a total avoidance of any substance to Prescott's proposals. The vision sounds good. People initially respond favourably. Add reality to the vision and public support disappears and regionalisation campaigners are left with the line, 'we must seize the opportunity and hope to make what is on offer better.'
It has already been recognised by many however, that the assemblies have no real power and in essence are europeanist-agenda bribery pieces of gravy train provided for the benefit of greedy factotums and ambitious politicians. But if members instead were sitting MPs the position of the assemblies would change immediately. They then would then carry enormous clout. Unlike Prescott's version where the elected assemblymen are virtually powerless, MP assemblymen would also sit in the Commons which makes all the difference. For genuine regional issues, as for example the dualling of the A1, these MPs could be expected in public assembly session to work out a cross-party concensus (not that it would be difficult with only one Lib Dem and one Conservative), and have to stick to it in Westminster, all fixed before the party whips can get at them. Prescott's elective assemblies could not start to do any such thing.
And why should not our MPs form the regional assemblies? We already vote for them. They have done away with much of their previous workload so they cannot claim to be overworked. MPs are quite close to the electorate and face deselection or defeat. Their performance in a Regional Assembly over things that are of immediate consequence to us would give us a much better grasp of what sort of persons they really are. This could be the start of real "Bottom Up" democracy, and the revival of parliamentary democracy, the breaking of the parliamentary party stranglehold. It would save us much money. No need for a new building. No need to raise the Council Tax to pay for the running costs. No need to create another raft of politicians, their apparatchik and new salary commitments. Who cannot want all this?
Despite all the fizz and splutter of the regionalists, the genuinely regional issues are few. They cannot be many when the current unelected regional assemblies make do on three plenary sessions a year. MP-assemblies, or Select Committees, might well manage with monthly sessions. The behind-our-back manipulations of our affairs currently the rule could become out of fashion. The shadowy English Regional Network would be dismantled, the Local Government Association regain independence, unharried Counties could get on with their jobs, the voracious and burgeoning secretariats of the current assemblies could be pruned right back, the cascade of worthless seminars, and workshops beloved by factotums and fellow travellers would be cut off, and we would start reducing on the 354,000 new public servants that have been appointed since 1997.
And at the next election there may be candidates standing with a regional and local agenda which could ensure that incumbent MP's will have to be aware that a lot more people are watching what they are up to. I think this would certainly spice up North East politics and once the electorate realise that they are in control and have the power we may end up with a better class of political representation.
North East No Campaign
48 Frederick Street
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Ackn. Dr. P.Kaye
The above contribution does not necessarily reflect the view of Ironies.
Two days ago I commented upon and linked an article in The Independent regarding the resignation of Jim Dougal the EU Commission's chief propagandist within the UK. A blog-reader wrote an excellent letter regarding this event, which the newspaper has apparently not seen fit to publish. I reproduce it here for the benefit of this blogs more widespread readership:
Subject: Britain, the EU & Jim Dougal
Jim Dougal (5 July) has had a hard row to hoe for the Commission because the
EU project can no longer be disguised. In a BBC programme about manipulating
British opinion in the Seventies, Roy Hattersley remarked "Not only was it
wrong for us to deal superficially with what Europe involved, but we have
paid the price for it ever since because every time there is a crisis in
Europe people say, with some justification , "well, we wouldn't have been
part of this if we'd really known the implications". Quite so.
I have a copy of the 1975 referendum leaflet from the Wilson government. It
gives the overwhelming impression that we were voting to stay in a "Common
Market". It used the term thirty nine times and also assured us of the
abandonment of Economic and Monetary Union.
That was a deliberate lie.
Those of us who were mildly europhile had been reassured by Mr. Heath that
"no essential loss of sovereignty" was involved. We eventually discovered
that we had been consistently misled . The policy of deceit had been set out
by Peter Thorneycroft as early as 1947. We would be nudged a little at a
time into what can only be called a superstate. The idea was that, by the
time we noticed, the process would be irreversible.
There is now a large, implacably hostile minority, in touch with
like-minded people across Europe. It is usually better informed than most
spokesmen in favour of the EU project. The internet ensures that it can
neither be talked down to nor soothed with broad, sunlit platitudes.
The Big Idea could have been sold to Britain honestly. With the accretion
of fifty years of deceit, it is a dead duck.
Euractiv Considers the Constitutional non-ratification crisis
Linked from here this discussion paper opens the debate amongst EU federalists of how to continue their mightmare project, even if the Constitution is not ratified by the once-parliaments of the once-nation states. The article needs to be read in full to get the true mind-set of the characters of the individuals now ruling our lives, but here are a few selected quotes for flavour:-
States adhering to the new Treaty would be bound by it but, at the same time, they would also be bound by previous agreements with those states that have not ratified it. However, from a practical point of view, this would lead to an unsustainable situation. The entry into force of the new Constitutional Treaty would not entail a revision of the same kind as the numerous revisions which have been made until now. Rather, it would amount to a complete transformation of the basic treaties and a radical change of the institutional framework. Allowing for the coexistence of the previous Treaty with the new one would imply the coexistence of two very different systems, with hardly any consistency.....
Firstly, the long delay announced for the British referendum would entail the risk of postponing the conclusion of the Protocol (which should be ratified by all national parliaments, similarly to the principal Treaty) after the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty by other states. Secondly, in order to avoid excessive fragmentation, the Protocol could cover neither the institutional aspects of the Constitutional Treaty nor the second part of it (The Charter of Fundamental Rights). It would be difficult to imagine that European institutions would respect these rights in their relationships with certain states but not with others.
NOW LOOK AT THIS LULU - NOTHING LESS THAN AN EDICT OF EU ACTION OVER-RIDING NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS TO ENFORCE RATIFICATION BY PAN-EU MAJORITY VOTE WITH NATIONAL REFERENDA "DISCOURAGED" NAMELY NATIONAL VOTES CAST NEVER BEING RELEASED!!!!!!!!!!!!!:-
We could imagine additional solutions of the same kind. For instance, the agreement could foresee: 1) the provisional application of the Constitutional Treaty (or some parts of it) for a trial period; 2) the obligation for every state to drop the current Treaties if not ratified within a given number of years (the most appropriate deadline would be before 2009, when the European Parliament and the Commission will be renewed). Otherwise, the agreement could provide for a European referendum, with the obligation on Member States to refrain from national referenda (in the absence of a specific constitutional obligation) and to accept a positive result corresponding to two thirds of the votes cast by all European citizens, leading to the entry into force of the Constitutional Treaty. The trial period and referendum, in the first and second hypotheses respectively, could reassure public opinion and soften the impact of the Constitutional Treaty’s entry into force, without preventing it.
AND WATCH OUT FOR THIS PARTICULARLY DIRTY TRICK - TIE US IN IN AN UNDERHAND AND UNDERCOVER MANNER WITH ONE OF THE NEW ACCESSION TREATIES:-
A less elegant (but maybe more feasible) solution from a legal standpoint would be to insert the “voluntary withdrawal” clause in one of the next Accession Treaties (e.g. with Romania or Bulgaria). In fact, Accession Treaties, although adopted following a different Community law procedure, may innovate existing Treaties, since under international law they are successive Treaties that should be ratified by all Member States as well.
Breaking free under the procedure set out in Paragraph 6 of the article, this is best read in full from the link...but this introduction is worthwhile quoting:-
Breaking the present system: unilateral denunciation or the invocation of the “rebus sic stantibus” clause
If none of the above-mentioned solutions were to prove feasible, and the Constitutional Treaty were brought to a halt, we would face a very serious political crisis.
We must hope and pray that such will be terminal meantime "REBUS SIC STANTIBUS" we could be going to hear much more of that! "Fings ain't wot they used to be" seems an apt translation.
"In this power game there were winners and losers ... unfortunately, Spain is one of the losers. Spain had a place among the big nations but it is now at a table with the small players", said the former prime minister.
Mr Aznar’s comments follow a series of attacks on the newly elected Socialist government, which Mr Aznar’s party has accused of putting good relations before the national interest.
Larger EU States hasten the advent of Big Brother Biometrics etc.
The ePolitix web site linked here reports this harrowing news from the largest EU states (Britain, Spain, Italy, France and Germany) but apparently excluding Poland (perhaps still too wedded to ideas of freedom following its only recent release from Russian/Communist oppression), now consolidating their grip over the entire 25 once-nation state EU, with terrfifying plans for various powers and monitoring devices that could only be foreseen as necessary for the repression of their own citizens.
... they called on the EU to improve its data sharing capabilities as part of a series of steps towards "ever closer co-operation on policing, data sharing and border security".
Agreement was also reached on the need for the EU to prioritise the introduction of biometric passports for all its citizens, provide advance information on passengers posing an immigration or security threat and improve information sharing on lost, stolen or forged travel documents.
For Europeans to allow such plans to advance without protest as simultaneously their sovereignty and democracies disappear before their very eyes truly seems both shocking, unprecedented and quite extraordinary. When will the somnolent populations begin to face and address the realities of all the plans of their present leaders?
Any wishing to take a view on the likely fall-out from yesterday's apparently permanent halt to the increasingly farcial Milosovik trial but more importantly the ongoing international confusion over the whole Balkans question will find the exchange of letters linked here most interesting.
This draconian piece of legislation is being considered in the House of Lords today. Also on their Lordship's agenda is the question of smacking children. The BBC Radio 4 'World at One' supposedly a flagship of the state broadcaster's current affairs programmes, predictably chose an extensive report on the latter topic for today's programme. The civil liberties of the nation are not fit for coverage while parents right to smack their chidren has so far taken almost half the programmes air-time.....and still it continues. (Laughably concurrentwith that report BBC World television was broadcasting a piece of self-propaganda about how BBC news is to be trusted. (For Ironies views on that try this link t o recent post 'BBC Bias is a national disgrace' with itsa own appropriate links). Shameful!
Back to this bill, however, earlier commentary on the proposals may be found from this link from Statewatch.But pithier still is the following letter written by Anne Palmer to several of their Lordhips making an earnest and excellent case for its rejection:-
The time is fast approaching when every Lord, Lady and Member of the
elected House is going to have to choose between Party and Country, and
between the European Union and their own Country. At this moment in
time, loyalty is to where an oath of allegiance is sworn, and that
without doubt is to our Queen and Country.
Very shortly you are going to have before you the Civil Contingencies
Bill, yet there is nothing "civil" about it. Even in the hands of a
Saint, it would not be a safe instrument for a 'Saint' to hold, for it
is against everything the people of this country have fought and died for.
Never before in the history of this Country, even in the two great
wars, or the terrorism of the IRA, has there ever been such a Bill
against the people of this country as the proposed Civil Contingencies
Bill going through our Parliament now. This Bill, as you are all
aware, enables the Government to declare an 'emergency exists' for
"disruption of supply of money, food, water, energy, or fuel".
"Disruption of an electronic or other systems of communication".
"Disruption of services for health", etc and so the list goes on and
on. In this 'emergency', citizens can be brought under strict
police-military rule, property can be confiscated without compensation
As the people of this Country have suffered from bombing in the last
war, with and without warning, the only possible real "emergency" that
would warrant such draconian legislation (and even then it would be
questionable to pass this Bill) would be an attack of chemical, gas, or
biological weapon or of an atomic nature, and even then most of what
the Bill contains is not warranted because it is against the people, a
people that should be protected and helped at such times, not suppressed.
To quote from the debates, "The list of possible constitutional issues
raised by the draft Bill is extensive. Clause 21 (3) (j) allows
regulations to dis-apply 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 removes 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
Are we to end up with armed foreign soldiers on every street corner to
keep us in line? Are we to have a taste of what living in Northern
Ireland was like at the height of its troubles? Is this Bill required
to prevent trouble if the Government accepts the EU Constitution? Or
are these arrangements in order to comply with the EU Constitution
Section 5 'Civil Protection', Article 111-184 and in which the EU will
also have a hand in controlling? The people may never forgive any of
our politicians that allow this Civil Contingencies Bill to go forward
in its present state, in fact, I hope they don't.
I have perhaps placed words upon this page that are strong in tone, but
not only am I trying to preserve the people's rights (even though most
of them have no idea what our politicians are doing on their behalf and
removing from them, for the people have had no explanation of this
Bill) I am trying to prevent the coming civil unrest, which any person
with the ability to 'forward think', can see would be inevitable if
such draconian legislation goes through and is put into practise.
The removal of our Constitution, as will be proposed in Clause 21 (3)
(j)) and named at 183, First Report Draft Civil Contingencies Bill,
commencing with Magna Carta 1297, followed by Bill of Rights 1688 (21
named altogether) thus finishing off the job for the terrorists, is not
a power that should be given to any Member of Parliament. I ask that
this Bill or any form of this Bill should be signed only by the Head of
State personally, and by no Member of Parliament on his or her behalf,
A rejection by the Crown, should also be accepted. I also ask that a
"state of emergency" should only be declared by our Head of State, Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and by no Member of Parliament, and if Her
Majesty is out of the Country or unavailable, then the heir to the
Throne should be involved. A rejection by the Crown should also be
accepted. There must be a safeguard for and on behalf of the people.
(Tripartite, as described by Blackstone)
How many more of our people have to die unnecessarily even after such
an "emergency" as described in the Bill, or by my description of an
emergency? You must surely know that this will or could happen?
I urge you, I beg you, to reject this Bill with every fibre of your
being, emergency powers are already in place-these should suffice.
To, Lord McNally, Baroness Buscombe,
Lord Craig, Baroness Finley,
Countess Mar, Lord Hanningford,
Lord Kimbell, Lord Lucas,
Lord Condon, Lord Archer of Sandwell,
Lord Berkley, Baroness Hamwee,