View the reality of the huge shift in French public opinion by clicking here and then on the images!
The French political elite put the cause down to public fears over Anglo Saxon free market encroachment concerns, the chattering classes and large sections of the media believe it is the growing awareness of the lack of any democracy within the EU - is the reality, however, the pending admission of Turkey to the EU?
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab):
As this will almost certainly be my last speech in Parliament, I shall try hard not to upset anyone. However, our debate here tonight is a grim reminder of how the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are betraying some of Labour's most cherished beliefs. Not content with tossing aside the ideas and ideals that inspire and inform ideology, they seem to be giving up on values too. Liberty, without which democracy has no meaning, and the rule of law, without which state power cannot be contained, look to Parliament for their protection, but this Parliament, sad to say, is failing the nation badly. It is not just the Government but Back-Bench Members who are to blame. It seems that in situations such as this, politics become incompatible with conscience, principle, decency and self-respect. Regrettably, in such situations, the desire for power and position predominates.
As we move towards a system of justice that found favour with the South African Government at the time of apartheid and which parallels Burmese justice today, if hon. Members will pardon the oxymoron, I am reminded that our fathers fought and died for liberty my own father literally believing that these things should not happen here, and we would never allow them to happen here. But now we know better. The unthinkable, the unimaginable, is happening here.
In their defence, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary say that they are behaving tyrannically and trying to make nonsense of the House of Lords' decision in A and Others as appellants v. the Home Secretary as respondent because they are frightened, and that the rest of us would be frightened too if only we knew what they will not tell us.
They preach the politics of fear and ask us to support political incarceration on demand and punishment without trial.
Sad to say, I do not trust the judgment of either our thespian Prime Minister or our Home Secretary, especially given the latter's performance at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It did not take Home Office civil servants or the secret police long to put poison in his water, did it? Paper No. 1, entitled "International Terrorism: the Threat", which the Home Secretary produced yesterday and I have read, is a putrid document if it is intended to justify the measure. Indeed, the Home Secretary dripped out bits of it and it sounded no better as he spoke than it read. Why does he insult the House? Why cannot he produce a better argument than that?
How on earth did a Labour Government get to the point of creating what was described in the House of Lords hearing as a "gulag" at Belmarsh? I remind my hon. Friends that a gulag is a black hole into which people are forcibly directed without hope of ever getting out. Despite savage criticisms by nine Law Lords in 250 paragraphs, all of which I have read and understood, about the creation of the gulag, I have heard not one word of apology from the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Worse, I have heard no word of apology from those Back Benchers who voted to establish the gulag.
Have we all, individually and collectively, no shame? I suppose that once one has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, it becomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time. Thus even Members of Parliament who claim to believe in human rights vote to destroy them.
Many Members have gone nap on the matter. They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury in more serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, to create a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes.
It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next.I can describe all that only as new Labour's descent into hell, which is not a place where I want to be.
I hope that but doubt whether ethical principles and liberal thought will triumph tonight over the lazy minds and disengaged consciences that make Labour's Whips Office look so ridiculous and our Parliament so unprincipled..
It is a foul calumny that we do today. Not since the Act of Settlement 1701 has Parliament usurped the powers of the judiciary and allowed the Executive to lock up people without trial in times of peace. May the Government be damned for it.
The following letter was sent by Anne Pa;mer to Denis MacShane. It is as always well researched, argued and full of valuable material for any wishing to expose the continuing lies and distrotions Britain's politicians continue to peddle.
Dear Mr MacShane,
Re your Speech European Law and Integration.
Joining the then European Community believing it to be about trade and a free trade area is, according to you a “myth”.You quote various snippets from some of the debates in our Parliament from before we joined the European Community.Whilst Iagree with you that the legislators in both Houses knew, and that it was perfectly clear that they were about to take (using your own words) “a step that had serious implications in terms of “sharing” sovereignty in some areas covered by the then constitutional treaties defining the European Community” and that there was “no doubt that European law and the European Court would have been superior to British Courts”, this certain knowledge was, without doubt, most certainly kept from the then gullible public.
In the Government Research Paper 96/82 page 40 reinforces my one point, “For many years the UK courts managed to avoid having to pronounce directly and unequivocally on the supremacy or otherwise of Community Law in relation to traditional Diceyan sovereignty.Some early case law even suggested that the doctrine of ‘implied repeal’ still applied so that later UK statutory provisions would prevail over inconsistent Community law after 1972.Generally though, potential conflicts between UK and Community law were reconciled and resolved through techniques of statutory interpretation and construction, although this approach had its limits if the conflict was apparently irreconcilable.This point came to widespread public and Parliamentary attention in the Factortame cases concerning Spanish owned fishing vessels,(see esp. Lord Bridge  AC 603, 658-9) where the House of Lords appeared unequivocally to accept the supremacy of European law in appropriate cases”.
There is more of course but it kind of shoots down your argument that we knew or were told that the European Community was to become a full political and social Union, in fact should the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” be ratified, it will, as you well know, eventually become one State of Union for it is most definitely not, “just another Treaty”.It is the other “treaties” that will be repealed should the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” come into being leaving only the EU constitution and the mechanism with which to install it.
Up until the present time, we, the people have been told that all we would have to do to come out of this Union would be to repeal the European Communities Act.(See Lord Denning’s ruling on this-repudiation of the treaties also) You give the impression that this method would also apply if we accepted the EU Constitution.Why then, is there an ‘exit clause’ that, having ratified the EU Constitution with that clause in, and accepted that method of withdrawal, how on earth could you go on pretending that the EU constitution “is just another treaty”? It would take about two years to come out and even then it would need all the other countries to agree.
Your constant childish ‘name calling’ of people that are true to their allegiance to their own Country as “Anti-European”, is not worthy of a man of your years or position in government, and eventually may bring about the retort from those that prefer to be governed by a British Government, as Anti-British.
Looking back at old records of the debates on the subject of the European Community, and remembering that there was no “Internet” then, the same arguments were going on in Parliament all those years ago that are going on in this present day. Let me see, if I can, how much the people were told about the Community in those days?
I will commence with 3rd August 1961 and by Mr Shinwell, “In the course of the Lord Privy Seal’s speech, I ventured to ask him a simple question, quite relevant to his speech.It was whether he would state precisely the conditions upon which negotiations were to proceed.His reply was astonishing.He said that it was not in the public’s interest to disclose the Government’s intentions.What does that mean?It means either that Government have no clear idea of what they intend to propose in the course of consultations or negotiations with the representatives of the Common Market, or that they are asking the House for a blank cheque.”
The electors are not to be allowed to express an opinion about whether the Government’s policy is right and desirable in their interests.There is no question, even when the negotiations are concluded, whether satisfactorily or not, of asking the electors to state whether they accept the Government’s decision”.
16th November 1966.Sir D Walker-Smith.“Two truths are surely apparent-first, that over a wide range of our national life there would be an immediate abandonment of sovereignty and our constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament.The second truth is that, so far, the British people have very little idea of what is involved.”
Further on a Mr F Bellenger said, ”We must make it clear to the British public just what they will have to face if we join the Common Market, and while I am sure that an immense task lies ahead in relation to the legal references made by the right hon., and learned Gentleman, particularly in terms of changes in our statute law, the British people at large must understand precisely what is happening.I agree, nevertheless, that we must consider the legal implications, including the question of Britain’s sovereignty”.
Mr Orm in the same debate, “It has been said that the British people do not fully understand what is involved in our entry to the Common Market.This is true, and I am hoping that the continuing debates on this matter will get the facts across to our people.It is not just a matter of an increase in food prices, serious as they may be; it is not simply the effect on our economy, the distribution of our industry and our future development, or our social services.It is also to do with how the Community is operated and controlled.The Community is undemocratic”. (So the legislative knew that fact even then)
Mr Jennings, “The question of sovereignty or loss of sovereignty and political union in a political union in a federal United States of Europe has been swept nicely, beautifully and quietly under the carpet.It is almost a sin to talk about it.” (And there it stayed, “under the carpet”).And a little later on he goes on to say, “But the ordinary man in the street has no conception of what he will lose in rights and privileges that he now enjoys, even in a denigrated Britain, which is the attitude that many people tend to adopt”.…….”It is easy to talk glibly about going into Europe.That is the way that it is put over to the electorate.“Let us go into Europe” is the theme.We never attempt to say what we mean by going into Europe, but just what do we mean?Do we mean trade?Is that all?”
Mr Thomson quotes “from my right hon. friend the Prime Minister.He said, “The whole history of political progress is a history of gradual abandonment of national sovereignty…One cannot talk about world government on one breath and then start drooling about the need to preserve national sovereignty in the next….The question is not whether sovereignty remains absolute or not, but in what way one is prepared to sacrifice sovereignty, to whom and for what purpose.That is the real issue before us.The question is whether any proposed surrender of sovereignty will advance or retard our progress to the kind of world we all want to see” (Official Report, 3rd August 1961: Vol 645, c 1667)And you sir, speak of Pooling Sovereignty? World Government eh?
There are many, many more quotes, and yes, I have many pages of them, and as at Maastricht when Parliamentarians were reputed not have read the actual treaty they were about to ratify, in these old debates too it becomes obvious that many MP’s of those days had not read the Treaty of Rome that applied to the “Common Market” they were trying so hard to join, in fact there is quite an argument about it.
You say reading of the debates (you quoted) gives lie to those who claim that Parliament was unaware in 1972 what it was agreeing to.I agree the LEGISLATURE knew very well indeed what it was getting into, but the people were not told the truth then and they are not being told the truth now. Remember this bit Mr MacShane? “ The Common Law will remain the basis of our legal system, and our Courts will continue to operate as they do at present.In certain cases however they would need to refer points of Community Law to the European Court of Justice.All the essential features of our law will remain, including the safeguards for individual freedom such as trial by Jury and habeas corpus and the principle that a man is innocent until proved guilty, as well as the law of contract and tort (and its Scottish equivalent), the law of landlord and tenant, family law, nationality law and land law.”
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Civil Contingences Act and now the Serious Organised Crime Agency that is going through Parliament will remove much of the above and the latter, as they will not swear allegiance to the Crown,will eventually come under Europol.
We have heard the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights likened to “the Beano” comic.That even Golf Clubs have “Constitutions”, and that the EU constitution is “just another Treaty”, and that most of what is IN it, has already been in previous Treaties.No Mr MacShane, the people have not been told the truth at all, nor the effect incorporating the EU Constitution into our system will have on our Country.
To really find out what effect saying “Yes” to the EU constitution would do, I suggest that you and the people of this Country take heed of what Hans Martin Bury, the Foreign Minister for Germany has to say on the subject.He said,” This Constitution (not “treaty”) is, in spite of all justified calls for further regulations, a milestone.Yes, it is more than that.The EU constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe”.
I will make one observation, and that is the extraordinary welcome by this Government to Sinn Féin a few years ago, and how it is viewed now. Yet this Government knew all along that “Sinn Féin sought an end to partition which is, in their eyes, the cause of conflict, injustice and division in Ireland and that Sinn Féin is an Irish Republican Party. Their objective is to end British Rule in Ireland. (that is from their Website)Just as all those that wish to integrate fully in every way into the European Union and happily destroy this Country’s Constitution in order to do it. To all those that belittle those that would protect their own County’s Constitution and be true to their oaths of allegiance to their Queen and Country, I say that the tide will turn and soon the situation will be as it is with the Irish Republican Party at present.
The EU will disintegrate, whether before the EU constitution is ratified or not remains to be seen, but it will end in terrible bitter conflict.The fault will fall on all those that did not dare to spell out the true meaning of the requirement for a European Constitution.
While we are busy reducing our forces, the army, navy etc, and while we are eagerly following all EU Regulation re competition, etc, other Countries are not. While we are disarming and reducing our forces, others have conscription and rearming quite strongly.To me it is déjà vu, the 1930’s all over again.
All of our Members of Parliament, will have to decide soon, do they want to govern this Country, to actually earn the money the people pay them, or do they want to go down in history as the government that has given this Country away and continue tohave laws and an alien constitution foisted upon us, which nothing we can say or do can alter or block them.Or, do we obey our own Constitutional laws we have had in this Country for hundreds of years, even though we have had to fight to keep them rather than be ruled by others in the past, and which we are duty bound to fight to protect and keep.
The myths you speak of Sir, are your own, especially ”The Constitutional Treaty is not only a simplification of the existing forest of interlocking Treaties, but encapsulates many of these British themes”.As Minister for Europe, you appear to have forgotten the meaning of a “True Brit”, that is your loss sir, not mine.My solemn oath of allegiance remains to the Crown and this country for all time coming.
As this is about our Constitution, this is an open letter
The British Declaration of Independence The Home Page for the above may be found from this link. The following quotes from the site give an indication of the aims and how to promote them to regain Britain's sovereignty.
25 March 2005
HOW TO USE THE BDI
WHAT TO DO AT ELECTION MEETINGS
The only thing that matters is what your candidates, by their actions, say about themselves. ONLY The British Declaration of Independence forces candidates to reveal what they really stand for:
Democratic Sovereignty or Dictatorship?
A Parliament or a Talking Shop?
Working for us or just taking the money?
Legislating or Lobbying?
Tell Candidates at every opportunity that you will know exactly what they stand for because they will have signed the BDI – or refused to sign the BDI.
If a candidate has signed then protest parties should not oppose them and you should vote for him/her regardless of their party.
If a candidate has refused to sign then you must not vote for him/her and must find the best way to use your vote to defeat that candidate, regardless of party.
SOUNDBITES FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS
"What the British people demand is their own Parliament which exclusively makes and repeals their laws and the right to sack their law makers. Its called Democracy."
"There are 170 sovereign nations in the world and we want to be one of them. If Declarations of Independence are alright for the Americans and the Iraqis then why not for Britons?"
"You are asking for our vote to go to our Parliament to make our laws. But if you will not commit to passing a Bill which says that our laws are made by our Parliament then why should we elect you?"
"Your party has voted for the legislation which has allowed others whom we cannot elect or dismiss to make our laws. If you don't sign this Declaration I will vote for one of the many smaller parties not yet in Parliament who WILL assert our sovereignty."
"If you are listed on the British Declaration of Independence website as having refused to sign I will not vote for you"
The weakening of the Growth and Stability Pact, hesitation over the liberalisation of the open market in services and growing strength of the NON vote in France (mainly due apparently to mounting distrust by the French public for the non-democratic nature of the present EU as well as concerns for the social model) all indicate that the structural flaws of the EU, regularly listed and detailed on this blog are finally being absorbed by a wider audience.
I apologise to regular readers for the lack of recent postings, normal service is expected to be resumed shortly.
The offer by the IRA to undertake revenge shootings of their own murderous members surely must mark the beginning of the end for the Blair approach to Governance?
Who could have predicted this conclusion to New Labour's approach to peace in Northern Ireland, but now that it has occurred how could we have missed the inevitability and logic of the IRA's response to its present difficulties?
With Peter Mandelson, one time Northern Ireland minister now Britain's sole commissioner in Brussels, I am prompted by the IRA offer to reflect - what will be the similar inevitable but logical suicide event of the equally misconceived European Union?
Last evening in Dorchester I witnessed the next stage in the thirty-five year process of the destruction of Britain's sovereignty and democracy by the nation's own political rulers.
The event was a debate on the EU Constitution organised by the Bruges Group and the Democracy Movement, two organisations supposedly and reputedly dedicated to the fight against the erosions of our statehood by the EU. Those attending last night's procedures would be well justified to now have doubts on both those counts.
The main speaker was Oliver Letwin MP for West Dorset, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and only recently resigned from the London Merchant Bank whose history and family connections could themselves be considered an almost perfect template for the secretive, elitist and corporatist European Union itself. In support was the President of the 'real' Liberal Party Councillor Steve Radford and Marc Glendenning of the Democracy Movement, which organisation's regional press spokesman chaired the meeting.
The essence of the arguments presented was that the referendum on the EU Constitution expected for May 2006 should be fought solely on the drawbacks of that document and under no circumstances should debate be allowed to stray onto the question of the country's continued membership of the EU. This, it was repeatedly suggested, would be to play into the hands of the euro federalists and Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and New Labour in particular.
Oliver Letwin set out three factors to be considered in the coming debate. First by stressing what was in the document, second by describing why it was a threat (he cited the 'new?' primacy of EU Law) and thirdly why the referendum represented an opportunity. On the latter point the thrust of his argument was that if the British people voted NO a mandate would then exist for a complete re-negotiation of the terms of British membership.
Such an argument completely ignores the obvious fact that if the NO campaign focuses solely on those elements, the assertion that a mandate for EU withdrawal has been given by the British electorate becomes entirely false - for that debate will have been prevented by the very politicians and political movements pretending to be opposed to the sovereign and democratic encroachments of the EU most already entirely legal, already experienced and clearly foreseen and envisioned under the existing treaties.
This fact became impossible to bring out, as by ignoring my repeatedly upraised arm, the chairman of the meeting managed to restrict the subsequent debate (with the honourable exception of two astute ladies, the best of whom had crossed the border from Devon to make a telling point on patriotism) to safe and largely irrelevant questioning from those who appeared to have been known to him.
Little mention was made of the more immediate general election contest expected by many for May 2005; rather we were urged to get campaigning for the hardly burning matter of a possible referendum in May 2006. The nonsense of the platform's case became clear when one moment we were regaled with the horrors of the recent Peter Tilleck and Marta Andreasen cases, while the next we were cautioned to refrain from the use of terms such as 'totalitarian' or 'police state'. Democracy through the Westminster Parliament might not ever have existed for this panel of speakers; perhaps a subconscious admission of the soon to be completed reality that indeed it soon will not.
With EU opponents such as these supposedly fighting the EU, no wonder Britain is now so almost entirely ensnared. The next general election, perhaps only two months away, will clearly be the last chance to fight off the EU. Small Euro-sceptic parties should now be combining to fight the big three large and united euro-committed political establishment of Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats.
Rather than that, however, I fear what appears to be on the cards in the coming General Election contest is Euro-sceptic candidates fighting one another and not the devious, untruthful, non-democratic, globalist, corporatist and therefore effectively corrupted candidates from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who have together delivered their country and their countrymen into the hands and clearly non-existent mercies of others.
Oliver Letwin won his seat at the last election with a small majority on a platform that demanded a renegotiation of the EU Nice Treaty. From his words last night he now seems quite content with that document and all its federalist and anti-democratic provisions. No doubt if he were to be re-elected (even if the EU Constitution is resoundingly turned down in Britain's referendum and a watered down version is then accepted as would be the inevitable next step under either Labour or the Conservatives), he would then declare himself content with that outcome. It is by this kind of gradualism that we have now reached today's situation where we cannot select our own real government in the coming general election.
Only by consigning Oliver Letwin and his likes to electoral defeat can we ever hope to regain our country!
10 STEPS TO FREEDOM The British Declaration of Independence
· 1. The election tool called The British Declaration of Independence will succeed because it is based on three powerful elements: A Declaration which is worded to have real constitutional power; a signed document which irrevocably commits candidates to voting for the Declaration Bill when they get to Parliament; a voter petition which makes clear to candidates how many votes are available to them if they sign the Declaration.
· 2. The British Parliament has delegated law-making to foreign powers - without the clear knowledge or specific permission of the sovereign British people.
· 3. This happened when a cross party coalition of MPs, misinformed and under duress, passed an Act of Parliament. This situation will only be reversed and British sovereign power confirmed through another Act of Parliament - almost certainly passed by another cross party coalition of MPs.
· 4. The people have the power to elect that coalition of MPs - by voting ONLY for those candidates who, regardless of party, commit irrevocably to asserting British Sovereignty.
· 5. By signing The British Declaration of Independence MPs commit, before being elected - and on pain of resignation - to passing an Act of Parliament which will do just that.
· 6. The difficulty for voters in the past has been identifying those individual candidates. Many candidates have trumpeted sovereignty before an election and have voted against it when in Parliament. The BDI clearly identifies those who make a real constitutional commitment by signing - and it exposes those who refuse to sign.
· 7. The BDI INTERNET PETITION calls on all voters to register their desire to vote for BDI candidates. We will collect and consolidate the number of petitioners (voters) in total and in each constituency.
· 8. The Candidates (and press) will be regularly informed of the results of the Petition. Candidates will see the votes they can gain by signing the BDI itself - or the votes they will lose if they refuse to sign. 5 days before the election the voters will be told which candidates in their constituencies have signed.
· 9. When a majority of BDI candiates are elected the British Declaration of Independence Bill will then be presented in Parliament and will be passed.
· 10. The electoral power of the voter, the democratic independence of MPs and the Sovereignty of the British people will thereby be confirmed. Government by consent of the British people will be established in perpetuity by a vote confirming the Declaration of Independence Act at the beginning of every Parliament.
Make Sure the candidate receiving your vote in the General Election - REGARDLESS OF PARTY has signed up to the British Declaration of Independence!
Those familiar with the South Molton Declaration (see this link) from the last General Election will be pleased to know that a new, even stronger statement has now been prepared and will be available for signature by candidates at the coming election.
A well funded web site is under preparation we understand and should be up and running very soon. Electors will have the opportunity of entering their post code and immediately obtaining a list of candidates prepared to sign up to and VOTE for the restoration of Britain's sovereignty and parliamentary democracy.
LAST EVENING WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S CENTRAL OFFICE HAD ADVISED ITS CANDIDATE'S THAT THE PARTY HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO ITS CANDIDATES SIGNING UP TO THE DECLARATION.
EVEN CONSERVATIVE VOTERS WILL NOW BE EASILY ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHICH PROSPECTIVE MP'S CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY THOSE RIGHTLY DISTRUSTFUL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION!