One Week Left to Save Britain from its current LYING Leaders
The latest storm over the legal advice on the Iraq war is merely the latest of a huge body of evidence showing the true nature of Britain's present government.
Strangely the UK media seem to wish to hide the truly disgusting nature of the characters of the country's anti-democratic rulers from their viewing, listening and reading public. A sample of the headlines in this morning's supposedly serious and respectable press provides the evidence:
'Leak of Iraq war letter shows attack was legal, says Attorney-General'The Times, linked here
'Timing is abysmal but far from crippling' Financial Times, linked here.
The Guardian, The Independent and Daily Telegraph trend from the more objective towards the critical , but for the full and entirely damning nature of the latest revelations it is best to read the UPI report from the USA's Washington Times, linked here.
I have received the following letter and fascinating and well researched article which I trust the author will not object to my reproducing below:-
Dear Sir / Madam :
I have heard from some people in Britain about what your government has done in signing the Treaties and agreements with the Europen Union. As well how the Queen signed these agreements into law. Your government and Queen, without regard for the Canadian people signed Canada away to French interference from France, and ultimately to French control of the Canadian nation.
I have done research on our Canadian Constitution and our government.The Adscam inquiry is just a minor blip compared to what politicians have done in our country, beginning with Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
You will note that my conclusions about Trudeau are different than the propoganda base that the Federal government would like everyone to believe. Trudeau was not the first French-Canadian to act in the best interests of Quebec, French people of Quebec and France. Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent sponsored, and assisted Vichy French war criminals to come to Canada. As well, some prominent Nazis were said to have come to, or gone through, Canada and there is reason to suspect that Joseph Mengele may have come through Canada, on his way to Argentina, since he had applied to Canadian Immigration to come to Canada. I have tried to condense 45 years of French control over Canada and how that control was achieved.
What it has meant to us is the majority of Canadians have no say in our own country. French, Minority and self interest groups have for the last 45 years gained control over our nation. We have seen the decay of our morals, sensibilities and rational thought over the governing of Canada. We cannot give everything to the minority or our nation no longer exists. Read on how Canadians no longer have a country - except in name only.
Since the early 1960's, we have seen the rise of the Quebec separatist movement under Jean Lesage, Premier of Quebec, and Rene Levesque who would found the Parti Quebecois with the ideology of separating Quebec from Canada. Involvement of the deGaullist government of France assisted the fledgling Separatist movement in Quebec politics and the Quebecois terrorist group known as the FLQ.
What we did not see, or know, was that there was another separatist ideology that was to rock the very foundation of Canada as we knew it. An ideology that would empower Quebec's status over Canada and empower the Quebecois through legislation in Federal politics. It would legally give Quebec their own Sovereignty and ultimately control the Canadian nation for Quebec's benefit. The singular man who had done more for Quebec's empowerment, than Rene Levesque or Jean Lesage, was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Involvement of the deGaullist governement of France assisted the fledgling Separatist movement in Quebec politics, and the terrorist group known as the FLQ which also had its own political significance. The Canadian governments own silence during the 1960's of France's involvement with the Separatist movement was of significant value to France and the Separatists.
In the spring of 1960, four men were asked to meet in a hotel room in Montreal, Quebec. The topic was Quebec Separatism and how to achieve that goal. However, the discussion was a matter of treason and sedition towards the Canadian nation. The man who asked the four to meet was the Premier of Quebec, Jean Lesage, the four men were Quebec loyalists and friends of Lesage and certainly confidants not to reveal the content of the conversation publicly or privately : Rene Levesque, Jean Marchand, Gerard Pelletier, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
In " Rene Levesques Memoirs ", as translated by Philip Stratford, the meeting of the four in Montreal ended with only Rene Levesque joining Jean Lesage in the Quebec provincial government with the agenda of Quebec Separatism, Sovereignty and nationhood for Quebec. Rene Levesque would found the new Quebec political party : Parti Quebecois. Levesque quotes Trudeau's own words in his book as saying : " The small influence that I may have as Minister of Justice, is a greater influence than I would have had if I remained in the province of Quebec. The laws that I propose here not only govern the six million inhabitants of quebec, but the twenty million inhabitants of Canada. " It is worth mentioning that two other Quebec personalities followed Trudeau into Federal politics : Jean Marchand and Gerard Pelletier. The same two men who would be so influential in the Federal government and were with Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the Separatist meeting in Montreal. Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier would come to be known in political circles as the : Three Wise Men.
In 1963, the French terrorist group, the FLQ, began their campaign of bombings against Federal government institutions and Canadian military establishments. The Canadian government during this reign of terror did virtually nothing to stop the terrorists except denounce the FLQ publicly. The RCMP had informed the Prime Minister, Lester Pearson, that the FLQ terrorists and the Quebec Separatist movement in Quebec provincial politics were the biggest threat to Canada. The RCMP also informed Pearson that the government of France was involved with the FLQ and the Separatist movement assisting and possibly financing their activities against Canada. Pearson ( Prime Minister ) and Trudeau ( Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Canada from 1965 ) did nothing to censure France or forcefully demand that France discontinue their attack on Canada and refrain from assisting Quebec Separatism. The Prime Minister Lester Pearson denounced France's involvement but feared French retaliation had he closed the French Embassy in Canada and censured deGaulle in pariticular.
In 1970, Trudeau ( Prime Minister of Canada ) initiated his own brand of Separatist ideology. The ideology of separating the English-Canadians power over Canada and Federal politics. At the time the Quebec Separatists were few in number as most French-Canadians in Quebec were loyal to Canada. However, that would change as a result of the " October Crisis ". The FLQ kidnapped Mr. Crosse, a British diplomat, and later Msr. Laporte, the Quebec Labour Minister in the Quebec provincial government. It was then that Trudeau invoked the " War Measures Act " calling out the Army to assist the RCMP and police in Quebec in dealing with the terrorists. The Army was not equipped to to handle terrorist activities at that time because of downsizing of the Army and the Army's capabilities by Trudeau. The Army was relegated to a back-up role ferrying the RCMP and military searchers by helicopter, as well as patrolling the streets of Montreal.
The RCMP knew since 1963, who the principals were inside the FLQ as well as who the Quebec Separatists in the Quebec provincial government were, but little was done because of inaction of the Federal government during the years leading up to the " October Crisis " in 1970. Trudeau from 1965 was the Minister of Justice, and the Solicitor General of Canada until he became the Prime Minister in 1968. Inaction on the part of the Federal government gave rise to greater Separatist activity, whether violent or nonviolent, during the Pearson and Trudeau administrations. During the ensuing crisis in 1970, Trudeau had arrested thousands of innocent French-Canadians yet there were no arrests of the provincial government Separatists nor censure of France's government or closing of the French Embassy in Canada.
What Trudeau accomplished during this time was to alienate the French-Canadian from Canada and push them towards the Separatists in the provincial government of Quebec. The Quebec government, the Parti Quebecois, played on the feelings of the French-Canadians in Quebec to anger and outright hatred of English-Canadians. Sadly, the French-Canadian bought this distorted logic since Prime Minister Trudeau was a French-Canadian From Quebec and responsible for imposing the " War Measures Act ". The Crisis had nothing to do with English-Canadians treating our Quebecois counterparts as second class citizens since we also fell under the " War Measures Act " at that time. Arrests could have been made even in Western Canada of anyone who spoke out against Trudeau's draconian measures. Trudeau's ideology was to push the French-Canadian toward the Separatist movement, empower Quebec, as well as render impotent the power of the English-Canadian majority over Canada, and Quebec, in the Federal government. Rene Levesque could not have accomplished such a feat on his own because so many French-Canadians were suspicious of the Parti Quebecois motives. However, Trudeau's legacy to Canada was not complete - there was more to come.
Canada's level of appeasement to Quebec had grown out of the Pearson and Trudeau governments. It was Trudeau's government that made the decision to Patriate the Constitution . The Constitution was Trudeau's idea to make a Constitution for Canadians that would be almost entirely Canadian. That was unfortunately a lie as Trudeau desired a Canadian Constitution so that he could control the Federal government through party politics, control of the Senate and Constitutional Amendments.
The basis of the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms was simply a rehash of the British North America Act ( BNA Act ). The Amendments section of the Constitution was seen as purely Canadian. The Province's leaders sat down, at the request of Trudeau, and discussed the Amendments formula. The provincial leaders and Trudeau's decision was to remove the Senates Power of Veto and remove the Referendum of the people. Also, the decision gave the power to change the Constitution, powers of Commons and Senate, and the Law, to the House of Commons. This would effectively make the House of Commons the more stronger House in Parliament. It would also make the House of Commons more powerful in the passing of legislation. In effect the Federal governement would now be the House of Commons which would set the Commons and its leadership, Prime Minister and Cabinet, above the Law.
The removal of the Senates powers is in essence illegal and unconstitutional as the Senate had equal powers under the Constitution. In the BNA Act and the Constitution of 1982 the words : " The power of Parliament is in the hands of the House ( styled ) the Senate, and the House of Commons. " This implies that both Houses are of equal powers. Their differences arise from the ability of the House of Commons to bring forth Legislation for reading and approval. The House of Senate, to protect the ideology and concepts of Freedom and Democracy, holds the Veto Power to ensure that the government, or Commons, does not pass Legislation that may be illegal or unconstitutional in nature.
The signing of the Constitution also played a significant part in Trudeau's well choreographed play, as the signing of the document was done the evening before the Quebec provincial leaders arrived. When the Quebec party arrived they refused to sign the Constitution on the grounds that Quebec did not receive any Special Status as a Distinct Society. Trudeau, of course, knew this would happen and that is why he pushed the Province's to accept the Amendments Section as integral to the Constitution, and for the Province's to sign the Constitution the night before the Quebec party was to arrive.
In the Amendments Section, point 47, in effect, gave Trudeau the power to push his own personal agenda on the nation. Point 47 gives the House of Commons the power to enact Legislation without the approval of the Senate. Point 47 effectively removed the Senates Veto Power and the Commons could reduce the Senate's delaying powers at any time. Through party politics the Leader a political party who becomes Prime Minister has virtually absolute power over his own party, and with a majority in the Commons can set his own personal agenda on the nation.
The Amendments Section is not Legal or Constitutional from the standpoint that Quebec has never signed the Canadian Constitution. Without Quebec's signature on the Amendments Section, the Amendments Section would not have passed into Law as a part of the Constitution. The Amendments Section is all that Trudeau is responsible for and it was the Amendments Section that Trudeau desired to pass into Law, as it gave Trudeau the ability to make Laws, change the Constitution to fit his own French agenda and control all Federal government institutions through Patronage appointments, including the Senate. Trudeau accomplished total control of the Federal government giving the Federal government the mandate to hire on the basis of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism which in effect reads as : hire French first, hire minorities with bilingual skills, hire bilinguals and others ( English ) last, even in Western Canada which is dominated by the English language. The heads of the Crown Corporations, Military, Federal government and Justices of the Court are top heavy in Francophones, especially from Quebec, and certainly friends of the the Prime Minister's who have appointed them. The same is applied to the Senate and most certainly is a " Conflict of Interest " to have the Leader of the Commons appoint a Member to the Senate.
Another Reason for Quebec not to sign the Constitution is that Quebec's declaration of independence and Sovereignty is valid, because of their refusal to sign the Constitution which gives Quebec the right to make their own Laws, and a Constitution, for Quebec. The Quebec referendum is simply a game that has allowed our Canadian Prime Minister's from Quebec, for the last 35 of 37 years, to funnel Canadian tax dollars, and initiatives, by the Prime Minister's own hidden agenda to rape and plunder Canada for the benefit of Quebec and Quebec businesses.
There are, of course, provisions in the Constitution for challenge by : individuals, self-interest groups, and Provincial Leaders and Legislators. The Prime Minister knew, being that he was a lawyer, that in order to challenge any Federal Legislation it would have to make its way through the Courts legal system, and various levels of the system. First, this is very costly, so very little Legislation will ever be challenged. Second, that the Prime Minister appoints Justices to the Supreme Court. Third, the Federal Cabinet position of Minister of Justice, and solicitor General of Canada, was in the hands of a trusted associate, Jean Chretien, and future Prime Minister of Canada, could simply make a determination : " that it would not be in the public interest to proceed ". This would eliminate any challenge that the Liberal government did not want to proceed through the Courts.
The Liberals are the strongest Federal party in Canada and is considered a Private Club. The party is controlled by its Membership. However, there is a small clique within the party Membership that votes for the Leadership of the party and the Liberal Leader eventually becomes Prime Minister. That clique within the party is a small number, 5%, of the 500,000 party Members. Most party members do not bother to vote. In the last Liberal get-together of Policy Deciders there were some 2,000 Members gather for a Policy Convention. The Liberal Policy Deciders make up some 0.10% of the party Membership. Anyone can join the party : foreign nationals, foreign business and foreign politicians. As a singular people, Canadians, would think that the political party could not have foreigners active in the Liberal party Membership; however, being that the political party is a Private Club, the government cannot control who can join a political party. There is only one rule applied here : that the party Leader can decide who can join the Liberal party and decide who cannot join, if it is in his own personal or political intersests to determine any Memberships.
This last election Canadian's believed that the Liberal run was over because of the scandals that are filling the Canadian news of Liberal excesses, and the creative accounting by the Liberal Finance Minister's. Chretien and Martin are clearly under the gun. However, we must not forget who appoints the Justices to their positons on the bench. The Adscam Inquiry is currently attempting to determine whether there should be charges laid in connection with Adscam. The outcome is not really in doubt as only minor officials may be called to trial for the Liberal excesses done by Paul Martin, as Finance Minister, and Jean Chretien, as Prime Minister, with the Federal Unity Fund. A fund that is used at the express interest of the Prime Minister and used to funnel Canadian tax dollars to his Quebecois friends and their businesses, without the ability of the government to audit those funds. This is clearly a " Conflict of Interest " on the part of the Prime Minister and it is not the first time he has been caught in this kind of conflict. However, the French elites run our country and there is little we can do about their excesses, except vote them out of office and bring charges of " Fraud and Conflict of Interest " later.
The Liberal policies of the Trudeau years with the National Energy Policycost Alberta 90 Billion dollars taxed from oil revenues, in the course of its run, and Quebec has received the lion's share in equalization payments from the Federal government. The Paul Martin administration will do to Newfoundland oil revenues what they had done to Alberta. The chief beneficiary will, of course, be Quebec.
Trudeau, Chretien and Martin ( Liberal Party ) and Mulroney ( Conservative party ) are Quebecois and what are called French-Canadian. They have controlled Canada for the last 35 of 37 years and have given greater benefits to Quebec, at the same time as making English-Canadians as second class citizens in a nation that, population wise, we still dominate. However, that may not be for much longer. French and Catholics are coming to Canada in greater numbers and soon we will be minorites in our own country. A country that was built by our forefathers to be Canadian, with English and French as equals. An equality that no longer exists for English-Canadians in Quebec and Canada. While Canada is forced to accept bilingualism, Quebec has French language only laws and Language Police to ensure that all of Quebec conforms to these laws.
Canada has been paying Quebec not to leave Canada. However, they already have. We as Canadians just will not come to that realization that the Constitution was made for Canada, not for Quebec, and it gave all the legitimacy that Quebec required to be their own Sovereign State. Under the BNA Act, Quebec had no such powers to leave the Union of Canadian. That could only be accomplished with a new Constitution. We did not make a new Constitution, Trudeau simply added to the original Constitution a Amendments Section that was ultimately to give control of the nation to the person who sits in the Prime Ministers Office. A person who could through his manipulations of our government, give legitimacy to Quebec Separatism then Quebec Sovereignty. Trudeau could also give legitimacy to Quebec's control of Canada and manipulate the Liberal party to ensure that the Prime Ministers following him come from Quebec, and that essentially the political party would not be accountable to Federal government controls of Leadership within the political party or their Membership, because of their Private Club status.
For the last 45 years Canada has undergone extreme changes to our social system, society, religious base, politics, economics, languages, law and Constitution. Pierre Elliott Trudeau did not help build a Canadian nation he did in fact tear it down, and then replace it with a Francophone dominated nation with his politics and policies. When we Canadian's walk down the streets of our nation we see the same things everyday : people go to work, people go to play, and people carry on their average lives, oblivious to the realities of our political ideology. However, when we open our eyes and pay attention to the inner workings of our nation in politics, we cannot help but see the excesses of our Francophone Prime Minister's and the culpability of the handful of English-Canadian's who sit in our Commons, who do nothing to stop those excesses. In point of fact they are usually helping these Francophone Leaders to dismantle our once proud Canadian nation` in favour of a greater Quebec, and the French domination of the country.
In conclusion the nation of Quebec is Sovereign and Free, able to pursue its own course should they desire to do so. They will have the backing of other French nations including that of France. Quebec Sovereignty will be recognized by these same French nations when it is the right time for Quebec to declare their own Sovereignty. The nation that is not free is Canada, because our Francophone dictators desire to rape and plunder Canada before they leave, or simply stay so long as they can control the entire nation of Canada, because of the political control exerted by Prime Ministers that come from Quebec. It is the English-Canadian majority that must wake up to this reality and set things to right.
Written by : Larry Middleton
Vive le Quebec libre- Dale Thomson
Render Unto Caesar - Conrad Black
The Gaullist Attack On Canada - 1967-1997 - J.F. Bosher
Rene Levesque Memoirs - translated by Philip Stratford
Staying Canadian : The Struggle Against UDI - Keith Henderson
Minette Marrin in her column in the Sunday Times today discusses the serious matter headlined for this posting. It is worth reading, I believe, so the article is linked from here.
The biggest lie of all of course is the one that this general election concerns the future government of the nation. It of course does not, the majority of that task is now undertaken in Brussels with no revising right from the MPs who will be elected on 5th May.
Practically all sitting MPs seek to avoid bringing this fact to the attention of those who voted them to parliament in 2001 to a greater or lesser degree. They are nearly all therefore engaged in a conspiracy against the British people and unworthy of re-election.
A low turnout figure seems one of the few means of registering individual disgust at this situation in most constituencies in the country.
Returning no sitting MPs would be a brilliant form of protest, but an impossible dream given the almost total apparent political control or inbuilt bias of the nation's media and the now widespread disinterest of the public in their own democratic future.
Non-Democratic EU Predictably set to ignore French NON
The Daily Telegraph carries this report of the latest outrageous affront to all democratic principles and precedents from the increasingly corrupt European Union (at the forefront of which - also predictably enough- is Britains lone Blair's crony and buddy, Commissioner Peter Mandelson, read here).
The story may be read from this link, I suggest bearing in mind while considering the detail, that it is this totally disgraceful and now self-admittedly "post democratic" organisation that the leaders of all three main political parties contesting the UK General Election are determined that Britain should remain apart, while repeatedly refusing to offer any justification for such a course and totally ignoring the anti-democratic consequences.
It is not for any parliament nor group of political parties acting in concert to declare that the sovereignty of the British people has been cancelled.
Perhaps this St George's day (see Sun exclusive here) might be an apt occasion to remind all politicians out on the stump of that fact.
If we are to accept continental rule then perhaps the lorry drivers realise that continental style blockades are the best way ahead?
So far the protesters seem to be restricting their aims to the question of fuel prices - but can the mounting disillusion with proper political debate and frustration at the obvious avoidance of all the main issues in the election campaign not soon also be voiced?
Another Question for a proper General Election Political Debate!
It has been suggested to me, more than once of late, that the nation's security services would be justified in infiltrating and thwarting euro-sceptic political movements and parties had the government of John Major determined that EU membership was in the best long-term interests of the nation.
This would have apparently then become even more legitimate and accepted if such a policy had been endorsed and reconfirmed by an incoming labour administration - particularly bearing in mind the two party electoral reality of British politics.
In my being actively involved in the early stages of the Veritas Party launch, these suggestions were perhaps intended to have been taken seriously! Those who put the concept to me certainly took the idea seriously and more surprisingly themselves seemed to consider the reasoning behind such a scheme as possibly democratically valid.
I reject such a concept. It surely could be intended to predetermine the outcome of democratic decision making on potentially the greatest issue facing the nation for many decades. Either major party so mobilising the resources of the state to pre-determine or affect the outcome of an essentially political question - open to varying opinion and debate - must surely be guilty, at the very least, of the greatest possible anti-constitutional propriety.
Fantastic as such a state backed act of political sabotage might appear - I wonder if in fact it is the results of some such muddle-headed policy making and decision taking that we are now witnessing in this surreal election campaign. A campaign where the truly important issue, the continuing right of independence and self-governemnt for our nation, is being ignored by both the main party politicians and the media!
The type of cause, in fact, for which in Iraq our servicemen and women are still risking their lives, which uncannily is also being ignored.
Hopefully the blogosphere will open a full debate on all such matters!
The theme of the British Presidency of the EU, if as seems increasingly certain Blair is re-elected, will be climate change. The statement with appropriately crass logo may be seen from this link.
If the British electorate let this bunch of lying scoundrels remain in power then they fully deserve more of this drivel and the blame their descendents will rightly heap upon them for their complicity in the knowing destruction of Britain's democracy and the individual liberties that once were our bithright!
The following is an extract from an article by Ferdinand Mount in this morning's Daily Telegraphlinked from here:
"While I was staring at Mr Blair's eerie tan, the Prime Minister may have been launching a vigorous defence of his decision to invade Iraq. Or Michael Howard, while I was dreaming of the first cappuccino of the day, may have been explaining to us exactly how he would renegotiate the European fisheries policy.
But I do not think so. On the contrary, so far foreign affairs have been kept off both parties' menus with Stalinist rigidity. It is as though their leaders had signed some secret concordat not to mention the war, or indeed the outside world in any shape or form
I heard Mr Howard start off yesterday morning with a thumping denunciation of Blair's lies: the lies about Tory spending plans, the lies about Labour's pensions policy, the lies about the patient's passport. Terrific stuff, but was there not one other little area of, shall we say, prime-ministerial prevarication that earnt some notoriety not all that long ago?
With few exceptions, the media seem happy enough with this weird vacuum. They will remorselessly quiz the politicians on almost anything else you can think of: where the Blair tan came from, what Rupert Murdoch thinks of immigration, the treatment of prostate cancer. But as for the world and Britain's place in it, for the moment these seem to be no-go areas.
Which is peculiar in the extreme. Because outside the political hothouse, as far as I can see, people talk of little else. Perhaps for the first time since 1945, it is two foreign issues - Iraq and the European Union - that are foremost in the minds of the most agitated voters at this election.
Every Leftish person I bump into is obsessed with Blair's lies in the run-up to war. Every Rightish person is exercised by the latest excesses of Brussels and in despair at our apparent impotence to undo them, let alone to find a stable and enduring relationship with the EU, in or out of it. Every tobacconist and taxi driver is liable to let rip on either front.
There are not one but two elephants in our sitting room. And the politicians are doing their best to pretend that neither of them is there. In the American elections, the candidates chewed over every aspect of the Iraq war. In France, each clause of the EU constitution is being hotly contested. In the British election campaign to date, zero public debate on either."
The Guardian this morning mentions the unmentionable namely the EU, to quote the whole paragraph from which this post's title is drawn, it does so furthermore in a quite telling manner:
"Yesterday, however, the foreign secretary and his opposition counterparts were drawn on to the subject when they appeared on the Jonathan Dimbleby Programme on ITV1. And a refreshing change of the election political menu it turned out to be. By admitting that a no vote in the French referendum on the EU constitution on May 29 might mean the death of the UK's own referendum, Jack Straw was in one sense doing no more than restate the obvious, since the treaty on the constitution is null and void if any one of the 25 member states fails to ratify it. But Mr Straw's commendable frankness is a reminder of the seriousness of the events that are swelling on the other side of the Channel, where a no vote now looks ever more likely, and also a reminder of how this country's political arguments are so often conducted inside a bubble of denial and insouciance where European issues are concerned."
The complete article is linked from here, while my own thoughts of yesterday on the media's silence and the UK Independence Party's and the Conservative Party's role in this sinister business can be found on my other blogs Veritas Straight Talk, linked here and Ukip Uncovered from here.
The entire Guardian article, with its hopelessly muddle-headed conclusion, may be read from here.
Tactical Voting holds the key to restored UK Sovereignty
The quite despicable and unprincipled Europe Minister Denis MacShane, has for once got something right!
In an article in today's Daily Telegraph, linked here, he argues for a vote for the LibDems to unseat Michael Howard in Folkestone.
Most sitting MPs are liars and tricksters fooling their electorate into believing it is they who still run the country while drawing handsome salaries and expenses designed as if that statement were true.
Leaders of political parties who rise to the top of such groupings of professional hypocrites and almost full-time charlatans must clearly be the least worthy to be re-elected on 5th May.
I suspect that with the possible exceptions of David Heathcote-Amory and Giselle Stewart, all sitting MPs deserve being targets for tactical voting, such that none of these treacherous parasites be returned to sit once again in the chamber of the House of Commons to ignore the reality of the daily flow of faxed diktats hanging next door from the nation's true rulers, the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels
The verbatim report ogf the French President's intervention in the EU Constitution debate on TF1 last evening as publishe on the web page linked here, as translated by the internet facility Tower of Babel, linked here is as follows:-
Inviting to vote yes, the Head of the State developed yesterday his arguments "France would cease existing politically" Here the principal extracts of the declarations of the Head of the State, yesterday on TF1. [ April 15, 2005 ] "Europe must strong and be organized" "the world of today, therefore the place of France, is characterized by two great evolutions (...): the universalization, which worries the French and the Frenchwomen, and who is carried by a current ultralibéral, is done with the profit stronger; secondly, the world evolves to more and more of great powers (...). These powers, we will not fight against them individually, France does not have this possibility: Europe must strong and be organized to be opposed to this evolution." "the Constitution, a nonliberal logic" "It is a logic which is precisely nonliberal. Naturally, it does not dispute the market economy. It is not what is in question, but, vis-a-vis in economic Europe, it tries to institute political Europe (...). We want that Europe occupies itself of a certain number of things but does not encroach on the authority of the States in a certain number of other fields which remain competence of the States." "does the referendum have to be natural elements of decision" "Why I wished to make a referendum? Initially for a basic reason: the referendum should gradually enter the m?urs of the French policy and become natural elements of decision (...); I judged that it was not suitable to ratify by parliamentary way, which was the facility, because I thought that it was necessary to question all the French, because the French are major." "not to mix" the referendum and the domestic policy "the domestic policy has its rules, his rates/rhythms and his requirements (...). I am not unaware of them and I assume them. The question is not to know which will control tomorrow (...). At the time when one will make a fundamental decision for the future of our country, the future of Europe, his capacity to exist in the world, to carry its values and to defend his interests, I do not wish only one mixes that with the daily policy of a European country." As a voter not, "France will be weakened considerably"... "Which will be tomorrow, in the European system, with the European Council, the voice of France, whereas she says not? (...) One does not put oneself apart from Europe. If we vote not, one keeps the current system, a system of which each one sees the weaknesses and the difficulties." ... It would be also "the black sheep which will have very blocked"... "You will have actually 24 countries (...), and then the black sheep which will have very blocked. Only our political power today within Europe enables us to defend our interests. So tomorrow we voted not, we will not have more power." ... And "it will not be possible to renegotiate" If not carries it, "I do not want to make dramatization, but there is a first consequence: it is that European construction stops (...). the argument according to which one could renegotiate is not serious (...), because we are 25 and that the 24 others will never agree to renegotiate." In other words, "France would cease existing politically (...), at least during a certain time". Bolkestein Directive: "New acceptable and reasonable proposals" "This directive, as soon as we knew it, we said: France will not accept it. It was decided that it would be given flat. The new proposals currently made are completely acceptable and reasonable. We were constant with the obviousness by a majority of the European Parliament." "One requests an enormous effort from Turkey" "Today, the values, the way of life, the operation of Turkey, are incompatible with our values (...). It is an enormous effort which one requests from Turkey (to join Europe), and which will spend fifteen years, twenty years to be carried out, if it is carried out. If the European Constitution is not adopted, that does not change anything with the question adhesion Turkey. The only important guarantee is that which I gave: to envisage a referendum before all new widening."
An interesting report on the huge German publisher and its future plans may be read from here.
The item caught my attention as the novel I wrote in 1996/97 'Millennium Blitzkreig' about a future German takeover of the EU was initially accepted for publication by Macmillans in the UK but was subsequently rejected at senior management levels. That old British publishing house was by then of course a subsidiary of Bertelsmann, as are so many other apparently independent publishers these days!
The following interview was translated and appeared on the Free Nations website, linked here.
It is clearly significant and is therefore reproduced in full herewith:
I AM AFRAID FOR EUROPE - CZECH PRESIDENT VACLAV KLAUS
DATELINE 30TH MARCH 2005
The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung interviewed the Czech President Vaclav Klaus about the EU Constitution, the change of Government in Prague and the relationship with Germany.
INTRODUCTION BY FREENATIONS: If the people of the nations of Europe could choose a leader to represent their desire to maintain the democratic sovereignty of their nation states then the Czech President Vaclav Klaus would be that leader. But as we know the individual peoples have never been allowed to vote for what they want. They were usually given no vote at all. When they were given a vote a form of words was chosen which "focus groups" indicated they would "swallow" and the answer the manipulating Governments wanted was to be the "Yes" side - since generally people don't like to say No! But the Danes said No. The Swedes recently said No to the Euro. The Dutch look like they are going to say No to the EU Constitution and the French will probably also give a resounding No.
No country knows better what it is like to be battered and conquered by German Europe than The Czech Republic (unless it is Yugoslavia). Both countries have recently been attacked, broken up into the same ethnic statelets which Nazi Europe produced in the 1940s and turned into puppets of the Euro-State. For the details of how Germany persuaded Slovakia to split from the Czechs see the book Fascist Europe Rising (Publications on this website). Here is the major part of the FAZ interview with President Vaclav Klaus (translated by Rodney Atkinson). The increasing iritation of the |president with the German interviewer is a product of the fundamental tensions between a large country building a new supranational European State and a small country with an identifiable "Demos" seeking democratic self government after its hard won freedom from Soviet control!
Mr President you are one of the most prominent critics of the EU Constitution. Why?
I have been criticising the EU's development for a long time. So I have no new position on the EU Constitution - it is for me just the tip of the iceberg. I approve of European integration, the opening up of Europe and the removal of various barriers which prevent free movement.
People say you only want a free trade area?
I approve not only of the free movement of goods but also of people and ideas, ideologies political ideas and so on, as I have repeated hundreds of times. But I oppose the second phase of European integration which is based on quite different ideas. I differentiate clearly between integration on the one hand and unification on the other. That for me is something completely different. I have observed the transition from integration to unification for some time - it began with Jacques Delors and the Maastricht Treaty.
The Constitution is a further step in that direction?
For me the EU Constitution is the completion of that process and not only its passive completion but its active promotion to a quite different level.
And therein lurk the dangers?
The dangers are that Europe is departing from the foundations of democracy and liberty. I cannot imagine a democratic society without a nation state. I do not mean an ethnically pure nation state which I reject. Democracy needs an identifiable state as its base - otherwise we are in a post democracy and the European Union is a post democratic institution.
Usually it is suggested that the competences of the European Parliament need to be expanded in order to counter this democratic deficit.
That is a well known suggestion and it is absolutely false. I can hardly imagine that anyone takes that seriously. For a democracy and a parliamentary system one needs one Demos, that is one people and that is not present in Europe. I also cannot imagine that we are anywhere near having such a European Demos. That's why the analogies to the United States are quite wrong. The differences between Massachusetts and Texas are much less than for instance the differences between Finalnd, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. In Europe there is no Demos. We can see that daily in how the European Parliament functions. It is not a question of competences as is often claimed. The extension of competences cannot compensate for the absence of a Demos.
Do you equate "post democratic" with "undemocratic"?
The subtle differences between post, un or anti democratic are suitable for an essay not a conversation.
You mean that the democratic deficits in the EU cannot be remedied?
They are irreparable and they have nothing to do with the change in competence of the European Parliament. That is a false assumption - an illusion in which the authors of the EU Constitution indulge.
The Constitution assumes that the expansion of the EU demands a stronger centre which can control the larger and more complex EU. Is that wrong?
The expansion brings massive problems - we all know that. The question is how we solve those problems. The old socialist idea which we know well from the history of our own country is that the more regulation is necessary from above the more complex the system must be.
Friedrich von Hayek rightly pointed out that the "unseen hand" becomes all the more important the bigger and more complicated the system Unfortunately I must say that the supporters of the Eur-State take an anti-Hayek position. The EU Constitution and its instruments are the false solution to problems associated with EU expansion.
Do you believe that the process of ratification of the Constitution and the further deepening of EU integration can be held up?
Certainly - that is my hope. I am afraid for Europe. That is my main message. I am afraid and that is why I oppose the EU Constitution - nothing else.
Have you allies in that belief? The large majority of EU States are for the Constitution - most politicians.
My fellow fighters are not countries for countries have no ideas. My fellow fighters are people and I am sure that the majority of Europeans understand what I say and they have similar fears. But unfortunately the EU and the debate about the Constitution are in the hands of people, eurofederalists, who have bound their own future to the EU. These people need supranational powers like the EU that is the ideal forum for people like them - where they see personal prospects for work, salary, profession and reputation.
Here also Hayek opened my eyes. After the second world war Hayek noticed how everything was moving towards supranational organisations for there was the democratic deficit par excellence. That is today still the case. For these people who breakfast in Venice, lunch in Dublin and dine in Stockholm there is Kunderas "unbearable lightness of being". For them it is a paadise which they must defend. But normal people must oppose that.
You want the Czechs to decide about the EU Constitution in a referendum?
Yes, and for that I have two reasons. The EU Constitution represents such a dramatic change in the Czech constitution that it cannot simply be ratified by just our Parliament. In addition there is also an enormous gap between the opinion of the political class and that of the people.
But a no less important decision in 1992 which broke up Czechoslovakia into the Slovak and Czech Republics happened without a referendum.
That was different. Then a part of Czechoslovakia did not want to remain in the federation. I was on the Czech side and wanted Czechoslovakia to remain intact but the Slovaks wanted to go it alone. There were no grounds for a sensible question to be put to the Czechs in that situation. But if the Czechs had been asked whether they wanted the division of their country they would have replied NO - but that would not have helped matters.
In Germany however I note there will be no referendum about the EU Constitution just as there was none about the introduction of the Euro (and the abolition of the Deutschmark) - because it was clear that the answer would have been NO! If we are speaking of democratic deficits…….. but perhaps I had better not comment on that!
How should the EU develop?
The EU does not need a Constitution. That is just an attempt by the eurofanatics to accelerate unification. Europe does not need that. Eurofederalists like Romano Prodi and the Czech Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda make a false analogy when they talk about having to keep riding the bicycle otherwise one falls off. The comparison is ridiculous.
Do you support the expansion of the EU taking in Turkey, Ukraine or even Russia?
Expansion cannot be discussed without discussing deepening. I oppose further deepening but support expansion.
Russia is too big. And I don't think the Russians are interested.
In countries which have a similar past to the Czechs, for example Slovakia, Hungary or Slovenia (note that these countries all have fascist pasts while The Czech Republic fought German imperialism - ed) Could it be that the special Czech sensibility has more to do with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy than the Soviet Union?
Certainly and why not? The approach of the other countries though is somewhat different for another reason. The Czechs are confident of their position in the Heart of Europe. We, like Poland, don't need EU membership as confirmation of that. Other countries which are further east or South feel differently.
60 years after the war what role does that past play in Czech German relations?
The past is what it is but it cannot put brakes on the future development between our two countries. There are groups who always return to these questions but that does not affect our day to day relations.
In the process of EU entry The Czech Republic successfully defended the Benes Decrees (the post war dispossession of those seen as collaborators with the Nazis, mainly of course Germans -ed) Does that mean that the decrees which affect Germans and Hungarians are now untouchable?
What do you mean "successfully defended"? We simply said that we cannot change the past. The demand to abolish the decrees means trying to change the past and that I cannot accept. The moral distancing from those events is different. Czechoslovak politicians and the Czech Republic have repeatedly done so since 1989. We can't say the same thing ten times. I refer also to my speech last year in Aussig.
In your speech you condemned those events "from today's perspective". Does that mean that from the perspective of those times it was acceptable?
Acceptable is another matter. It happened then with the support of the majority of the Czechoslovak people and the support of the victorious Allied powers. I don't understand why this question is coming up again. Where do we draw a line under history? Should we go back to 1918 when we did not receive all the reparations due from Austria? Is there any point in that? We don't just have problems with the Second World War, we also had 40 years of communism and all that the Soviet Union did. Should I travel to Russia and demand compensation for the unpaid for deliveries of uranium? That is not my question to Putin and I do not understand why Germany puts this question to me.
Berthold Kohler, Karl-Peter Schwarz, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 15.03.2005 Translated by Rodney Atkinson, 30th March 2005
At this election the only thing that matters is whether the parliament to which we elect MPs has the power to govern in our interests (Election countdown, April 4). The British parliament no longer makes our laws. This happened without the knowledge or permission of the British people. The British Declaration of Independence makes sure that in future only our MPs make our laws and that we can sack our law-makers if we don't like those laws - in other words that we live in a democracy.
By signing the declaration, parliamentary candidates acknowledge the authority of the British people and commit to exercising British self-government when they get to parliament. People pressure them to do so by signing our petition (www.bdicampaign.org). We then tell the candidates how many votes they gain by signing. We urge the electorate to vote for a candidate who has signed the declaration. Without self-government there is no point in voting at all.
Rodney Atkinson Frederick Forsyth Leolin Price QC Lynn Riley Alfred Sherman David Stoddart The British Declaration of Independence