'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.

ENDS

Copyright © 2004 North East No Campaign

Neil Herron
Campaign Director
North East No Campaign
48 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NF
Tel. 0191 565 7143
e-mail mail@northeastnocampaign.co.uk
Website www.northeastnocampaign.co.uk
Ackn. Dr. P.Kaye

The above contribution does not necessarily reflect the view of Ironies.

posted by Martin at 7/07/2004 04:02:00 PM

 
Resignation Of Commission's UK Chief

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:

Quote
Subject: Britain, the EU & Jim Dougal

Hopcroft
Derby

Sir,

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.

Yours faithfully,

Edward Spalton
Unquote

posted by Martin at 7/07/2004 12:54:00 PM

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

 
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.

posted by Martin at 7/06/2004 05:22:00 PM

 
Aznar calls Constitution 'Deplorable'

EUobserver linked here, from which this is a quote:-

"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.

posted by Martin at 7/06/2004 04:28:00 PM

 
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?

posted by Martin at 7/06/2004 02:17:00 PM

 
Insight into the Balkans

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.

posted by Martin at 7/06/2004 09:32:00 AM

Monday, July 05, 2004

 
Civil Contingencies Bill

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:-

Quote
30.6.2004.

Dear ----,

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
etc, etc.

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
preserve both.

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.

Yours faithfully,
Anne Palmer.

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,
Lord Tunnicliffe.
Unquote

posted by Martin at 7/05/2004 12:08:00 PM

 
'Stifling Bureaucracy' causes Commission chief to QUIT

Jim Dougal the man in charge of the EU Commission in Britain cannot continue he says:

The bureaucracy in the Commission is stifling. The organisation has not yet come to terms with the fall of the Santer Commission five years ago. Staff are more interested in watching their backs than moving ahead.

The article is in The Independent linked here later continues with this amusing suggestion:-

A lost referendum and eventual withdrawal from the EU is now a possibility, by default. If our Government wants to be at the heart of Europe, to be decision-makers, it must take the initiative, and it should be on the offensive now. It has, after all, signed up to any European legislation adopted in this country. British ministers should have the guts to explain why to the people. And they must initiate the debate. It cannot and will not be done by outsiders.

I doubt that many British ministers would wish to risk their own reputations and thus potentially their futures, by openly associating themselves - let alone supporting - the actions of the EU Commission.

posted by Martin at 7/05/2004 07:47:00 AM

Sunday, July 04, 2004

 
EU's supposed benefits exhaustively listed!

Excerpt from the speech by the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Dr Jan Peter Balkenende, to the Conference of Speakers of European Union Parliaments, The Hague, 2 July 2004:-

"The European Union is not perfect, but it does achieve results for its people. If we take the long view, we can see how much has been achieved since the Second World War. Peace, a major increase in our prosperity, and freedom of movement across the continent."

That's it folks! Peace, of course, is the same tired lie always trotted ot by EU politicians. 'Peace' was achieved by Reagan, Gorbachev and Thatcher while the EU were debating wine lakes and butter mountains. 'A major increase in prosperity' but with every year that passes ever greater failure to stay level with the increase in growth rates attained outside the EU and finally 'freedom of movement'.....wow so we are not now free to travel to Florida, Jamaica, the Seychelles, India. Australia or most anywhere else we choose on the planet? Of coursewe are! There is, however, now a risk that as the euro currency gets weaker due to the ever growing over-regulation and marxist/authoritarian tendencies of the ruling elite grow - exchange controls might perhaps soon become necessary, those living in Euroland may well then find that their freedom of movement is restricted to staying within their economic space.....gee thanks EU! The EU nightmare is only just beginning, high unemployment, low growth, ever-growing regulation, cultural controls, biometricIDs, CCTV, the list of negatives is of course almost endless. Positives from the Dutch PM....only three.....ALL LIES!

What about the fact that an entire Continent has now lost the right to replace its rulers. That according to the great philosopher Karl Popper is a TYRANNY.

Funny no incoming EU President ever mentions that - even though they all pretend to be democrats!

posted by Martin at 7/04/2004 04:25:00 PM

 
Bring back the State

An interesting article in the Observer linked here by Francis Fukuyama.

posted by Martin at 7/04/2004 03:44:00 PM

 
EU Commission Right to Withdraw Legislation

The more I think about this power the more terrible and anti-democratic its consequences seem to appear. The power to withdraw EU legislation - which in the first place can only be introduced by the EU Commission, even should all member states unanimously wish it to proceed after their or EU Parliamentary amendment - which again is held by the EU Commission alone, has as far as I can tell, nowhere received the attention it requires.

It is the pressure that can be applied by the threat of withdrawing certain legislation where the true power lies. Even if it had never been actually used, the mere threat of it being brouht into play has I am sure caused the passage of much EU legislation that would otherwise have proved totally unacceptable.

In the long run it provides the means of bringing into force any amount of legislation no matter how draconian. Normally a balance of half and half between proposals desired by the Council of Ministers or Parliament to balance the half giving more powers to the Commission probably works well enough to advance the Commission's powers into areas not attainable without the right to withdraw any legislation.

At the other extreme, should there be for example a really authoritarian proposal to give the Commission powers that should never be ceded in a democratic environment, then no doubt it is included as the one per cent of a legislative proposal the other ninety-nine per cent of which is much desired by the other pillars and which they would be loath to lose.

In either of these cases the actual power to withdraw the legislation would never have to have been used, pre-agreements must presumably ensure little controversy and zero publicity for this most powerful tool. An ever expanding EU Commission is the inevitable and clearly planned and cunningly crafted end result. Ulimately any powers - no matter how draconian must be obtainable given the Commission's spending authority - all at the cost and concomitant erosion of the powers of the once nation member states.

Why has the Legislation Withdrawal powers not received greater publicity in the past. I only learnt of them by reading the 'Building a political Europe' proposal given to Prodi in April. If they have been as little publicised as I believe and they exist as stated in that report, do the EU's MEPs know of them, if so why have they not trumpeted the anti-democratic nature of these powers. Do the leaders of our political parties know of them, the Conservatives and Labour who have been in Government over the last thirty-two years surely must. They should be challenged on this matter.

It seems to me yet more evidence of another anti-democratic and secretive conspiracy by the EU against all the people of Europe

posted by Martin at 7/04/2004 02:31:00 PM

 
Happy Independence Day

Ironies wishes all our American readers a very Happy Independence Day. As Europe once again slides towards authoritarian and non-democratic governance, the founding principles of the American Constitution become more important to us all. In this year of the agreement by the EU's leaders of the dreadful document they have chosen to describe as an EU Constitutional Treaty, the straightforward and simple principles espoused by America's Founding Fathers necessarily become more important to us all.

posted by Martin at 7/04/2004 10:45:00 AM

Saturday, July 03, 2004

 
Prodi moves to promote Britain's EU Withdrawal

The Independent linked herehas an article titled - 'Prodi threatens to cut Britain's EU rebate' By Stephen Castle in The Hague, which starts as follows:-

'The future of Britain's EU budget rebate, worth around €3bn (£2bn) a year, was thrown into doubt yesterday as the European Commission said it would table detailed plans this month to share its benefits with other countries.

The move was given enthusiastic backing by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, which took up the revolving presidency of the EU yesterday, and marks the start of a fierce battle for Tony Blair.'

These kind of reports surface every now and again but the timing of this one, with the long summer vacations beginning and Prodi's term approachings its close is ineteresting. Has the EU now decided that with Blair's agreement to a referendum making Britain's agreement to the Constitution highly unlikely, (see the Byers speech referenced in our first post of today) it might be sensible for the rest of the EU to begin to assume that Britain will eventually cease to be a full member of the EU.

Would it not be prudent for members of Britain's ruling and opposition parties to now prepare policy on the same assumption. First step is to recognise that national life outside the Union might not be just possible - but positively desirable!

posted by Martin at 7/03/2004 02:20:00 PM

 
Evil EU now Aims Death and Destruction at the Azores!

The avaricious, unprincipled and corrupt organisation that is the European Union has swept the seas of its own continental shelf almost clean of sustainable life and now sent its vast factory fishing fleets to the farthest corners of the Pacific Ocean, is now set to strip bare of life the seas that surround the lovely and unspoilt islands of the Azores Islands in mid-Atlantic. This report that contrasts the happy situation that prevails in Norway, which joined the EU at around the same time as Britain, but was democratically compelled to almost immediately withdraw from the so-called Community due to the good sense of its people is from the BBC and linked from here. The following is a quote:-

In The Azores, a delicate balance between nature and commerce - which has been the hallmark of fishing there for centuries - could be lost overnight, with the opening up of waters to foreign fishing fleets.

In Norway, fishermen are currently reaping the substantial rewards of some of the world's strictest conservation measures, including a 10-year ban on herring fishing enforced there in the early 70s.

Success stories like these are few and far between in modern fishing. It is interesting to note that both were achieved outside the control of the European Union and its Common Fisheries Policy.

Interesting to the BBC perhaps, but hardly surprising to any knowing the EU which cannot ever be expected to succeed in anything it does as there is never any individual accountability nor responsibility.

This very situation formed the background to my novel written in 1996/97 which opitimistically envisaged a happy ending in the still unspoilt Azores in 2014. The EU despoils at a faster rate than even I had ever envisioned possible. Now that is not interesting - given the damage aleady accomplished - it's downright terrifying!

posted by Martin at 7/03/2004 01:35:00 PM

 
Conspirators against the British People

Stephen Byers, close ally of Tony Blair, has warned in a speech in the Ukraine, reported in ePolitix linked here that:-

A campaign in favour of the EU was also needed to show that the European project us "not a conspiracy against the British people".

Byers, as a hardened Euro-federalist, has rarely displayed real knowledge regarding the nature of the anti-democratic Union he is so keen to promote and was a senior government minister when Tony Blair, as British Prime Minister signed a Treaty in Amsterdam in 1997 containing the following 'Declaration on Island Regions', which read as follows: 'The Conference recognises that island regions suffer from structural handicaps linked to their island status, the permanence of which impairs their economic and social development. The Conference accordingly acknowledges that Community legislation must take account of these handicaps and that specific measures may be taken, where justified, in favour of these regions in order to integrate them better to the internal market on fair conditions'

As John Laughland then adds after that quotation in his book 'The Tainted Source' Warner Books (paperback) London 1997 ISBN : 0 7515 23240 -

"That a British Government could sign such a text is unbelievable. You may consider like John of Gaunt in Shakespeare's RichardII, that the sea 'serve[s England] in the office of a wall,/ Or as a moat defensive to a house,/ Against the envy of less happier lands,' and that it makes the British Isles 'a fortress built by Nature for herself/ Against infection or the hand of war.' Or you may consider the sea to be an excellent means of communication to the outside world: that is after all, exactly the role which British naval power and economic expansion has made it play at least since the reign of Elizabeth I. Either way the idea that in the age of mass air transport, island status is a handicap to economic development, is only an indication of how dangerously anachronistic modern European ideology is."

My own views as to how this difference in thought processes makes Britain's long term continuation within the sclerotic EU a complete impossibility, was set out recently in a posting on this blog titled 'Constitutional Crisis' on 16th June this year, which is linked from here.

A programme of mass education of all British members of parliament - minister and backbenchers alike - is what is now needed to drive home the true depths of the conspiracy they ARE still today mounting against the British people and their total neglect of their own constitutional obligations. The Dutch EU Presidency has stated that it is unlikely the final version of the new Constitutional Treaty will be available until close to this year's end and their planned referendum is to be delayed accordingly - yet now an official signing ceremony has been set for 20th November in Rome. How can that be? Why is it necessary before all the ratification procedures have been followed? The rush is because it is an ill-considered and deeply flawed document and practically all its creators know that fact only too well.

posted by Martin at 7/03/2004 06:18:00 AM

Friday, July 02, 2004

 
A Black Day for Freedom & Democracy 20/11/04

20th November 2004 in Rome, the weak, unthinking callous, careless and some unscrupulous leaders of the 25 once nation states of the EU, will sign a document in Rome destroying the democracies and individual liberties of the citizens of practically an entire continent. This report , typically from 'Channel News Asia' linked here, another Continent away breaks this story and quotes one of the most determined of the destroyers of our democracy - Jaques Chirac - here introduced by Silvio Berlusconi, as follows:-

"We will gather together on November 20 in Rome for the signing ceremony in the same palace, the same room as was used for the signature of the Treaty of Rome in 1957," Berlusconi told a joint press conference with Chirac on Friday.

Chirac hailed the "decision, taken unanimously, to sign the constitutional treaty in Rome, making it the second founding treaty."

Second founding treaty?.....Tidying-up exercise?....Democratic disaster!

posted by Martin at 7/02/2004 06:53:00 PM

 
Constitutional Committee Disbands Deadlocked

The Lords' Committee designed to resolve the deadlock over the office of Lord Chancellor and a new Supreme Court, has broken-up and given up without agreement. Lord Howe described the proposals on the BBC's 'World at One'programme today as 'constitutional vandalism'.

As pointed out in our post of 13th June 2003, linked from here this whole thing is ordered by the EU and should be fought every inch of the way!

posted by Martin at 7/02/2004 01:18:00 PM

 
GERMAN ECONOMIST: “SOCIAL SYSTEM MAY COLLAPSE”

The folowing report comes from the EUROPEAN FOUNDATION INTELLIGENCE DIGEST Issue No. 195

Quote

The head of the Ifo economics institute in Germany, Hans-Werner Sinn, has warned that the social system in Germany and Europe may be eroded. He said that EU-enlargement will mean that there will eventually be free movement of labour throughout the EU. Sinn said, “If Europe creates a social union on the German model, with harmonised state benefits across the whole continent, then we will have twenty regions like East Germany in Europe.” He added that European social systems were threatened by immigration: he recommended that if people leave country A to go and work in country B but fail to find work there, then country A should continue to be responsible for their unemployment benefit. He said that social benefit tourism had to be stopped, or else the whole system would collapse. He also said that nationals – e.g. in Germany - would lose their jobs as a result of immigration, because no extra jobs would be created. Between 1970 and 2002 7.5 million people had immigrated into Germany, of which 3.1 million had found jobs. He said that over the same period, the unemployment rate among Germans had risen by 3.2 million – which is a polite way of saying that foreigners have taken German jobs. [Handelsblatt, 18th June 2004]
Unquote

posted by Martin at 7/02/2004 12:52:00 PM

 
Fools Paradise

Britain's Europe Minister Denis Macshane writing in today's Guardian linked here displays all the fallacies of socialism - while extolling the benefits of the new EU constitution in wonderful workers rights the then turns to bemoaning the high levels of unemployment within Euroland:

No other region in the world offers such enforceable treaty rights to its citizens in the workplace.

AND LATER

Social Europe's biggest challenge is to reduce mass unemployment in Italy, France and Germany.

High unemployment (along with low to zero growth) is the levy paid for the non-competitive wage levels and trade union Spanish practises within the EU. It will get worse as the constitution imposes yet more non-competitive regulation upon the EU and more particularly Britain is dragged into the same situation.

Macshane's article is a classic example of the muddled thinking on global markets that New Labour was supposed to have left behind. Will he next propose a 35 hour week a la Francais? The Soviet Union boasted fantastic theoretical workers rights - indeed was not everything undertaken in the USSR done for the good of the workers?

posted by Martin at 7/02/2004 05:35:00 AM

Thursday, July 01, 2004

 
Good from the EU?

Yesterday I undertook to post something positive on the EU. I have surfed hard - hence the paucity of today's postings - all in vain. Here is an extract from an article by Simon Heffer in this weeks The Spectator linked here ..... at least it only looks at the EU as a potential danger for Brittain's conservatives:-

"Finally, there is Europe. Mr Howard ought to be conscious that many Tories would be quite happy to leave the EU. Some can even make a perfectly rational case for doing so, based not merely on the metaphysical claims of sovereignty but also on the strict calculation of economic advantage. He would tear his party in two if he took this line. However, he must urgently make the gesture of pulling his MEPs out of the federalist European People’s Party, which is causing enormous offence to many Tories. He could also talk of the importance of renegotiating our relationship with Europe, and of making it clear that Britain will have to look to its own interests if that renegotiation is refused or impeded. That would buy off all but the most hardened Ukip supporters, and upset what is now but a small percentage of his own party. Mr Howard has said he won’t change his policy on Europe. He is signing his own death warrant if he doesn’t."

posted by Martin at 7/01/2004 08:12:00 PM

 
Six missing 'Maoist' years of new EU Commission President

Interpress agency linked here reports as follows:-

The spirited Maoist student leader at the University of Lisbon, José Manuel Durão Barroso, never imagined during the turbulent years of the Portuguese revolution that three decades later he would become president of the European Commission, where conservative parties prevail.

The political history of the conservative Portuguese leader, now 48 years old, began during the leftist military ''Carnation Revolution'' of 1974. He was the student leader of the Movement for the Renovation of the Proletariat Party/Portuguese-Marxist Leninist Communist Party (MRPP/PCP-ML).

This was a long name for a miniscule Mao-inspired organisation that had pegged the rest of the political left as ''revisionist'', ''social-fascist'' and ''imperialist sell-outs''.

In the official biography of the man who is now Portugal's prime minister, that period of his ''revolutionary outbreak'' was left out.

After a brief mention -- ''he began his political activity as a very young man, even before Apr. 25, 1974'' -- six years of his political life were omitted from the official text, which goes on to describe how in 1980 he joined the Social Democratic Party (PSD), which is conservative despite what its name might suggest.

Can a man whose political philosphy began with Chairman Mao's little red book, really be considered suitable to lead the EU's sole legislation forming and withdrawing (if amended in ways it does not like) administrative body - the increasingly powerful and ever more negligent EU Commission?

Can a man who deliberately removes a six year period from his own official biography be trusted one single inch - the very idea is preposterous! Yet that is the man Europe's lamentable leaders have now chosen and approve! This alone is surely cause for any sensible country to begin to consider the wisdom of continuation.

posted by Martin at 7/01/2004 08:06:00 AM

 
EU fisheries policy shamed by Icelandic comparison

A report in Fishupdate.com linked here highlights the disgraceful destruction of life wrought by the EU in Britain's seas. First on the Icelandic industry it states:-

"It succeeds on every level. Indeed, so successful has their system of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) become that the Icelandic government is about to implement a special resource tax of 9.5% on ‘excessive profits’ by the fishing companies involved.

“Fishermen in Iceland are earning more than three times the average wage of fishermen in the UK. Ordinary crew-members can earn up to £90,000 a year, with skippers taking home more than £110,000. The Icelandic fleet lands over two million tonnes of fish a year, including 200,000 tonnes of cod and 150,000 tonnes of haddock. The Icelandic Fisheries Ministry explained that their core objective is to ensure that fishing is not a burden on the economy, but must contribute to it. They have certainly succeeded in doing that.

Ironically the report is brought back from Iceland by two conservative MPs, whose party was in government over many years of enforcing the EU's policies, lied to Parliament about control of our seas never passing to the EU - and while now belatedly stating it will end the foreign control if now elected - nevertheless seeks a continuation of EU control over practically every other aspect of our lives by continuing within the EU, at huge cost and zero benefit. The article later re-iterates the actual state of Britain's fishing industry:-

“This is all in stark contrast to the UK whitefish sector where the British government is pouring money into scrapping our best and most modern vessels and where crew members and skippers are thrown penniless on the dole in large numbers. Those who attempt to survive the aggressive, micro-managed policies handed down from Brussels, are forced to discard hundreds of tones of healthy fish and to land illegal ‘black fish’ in order to make a living.

posted by Martin at 7/01/2004 07:50:00 AM

Use eBay's PayPal service if you appreciate this blog - to make fast, easy and secure donations to help towards our broadband and other costs! martin.cole@gmail.com Many thanks!.