Tsunami Earthquake

Tsunami Earthquake Donate online please anything you can spare Thanks!

Postal voting

Very good point Mr Goldberg Postal voting From Mr Daniel Goldberg Sir, Mr Brian Mitchell (letter, December 18) judges the success of postal voting on the basis of turnout. Turnout at all elections has been in a long and steady decline. Yet voting has not become more difficult over this time; polling stations have not become less numerous or harder to find. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with our present method of voting (ie, the stubby pencil). Voters are simply disillusioned with the political system. Perhaps an increasingly sophisticated electorate is becoming fed up with the oversimplification of complex issues. Postal voting would artificially raise turnout and disguise the very real disengagement between the electorate, the political process and the Westminster village. A “none of the above” box on ballot papers should serve to raise turnout smartly and for the right reasons, as well as providing a much-needed kick in the ego to our elected representatives

Hail and be Praised a New Accounting System for the EU

Hail and be Praised a New Accounting System for the EU The European Commission will ring in 2005 with a new accounting system following criticism in the past that the current system is easily open to fraud. Former Commission chief accountant Marta Andreasen said that the executive lacked a basic accounting system leaving it wide open to cheating. For which she was sacked! And lest we forget it was our very own Commissioner Neil Kinnock, who did the sacking, this is the same man, who now safely ensconced in the House of Lords from which lofty position he will be selling the EU constitution to us. So we all know what weight we should give to his utterances, not forgetting of course that he also is in receipt of a very nice pension from the EU which in order to keep he must not betray principal of the EU. Of course the Commision would like us all to believe they had to sack Ms Andreasen because she went public with her allegations, the fact is that had she not, we would not now have a new system of accounting, because most of her suggestions are incorporated into the new reforms, but nothing was going to happen which is why she felt it her duty to go public. Ms Anderson still believes that even this new system will not be a bulwark against fraud, and we do have to ask ourselves why it is the Commision will seemingly go to any lengths to maintain a system which allows them use our money for anything they want without a proper accounting system. I run a small business and I must like every other business keep accurate and fully traceable accounts and produce fully checked accounts on a yearly basis for the government otherwise I will find myself in dire trouble with the authorities why on earth should these people be allowed to get away with squandering our money on such things as supporting Terror groups in Palestine which of course our other Commissioner Chris Pattern was responsible for, with out accounting fully for their decisions. Of course the EU will now hide behind this new part system and continue to sack anyone who states publicly that it is also open to fraud, because they quite simply do not want a fully accountable system, because that would let us all know how much they are wasting to forge their EU State and raise some serious questions which they would not wish to answer.

Tsunami Victims EU Aid

Martin Cole at Ironies has an interesting post about the non delivery of the aid packages to South America after Hurricane Mitch, linking it as the EU have, to their promised EU Aid for Tsunami Victims, What hope is there that the EU will this time actually keep its promises? EU Aid for Tsunami Victims will be like the Hurricane Mitch missing millions! The EU is sometimes so comprehensively inefficient, incompetent and heartless that it appears to be deliberately aiming to make itself absurd. Of all the botched aid delivery packages any government, NGO or other multi-national organisation has ever created the EU's pledge of 250 million dollars worth of aid to Central America must top the list. Two years after the event Chris Patten the EU Commissioner for Foreign Affairs as good as admitted that none of that package had ever been delivered. Read a report from Namibia linked here. Incredibly, the press statement put out by the almost invisible representatives of the excremental European Union had the gall to liken their Tsunami aid package to the very same Hurricane Mitch fiasco. The item may be read in full from this link, but the truly crass quote is this:-continues

The Shame of Dennis MacShane

The Shame of Dennis MacShane My thanks to The Road to Euro Serfdom for the link to the recent shameful article in the Guardian from our very own “Minister for Europe” Denis Xenophobia MacShane, our very own Comical Ali. Now I am sure that should be Minister for the EU, why do we not have a Minister for America or a Minister for Japan? Our very own EU Propaganda Minister feels that we will all be a lot less likely to “vote no” if he can just point out what a wonderful friendly place is the EU. If we could only overcome this rightwing, Tory, inward-looking, negative, frightening, extreme, communist enslavement, isolationist, anti-German endless myths and propaganda of the anti-Europeans. And accept that we are responsible for the anti-Turk campaign fuelled by rightwing political forces in Europe who want to see the EU as an inward-looking club which almost caused Europe to have slammed the door shut in the face of the Turks which would have been a disaster. We are also responsible through John Major for the blood-letting and crimes in the Balkans and the massacres in Srebrenica, the terrible crimes committed as Serbs were ethnically cleansed from Croatia, we are also responsible because three leaders, the Croat Gotovina and the two Serbs Karadzic and Mladic are still in hiding and still protected by networks with links to the state. For trying to prevent Germany from taking its rightful seat on the UN security council, for outmoded national concepts which prevents competition in Europe. If only we could accept that Euroscepticism is the devils own work which, with the assistance of its own media moguls under the guise of the Rothermere press which is responsible for just about all the ills in the world, from silencing the people of Iraq who are working for and willing a better future for their nation, to whipping up anti German sentiment and the creation of propaganda myths and distortions and for ripping our own Ministers words out of context and twisting them to suit the propaganda purposes of Tory anti-Europeans, to get all the isolationist juices flowing. If only we could just accept that the EU the most wonderful creation the man could contrive, which only has the best interests of its children in its throbbing heart, we would enter the nirvana of EU entente cordiale, were Germany and Britain are on the same wavelength on a number of key issues, where "Britain and France were Allies in war, friends in peace, partners in Europe, admirers of each other's people and culture, whilst the municipal band plays the Marseillaise and God Save the Queen and the tricolour floats alongside the union flag and Schoolchildren learning French wave flags, and in Berlin the Christmas markets with scores of little wooden stalls selling lovely wooden craftworks and litres of Glühwein and Würstchen to eat and drink make Berlin a lovely part of Europe for a December visit, which you could fly to from on AirBerlin, Germans low-cost plane from Stansted, even ahead of schedule. All very nice stuff, but like all of his ilk Dr MacShane steers well clear of answering any of the basic questions, merely relying instead on the well used New Labour, old Marxist, approach of blackening everybody who dares to probe his EU Dream, anyone who has the nerve to point out that this undemocratic project is being built on the ashes of once proud nation states, that the very people he calls to the aid of his EU Dream died in two world wars in the last century to prevent such a tyrannical system of government, that our troops are fighting today in Iraqi to give those people a better future with a democratically elected government that the EU itself is denying us all. So come on Dr MacShane a little less pretty speeches about school children waving flags, about lovely German winter market places, a little less blaming EUsceptics for all the ills in the world and a lot more serious answers to very serious question if you don’t mind.

Tsunami Earthquake

Tsunami Earthquake Donate online please anything you can spare Thanks!

Letters in the Press

There were four letters that court my eye this morning two in the Times and two more in the Telegraph The first I did not see the significance of at first, but is probably the most important, because it covers quite a bit of ground, and also either shows the Conservatives to be particularly gullible, particularly stupid or outright liars, I leave it to you to judge. Support for Nato within Europe From Professor Alan Lee Williams Dr North at Eureferendum explains the significance of Professor Williams letter here Lack of leadership in British politics From Mr Tony Thorn Sir, Has there ever been a more pathetic period in the history of British politics? The paucity of talent and integrity in any of the leading parties is depressing in the extreme. On the one hand we have a right-wing government, masquerading under the name of Labour — led by a man whom I would not trust to tell me the right time of day. A man supported by a Chancellor who has plundered millions from pension funds (while preaching financial prudence), and has spent seven years introducing stealth taxes which have eaten into the meagre earnings of society’s poorly paid — Labour’s traditional supporters. On the other hand we have the Conservative Opposition: the ragtag and bobtail remnants of a once proud party of government, led by their fourth leader in seven years. A party that has very little to commend it to the electorate, but has perfected the art of stabbing leaders in the back. The day that those gutless political pygmies conspired to oust Margaret Thatcher from No 10 was the day the Tory party committed electoral suicide. As a lifelong socialist I found little with which to agree with Mrs Thatcher, but she had more courage than today’s Conservative front bench. Where are the Conservative Party’s bright young men, to provide a real challenge to new Labour’s political domination? Exactly what we would all like to know Mr Thorn, our politics are a disgusting charade, as indicated if nothing else by the Labour party introducing ID cards and not being comprehensively opposed by a Tory party that is supposed to hold personal freedom above all in fact the only party to gain any kudos from this is the Libdems. Shrinking solution Sir - So the Conservative Party plans to reduce the number of politicians by making MPs' constituencies larger (News, Dec 27). Can I suggest a simpler solution? Remove from the House of Commons all the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs and turn the Commons into an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. Remove all the members of the House of Lords and replace with a directly elected senate of, say, 160 members representing all parts of the UK and dealing with UK only matters (defence, foreign affairs etc). This would achieve a drastic reduction in the number of politicians and also solve the perennial problem of how to reform the House of Lords. It would also end the present devolution injustice where England has been left as the only part of the UK that does not have a Parliament or a political party to speak for it. Neil Addison, New Bailey Chambers, Liverpool Of course it would also go a long way to achieve some form of break up of the UK for easer consumption by the ever present European Union. How sweetly reasonable the Prime Minister appears this Christmas-tide. Sir - How sweetly reasonable the Prime Minister appears this Christmas-tide. By rightly keeping his Attorney General on a leash so that the Countryside Alliance may exhaust every legal avenue to stop the hunting ban before it is enforced, he is at least restoring the 18-month moratorium agreed by the Commons but turned down tactically by the Lords. He hopes to defuse the hunting issue as a threat to his third election victory and to ensure a peaceful reception for the Olympic Committee's visit to London in the New Year. We must not allow ourselves to be out-foxed like gullible rabbits by Tony Blair's cunning. It is up to the courts to determine the legitimacy of the Parliament Act. The Countryside Alliance appears to have forced an important concession but we are not yet out of the woods and Mr Blair will continue to confuse the scent for all he's worth. John Gouriet, Bicknoller, Somerset To me the House of Lords did have a good point, the last thing his Toniness would want is an uprising in the countryside just as he is about to ask us all to give him a further five years, to totally mess up the British Constitution. I did read that the leader of the Countryside Alliance was actually a Labour supporter, this could if true, explain why that organisation do not seem to be able to see further than their next hunt.

What on earth is going on

EU Referendum What on earth is going on? Readers who look to this Blog for a constant stream of informed comment on matters EU are going to be sadly disappointed on this one, as we can only express our complete puzzlement over a development which seems to defy logic. The proximate cause of our sudden lack of certainty is an article in the English language Greek newspaper Kathimerini which reports today that the EU is coming to the rescue of Athens, dolling out some €200 million to help it with its growing refuse problem. That much, it seems, could hardly give rise to any great mystery except for one thing. While EU member states are closing down their landfill sites and steeling themselves to shelling out billions to finance unnecessary and highly unpopular waste incinerators, the UK alone having to commit £6.9 billion to that effect, the EU money dolled out to Greece is going to finance new landfill sites.More

We pay the EU for its Citizenship Goals

“The EU Commission is conducting a consultation to receive input regarding the priorities of the next community action programme to promote active European citizenship.” The Commission has launched an online consultation to receive input from citizens and interested organisations for the next action programme aiming to promote active European citizenship.” “The current programme runs out on 31 December 2006 having allocated 72 million euros over a three-year period.” Which means in short the EU is going to be continuing their effort to persuade us all that the EU is a wonderful project and not only that but they are going to use our money to continue with this endeavour. First they force us to accept EU citizenship then they force us to pay for their own propaganda to assist in our indoctrination into the benefits of that citizenship and the EU. “The objective of the 2004-6 programme was to support bodies which actively promote European values and to foster projects whose aim is to involve citizens in discussions about the EU” This is now set to continue with the next round from 2007. Perhaps this web site should apply as we involve citizens in the discussions about the EU, or perhaps as we don’t actively support “EU Values” that would rule us out. Unfortunately of course we do have to contribute to the EU coffers, which enables the Commision to then spend our money promoting itself and its values to the determent of our values. These are not small insignificant amounts of our cash the EU is proposing to spend on our re-education, according to the web site of the Slovakian EU Commissioner Jan Figel who is responsible for Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism. Not there is anything wrong with any of these but why do we pay our own government large amounts of taxes to enable them to do these things. There are four proposed programs with total budget for these programs alone for the 2007-2013 is just below 16 billion Integrated Action Programme in Lifelong Learning, budget is € 13.62 billion Youth in Action, budget is € 915 million. Culture 2007 budget of € 408 million MEDIA 2007 budget of € 1.055 billion Then there is the "The future Programme for Active European Citizenship” which supports The Community Action Program to Support Bodies Working in the Field of Active European Citizenship Support to non-governmental organisations and associations and federations of European interest 2005 €2,459,113.57 Support to cross-industry trade unions participating in European social dialogue 2005 €1,494,542.10 Support to Trade Unions €5,652,708.52 Grants for Town-twinning N/A The EU wishes to bring its citizens closer to the project “One of the main challenges facing the European Union remains how to bring the EU closer to its citizens and have them more involved in the development of Europe. This is a huge task, requiring action on a variety of fronts and at many levels, where national and local authorities have a major competence (notably in education policies). The Commission believes however that it has a complementary role to play by proposing a specific and ambitious programme for the promotion of an active involvement of citizens in the development of Europe. This participation could take the form of a direct involvement in the political life of the Union, in particular via citizens' organisations, or develop itself in a more indirect way, via concrete opportunities to act, share experiences, exchange ideas among citizens (individual level)”. One could suggest that allowing free and fair elections to the EU Parliament and the wining party to form the government would go a long way to achieving their stated ends, but of course this would not guarantee the integration processes so that’s out. We feel we are citizen of Britain because we feel we have a united foundation not because the British Government spends inordinate amounts of taxpayers money trying to get us to feel as one nation. The EU on the other hand wants us to stop feeling British and transfer our allegiances to the EU, that is why they are going to be spending our money on a massive project to make us feel all warm and woolly about our new country, why they are going to be using money to indoctrinate our young people, why they are willing to give large handouts to any association which will help then in their project. Why, because they know that unless they can achieve this aim the union is doomed to failure because we the people who are paying into the EU coffers will eventually get fed up with them transferring our hard earned money to other countries.

Eurosceptic

Eureferendum has a post with a link to yourDictionary.com which “has just released eight different "Words of the Year" lists featuring the Top Words, Names, Phrases, Numbers, California YouthSpeak, Internet, Sports-related, and Colour-related Words, as well as the Top Words in Pop Music and the Most Frequently Spoken Word On The Planet. Predictably, the most frequently spoken word on the planet is "OK" but what is really interesting is the "Top word" list. At number four is "Blogosphere", the realm of the weblog. But sneaking in at number ten is "Eurosceptic", reflecting the increased usage of this word and its growing political importance.” This has me thinking about the words we use or those which are used against us to inform the EU debate, the self same your Dictionary.com has the word Euro as a prefix, meaning Europe; European: i.e. Eurocommunism. It is also of course the basic unit of currency among participating European Union countries. But to use the word Euro as a prefix to sceptic indicates that a Eurosceptic it in fact a disbeliever in Europe or things European and thus could well be accused by another word xenophobia. Of course as the Euro is in fact the currency then a true definition of the word Eurosceptic is one who is against the Euro. Which is why I prefer “Eusceptic” this is quite clear in its reference to the European Union and does not carry any connotations about my like or dislike of Europe or European People. Of course naming things is also a method of refuting an argument without actually offering any counter argument the idea that naming an argument is the same thing as refuting it is often used by those who wish to stifle debate, and of course those who do not have an answer. One hears people describe contrary arguments as “sexist”, “racist” “xenophobic” “homophobic”, “unpatriotic” or “Eurosceptic” as if that proves they can't be true. We need not refute the claims on factual grounds, because the mere fact that they contradict our politics is refutation enough. Whilst the EU is busy using words which have a recognised meaning to refer to something else in Euro speak or using French words in translation to obscure the meaning they are also trying to invent words to devalue or attack those of us who are anti-EU. The EU Commision and its acolytes would like us to believe that Euroscepticism is no more that the ravings of a small minority of reactionary misfits, who are spouting lies and falsehoods about the great European project, only because they have been spurred on by the British Eurosceptic press, at the behest of some foreign Press Barons who for some unspecified reason are intent upon undermining the government of this country. The EU Commissions web site not only uses the word Eurosceptic but then tries to define it by saying “British public opinion to provide fertile soil for what became 'Euroscepticism' – itself a misleading term, since it was often and remains a cover for outright hostility to the EU.” Media sympathy with Euroscepticism had a direct impact on British public opinion, leaving an indelible impression of continental inefficiency, introspection and ham-fisted bureaucracy. The Commision then goes on with its own new word “Euromyth” and extolling the virtues of its own publication “Do you believe all you read in the newspapers?” debunking some of the Euromyths peddled by British newspapers. By inventing the word “Euromyth” which they also define as “scare stories based on hearsay, rumours and half-truths, many of which have been repeated so often that they have become accepted truths within the public and media consciousness” the EU Commision is attempting to introduce this word into common usage with the meaning “a lie about the EU” and then they will be in the position of labelling anything they wish as a “Euromyth” suggesting that the statement is a lie without in any way offering proof that it is a lie, thus simply using this word as a method of refuting any anti EU argument and stifling debate. Yet if we visit their web site we can see for ourselves that many of these so called myths are factually based reports on the EU. The EU of course are not happy because they do not take an EU friendly line, and of course the EU does not like criticism, unless someone can show me this is an Eumyth.

The EU arrest Warrant

The EU arrest Warrant entered into force in January 2004 in eight EU member states - Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. However, several other states have been very slow to adopt it. Perhaps the President of the Czech Republic Václav Klaus had a good reason that others are reluctant to give this power away, he said in October 03 that this bill would have made it possible for Czech citizens to be extradited to other EU countries to face trial. The Czech parliament has since accepted the EU Arrest warrant, so obviously it no longer cares about its rights top defend its citizens He is of course quite correct that that is the very reason for the bill in the first place. However Mr Klaus said that to pass such a bill would mean to hand over a part of the country's sovereignty and its right to protect its citizens. I do not know about the Czech government rights or otherwise in this matter, but I do know that the British government not only has the right to protect the Queens subjects, but it has a sworn duty to do so. A duty which by acceding to this international treaty it has refused to accept, we as British subjects can no longer rely on the our own government to protect us in the event that any Judge in any EU state issues a warrant for our arrest, our own police will execute that warrant with no evidence, and assist that foreign power to transport us to their own country to face charges in their courts under their rules. An added effect of this measure, will be to subject all extradition between the EU Member to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Thus further extending the powers of the union. Tony Blair said “It is manifestly in this country's interest to have a procedure that is a fast-track procedure for extraditing people to this country from European countries, what this will do is simplify the procedure enormously” he did not say that it would also seriously weaken the power of Parliament and the courts to protect the rights of British citizens and sweep away ancient rights as suspects would have no right to challenge extradition in their home country's courts and would have no protection offered under our own laws. First they make us citizens of the EU then they make us subject to the laws of other countries then they ask us to pay our police to help them carry out these laws. Although this law was introduced under the cover of terrorism it encompasses a great deal more than action against suspected terrorists, and there is no there is absolutely no guarantee that the European arrest warrant will not later be widened to other crimes or even abused, there is nothing preventing this. In fact as is usual with the EU method of introducing new developments “the nose of the camel approach” we the people are not told the full facts. This was based on a European Commission proposal, (document reference COM(2001)522 final/2). The agreement carries through the European Council conclusions of October 1999, in Tampere, which state that the formal extradition procedure should be abolished among the Member States. But of course what is really happening is the development of a single European judicial area. This can (as is the case in other areas) be used as a foundation to be built upon and extended later. Treaty of Amsterdam created a space of freedom, of safety and of justice in the list of objectives of the Union; The Tampere European Council stated that “mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgments ... should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters”. Although these extradition agreements were supposedly to apply only to those who had been sentenced in their home courts and were fleeing justice, the Commission said that there was “no reason for distinguishing between situations in which extradition is requested at the pre-trial stage and those in which it is requested for the execution of an enforceable judgment”. The basic idea is as follows: when a judicial authority of a Member State requests the surrender of a person, either because he has been convicted of an offence or because he is being prosecuted, its decision must be recognised and executed automatically throughout the Union. Refusal to execute a European arrest warrant must be confined to a limited number of hypotheses. The European arrest warrant is a warrant for search, arrest, detention and surrender to the judicial authority of the issuing country. The principle of double criminal liability is abolished. It will hardly matter, therefore, if the offence for which the arrest warrant was issued does not exist, or that its components differ in the executing State. Under this principle each Member State not only recognises the entire criminal law of the other Member States but also agrees to assist them in enforcing it. The added benefit is that a British subject may well find themselves arrested and extradited on one charge only for that charge to be dropped and then having to face other charges at the discretion of the judicial authority of the issuing country. “A person may be prosecuted, sentenced or detained for an offence other than that for which the European arrest warrant was issued.” Europa The Warrant also in its present form includes tought Crimes such as "xenophobia and racism" a definition of either will be for the courts to decide but which courts? If for instance opinions expressed on the internet were considered offensive these could well be considered extraditable, although Britain has negotiated a deal under which the offences will only apply when they involve incitement to violence. We have been forced to concede a review after two years at which point the directive could be extended to and not just those likely to incite violence. So our government which is sworn to defend the rights of the British people have reneged on their duty to us, do we therefore still owe a debt of allegiance our Monarch or are we the people now in the position of having no duty to the Queen because she has allowed our government to break our contract with her.

Belmarsh detainees and other matters III

Part Three This is a Country that is allegedly doing battle in Iraq to bring to the people of Iraq, “Democracy”. Yet we see time and time again that the Government of this country totally ignores the people wishes. We need “democracy” here desperately. We thought we had democracy but in reality, we find it was only an illusion. Much of the destruction of our constitution has been done by “the threat” of terrorism, and although I pray that we never have to suffer a real terrorist attack, I fear our Government’s reaction to a terrorists attack almost as much as an attack itself. All British nationals have a duty defend their Queen and their Country. This too is the great difference between a Foreign National and a British National and it is a great pity the British Judges ruled the way they chose. They saw, in their wisdom, that the rule of law was to put the European Convention on Human Rights before this Country’s Common Law Rights, yet our politicians believe that the UK Parliament prevails, they are unhappy at the Judges ruling, but the Judges are actually obeying UK law for it was this Government that incorporated the ECHR into our Law. Whether it is ‘right’ to take note of the Convention on Human Rights yet pay no attention to our Constitution, is another matter entirely for are they not both part of our Constitution? But I speak as an ordinary citizens (subject of Her Majesty), and not as a judge. There is proof beyond doubt that our Common Law Constitution is still valid and applicable-every bit of it-for it has recently been recorded in the debates on the Civil Contingencies Bill (now Act). On each new Act is a quote to the effect that the new Act is compatible with the Human Rights Act. I believe that it should also be recorded that it is compatible with our Constitution as a whole. A decision therefore has to be made soon to the question, “where does true Kompetenz Kompetenz lie”? International law, European Union Law, or our Country’s Constitutional law? We shall see for the game isn’t played out yet. However, have the Judges nudged the British people a little by their judgement? Enough to open one sleeping eye? What happens when the people become fully awake for are they not the sleeping giant at the moment? The times may well be changing, but there may also come a time too when our politicians will not be able to walk down the street without being stopped, just the same as the people are now when they are stopped and asked to produce papers, ID Cards, explanations as to why they are out? Where are they going? Breathe into this or that, even though that person might not drink alcohol at all and does not take drugs. The police once had to have a good reason to ‘stop’ and search etc. Yet one day these same police may still want people to be their ‘friends’! Should the British FBI (SOCA) come into being, then it could be a march to a police station and possibly intimate searches may well take place, with or without consent, and data stored forever and shared with many other organisations and Countries. I suggest every one should read the proposals for this Serious Organised Crime Agency. The Freedom we once had has not been lost because of terrorists from abroad, our own government has removed this freedom from us, they have done the work of the terrorists. It may seem we have more to fear from our own Government than we have from terrorists. To destroy our Constitution is an act of treason and it is also a cowardly act by traitors. Fine words, but how many people have been to Court to try to uphold our constitution? Quite a number of people but they are finding the law on “Treaties” rather tricky, especially when Government says time and again that Parliament is still sovereign for all they have to do is to repeal the European Communities Act (1972). (I am aware of the ruling that the Treaty of Rome was declared as being somewhat different to ‘ordinary’ Treaties, and I am also mindful of Lord Denning’s ruling re repudiating Treaties and saying expressly so) However, the Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe is just that, establishing a CONSTITUTION for all its Member States, a Constitution that contains its own withdrawal clause which, should we ratify the Constitution through referendum, we would have willingly and knowingly agreed to all its contents. If any member of this Government wanted to be remembered in history, the actions that they are taking now will cause them eventually to hope the people will have short memories and will not be able to remember even their name, never mind the ‘history’ that they are making today. The people have never forgotten Guy Fawkes and the people will never forget this Government, or the Official Opposition Party that forgot what the word ‘opposition’ meant, the Official Opposition has time to change and remember that ‘meaning’. I hope they do. I leave you with one final thought. Terrorists, particularly the terrorists that slammed into the twin towers on 9/11, would, I feel sure and without any doubt what so ever, if they could have smuggled an atomic device, a “dirty bomb” on board, or used chemical/anthrax, they would have done so. Did these ‘terrorists’ have any thoughts of the Convention on Human Rights? Are we dealing with a type of terrorist we have not had to deal with before? People that are prepared to die and take as many people with them as possible? I happen to think that it does not really matter how you die for once dead, you remain dead. People died through war, through IRA bombing taking young innocent lives away without a thought, and it usually is the innocent that suffers every time. Have the IRA won through their bombing? Will they have a one Island of Ireland? Will Gibraltar no longer have to fight to remain British because it will eventually be in one country called Europe? Will the terrorists win with their campaign? Isn’t one man’s terrorist another person’s freedom fighter? So, will the people see that bombing was worth it, that it has got them what they wanted in the end? Will the message get across that violence really does win? Without a care in the end for other people’s Human Rights? But I also have to ask, how many innocent people could be incarcerated for years without end? Without trial? Without charge? Is that right too? I have asked the questions. Can the Judge’s give me an answer? Anne Palmer.

Belmarsh detainees, and other matters II

Pt Two There is a great difference between British Nationals and foreign Nationals and if that difference is not clear to Judges then British nationals-all 56 million-should fight against discrimination. To believe that British nationals and foreign nationals should be treated equally misses the point in having separate Countries, separate Constitutions, or having Laws at all if one Country is no different than any other The Queen’s protection extends to all British people even when abroad, but not to foreign nationals. Our oath of allegiance also brings with it “duties” such as conscription. It is against our Constitution to recruit foreign nationals into any of our services or the magistracy and the same applies to serving in the British Police Force, and for which the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty is also clearly set out in ancient law. The time may come when, should a British national be charged of an alleged offence directly by a foreign national serving in our Police Service, British citizens will see the dangers and challenge the decision. It is after all the people’s Common Law, a compact between the Crown and the people and one that should be respected by any government of this Realm. In a recent article the Daily Mail called the proposed Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) “The British FBI”, and pointed out that members of that organisation will not swear allegiance to the Crown. I suggest that if ever the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” is ratified, SOCA will eventually come under the control of Europol. If SOCA was designed to remain completely under British authority (Sovereignty), there is absolutely no reason why they should not swear allegiance to the Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II. Our Police, if we remain in the European Union, will eventually no longer swear allegiance to the Crown-from the report and previous comments here, this is happening in certain places already- and in time, under the EU constitution our Police Force will be part of the European Police Force. I think many people are coming to realise that the process of abolishing our proud Regiments of Scotland is all part of preparing to belong the proposed European Union’s Army-the Rapid Reaction Force-the European Defence etc. Our Courts will also become the European Union’s Courts and in fact are referred to as this now in European Union documentation, even though the Royal Coat of Arms is still on display behind the Judges chair. Our laws are already being changed, not because WE want them changed but to become “compatible” with the Continental system of law known as Corpus Juris. A British Government may eventually begin to see that we should never have joined the European Community in 1972, and in fact there are those that believe our involvement in it is unlawful/illegal and has been ever since 1972. This may even be seen to be the correct assumption yet for there is enough evidence to show that most politicians from the 1950’s onwards, knew that the European Community was to eventually become a Political Union. The present Government have deliberately set out to put the Union’s needs for further and deeper integration, (as according to the treaties they have signed) before their own Country. What they will probably get is civil war because the vast majority of people will come to understand what our politicians are doing or have done already and we will have eventually our own violent bloody situation here on mainland Britain as there has been in Northern Ireland. The Government knows for instance that the vast majority of people do not want to have Identity Cards nor all the information on them given away to any organisation that wants to make use of it. Against all opposition, the government will get its way and to prevent any action against ID cards, they will make sure that people will be fined heavily (suggested fine £2000) if they do not turn up to give details, fingerprints, biometric etc and give the authorities the information they require. Most will have to comply should they require Passports, for ID cards will be automatically be issued with them. Why is all this necessary? What for? Because it is a European wide ID card. Big brother is watching you-all of the time. The IRA fought all along for one Island of Ireland, they will get that under the EU constitution as will the Island of Cyprus also become one whole. However, in the eyes of the European Union they will be classed as “Regions” as are Scotland and Wales (recorded and explained as such in the Scottish Parliament-meeting No 7 22nd May 2001 by Manfred Dammeyer from the Committee of the Regions) That is of course as long as they do not mind being governed from the “Heart” of the European Union for all time to come, to recognise the Union flag, sing the European Union anthem, stand up and respect it and obey Union laws and fight when they say fight no matter whether they want to or not, to become in fact an EU National. Many organisations will be deemed “Criminal” and hounded out as they are being done at the moment. (It is of no importance whether you think this is right or not-you will not be asked-your opinion does not matter- it is not respected now-get used to it.)

Belmarsh detainees and other matters

From Anne Palmer Pt one Belmarsh detainees, and other matters. December 2004. It was sheer folly for this country to officially adopt the European Convention on Human Rights into our law. (Shock, Horror-how could I suggest such a thing?) Prime Minister Blair was advised of the many disadvantages this would hold for us, and he was advised in particular about the loss of sovereignty if he took the course of action he was set on. We have, over the years seen for ourselves this to have been truthful and wise advice. From the moment that people are born here in The United Kingdom of Great Britain, they have the protection of the Crown and, without uttering a word, bear allegiance to the Crown. The Crown is the continuity, the safeguard that makes this Country different from other countries. To bear “allegiance” to Government places too much power in the hands of a would be dictator. This has never before shown itself to be so patently obvious than under this present Government. The reason that “foreign nationals” are treated differently to British nationals is that the British are sworn to defend their Queen and Country, foreign nationals are not, but there is a strong likelihood that they are sworn to defend their own particular Country. The Law Lords have found that foreign nationals should, according to the Convention on Human Rights, be treated the same as British nationals. We have seen in recent years a change in the swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen (Crown) such changes are not in accordance with our Common Law Constitution. Under the times we live in, and the constant threat from terrorists, it appears that our present Government believes there is a need to hold foreign nationals for a longer period without charge or trial, but there surely should come a time when, (and a time limit should be made clear and according to our Constitution) if there is not enough evidence these foreign nationals should either be charged or deported from this Country. This is a government that has thrived on the “fear” of terrorism, yet left open its borders allowing any would be terrorists easy access into this Country. A serious threat should have automatically brought about the closing of borders throughout the European Union. This would have been a sensible precautionary measure for the safety not only of this Country, but also for all continental Countries-it may even have prevented the Madrid bombings, instead, terrorists as well as the people have been given free access to all countries in the EU. If the excuse is given that charging them would/may jeopardise our security services when giving evidence, (whether on the cases above-Belmarsh- and or other cases) two questions should be asked, do we come up with evidence or are foreign nationals to be incarcerated in prison for the rest of their lives? The second question should be, what or whose “security services” are we protecting? Is it the same security bodies whose competence and integrity must surely be questionable following such flawed evidence which was presented to justify going to the terrible on-going war in Iraq? There is no doubt what so ever, the safety of the people in this Country must be at the forefront of minds, but if there is reason to put people in Prison, there is reason to charge them. If ‘security’ are in danger because of the giving of evidence, and we have seen from the proceedings in Northern Ireland where soldiers in danger of their lives have had to give evidence certain precautions had to be made, so can our security services also be provided with that same protection? If, on the other hand through the giving of such evidence, State secrets might be in danger of becoming ‘common knowledge’, then even further precautions (held in camera) must be taken, but taken it most certainly should. One person’s freedom cannot be held against another persons freedom? Both should be judged equally surely? The simple answer is that we should withdraw from the Convention on Human Rights. Foreign Nationals should, when found to be a danger to this Country and this Country’s own nationals, yet not enough ‘evidence to convict’, should be sent back to their own Country. There are treason and other laws already in place that are adequate to deal with British nationals that would work against this Country its laws and its Constitution. This Government has made and agreed to so many new laws, then surely they can make new laws that would deal with such a situation? As certain “Treason Laws” were repealed in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, I put forward that new up to date treason laws should be brought in. We cannot do without such laws for our Queen, Country and Constitution need more protection in ‘today’s’ world than at any other time in history.

Big is Beautiful

After the EU Commission recently suspended disciplinary procedures for budget deficits against France and Germany, they have decided to pick on the smaller states instead, and are to pursue disciplinary proceedings against Hungary and Greece for breaking the rules underpinning the euro, because the budget deficits of both these countries surpasses the three percent limit set by the EU's Stability and Growth Pact, as of course does France and Germany’s. But the Commission would not dream of applying the same rules to the big boys, as perhaps they carry to much weight to tangle with. If this Union is not supposed to be about running the thing for the sole benefit of France and Germany, perhaps spreading an equally amount of pain around a bit more, would help convince doubters that the thing is fair. I do not see any reason for the French and Germany people to be let off from the problems of meeting the Growth and Stability Pact which their own governments insisted on, whilst the Hungarian Greek, the Portuguese and the other governments are having to impose very painful policies on their people to try to meet those same obligations, this only has the effect of allowing a false sense of well-being in the big countries.

Yes to Europe Yes to Lies!

I have discovered a web site Yes to Europe Yes to the Euro. The site does not say who runs it, but they must really be a bunch of morons, because quite incredibly they have a list of “Killer Facts” on one of pages entitled “Yes to Europe, Yes to Sovereignty” they are suggesting that our sovereignty is actually increased by being in the EU. “As a result of our membership of the European Union individual sovereignty for the average British citizen has increased significantly in the last 30 years”. How can this be so? Because, “Sovereignty concerns questions of who makes decisions”. No it does not you morons it is the ability of the British people to elect their government and for that government to have the full power to make our laws. “Our membership of the EU has influenced” • “fundamental personal freedom from the state through the human rights act” oh dear! Never heard of the European Court of Human Rights, do we not understand yet that this is nothing to do with the EU? And just in case there is any doubt British people are born with fundamental freedoms, and the duty of the British state is to protect those freedoms, this has been the case for over a thousand years. Also the ECHR is only applicable in Britain because the final power lies with the British government. • “the freedom to trade with over 350 million other citizens through the single market” What on earth has that to do with Sovereignty? • “the freedom to work according to ability rather than race, gender or sexuality” What on earth has that to do with sovereignty? • "the freedom to enjoy a cleaner environment through common standards". What on earth has that got to do with Sovereignty? • “the freedom to travel” doing well so far, five points the first one, totally wrong court, totally wrong organisation, and totally wrong anyway and the other four have no relevance to Sovereignty. “Joining the euro will not damage your personal sovereignty. Leaving the EU most certainly will”. Oh goody I can’t wait for the explanation of this suggestion. “Remaining outside the euro reduces our ability to influence decisions that will help or hinder the sovereignty of British citizens”. As our sovereignty is the power to elect our government that is absolute rubbish, and as the sovereignty of that government is the power to make decisions, giving that power away will not in any way help our sovereignty. “When Anti-Europeans talk about sovereignty and the EU they are talking about the power of the British state, not British citizens. They are obsessed with the notion that any change in the way nations make decisions must be bad”. No we are talking about both because they are one and the same thing, we give power to our government they rule us with our consent we can remove them if we do not like what they have done. “Pro-Europeans care about people and effective government, not obsessive hostility to change”. Pro Europeans care about one thing and that is passing power to the Union, why should we wish to change the power we have to elect out government for a lesser power that does not allow us to elect our government? “Joining the euro means a pooling of the power of the British state over one area of policy, that of setting interest rates” You cannot pool power you either have it, or you do not, there is no halfway house. At present the Bank of England makes these decisions and it is accountable to the British government who are accountable to the British people “It means an independent central bank of finance experts based in Frankfurt (many of whom are British), rather than an independent central bank of finance experts in London (many of whom are from other EU countries). This is a small change in the decision making process that better reflects the reality of world money markets”. The Bank of England is accountable to the British people through the British government the EU Central Bank is an independent institution, that is accountable to the EU, not then fully accountable to the British people, it will also make its decisions on what it considers best for the EU not what is best for Britain. “No British citizen will have lost any personal sovereignty as a result” No of course not dear! I think I will go and lie down now if you don’t mind.

ID Cards

Europhobia has an excellent post on ID Cards The problem(s) with ID cards Everyone I've spoken to recently has been doing the same old "if you've done nothing wrong..." arguments, usually followed by the "so what's the big deal?" line. Normally, after a five minute rant, I manage to convince them that this is one of the most intrusive and unpleasantly fascistic laws this country has yet seen, that it's the first step down the slippery slope to genetic databases and every dystopia ever envisaged. But usually what gets them is "what? I'll have to pay eighty-five quid for this thing?" Continues ...

Howard preferred ridicule to being thought soft on terror

Telegraph | Opinion | Howard preferred ridicule to being thought soft on terror: Until Michael Howard flunked the test yesterday and forced his reluctant frontbench Tory colleagues to endorse the looming multi-billion-pound ID card fiasco, the Tories had at least one promising vote-winning issue for next year's election campaign. A question could have been put to the electorate along these lines: do you think that government has become over-mighty in the past eight years; and, if so, do you want to have to get into the car with your wife or husband and drive to the police station, stand and queue while your car is clamped outside, submit to a reading being taken of your iris or fingerprint, provide a signature sample and your home address, and then write out a cheque to the government for £170? You might have a couple of children at university - that'll be another £170 for them - and don't forget the ageing parents, for they are not exempt either. Those parents might be of an age when they can get cranky and refuse to submit to some silly jobsworth, but be careful. If they refuse to allow their details to be stored on the new identity databank, they will be liable for a £2,500 fine. And if an elderly relative has to be moved into a nursing home, don't forget to tell the Home Office or you may be liable for a £1,000 fine. One of the characteristics of the ID card Bill that makes it recognisable as a piece of New Labour legislation is that it creates 31 new powers for the Home Secretary, seven new civil fines, and eight new criminal offences. Snip "It is not difficult to see how this ID card scheme could become New Labour's defining fiasco. People will resent the cost and the intrusion, but the serious trouble could come when the police are required to enforce it in areas with high Muslim populations, where many might prefer not to register. The Government and the Conservatives seem blithe about what this might do for race relations in this country. The Tories have failed to see that this debate is about much more than a piece of plastic. It is about our attitude to government, and its attitude to us. I would not expect New Labour to understand that point, but if the Tories do not understand it either, there is no point in someone like me voting for them any more. In selfish terms, I was relieved to see Michael Howard take the easy way out and endorse ID cards, because it freed me of any sense that I should have to vote for his party. No longer will I have to profess enthusiasm about Tory policies, or pretend that I see the green shoots of a Conservative revival. For the first time I shall vote for the Liberal Democrats, because they do understand that the identity card debate is about the just role of government, and I suspect tens of thousands of instinctive Conservatives will do the same next year."

Reversing the flow of Power

The Constitution will not change anything aliened with the EU is not a State or put the other way “The EU is not a State and the Constitution will not change that fact” is a complete fabrication and anyone, no matter how high in government circles who tells us that, is to put it bluntly is lying through their teeth. This Constitution repeals all the existing EC/EU treaties from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Nice and then founds or establishes quite a new EU, based on its own Constitution. Legally, constitutionally and politically this new European Union would be quite different from the existing EU. The new EU, founded on its own State Constitution, in fact becomes a new European State in the world community of States. With virtually all the essential features of a State, in which the existing Member States are reduced to the constitutional status of regions or provinces. Simultaneously the EU Constitution becomes the fundamental source of legal authority within Europe, supplanting the Constitutions of the Member States as the ultimate source of legal power. The EU Constitution becomes part of our Constitution and will not be amendable except with the consent of other countries. This is therefore the most decisive step ever in the near-60-year-old project of European integration, aimed at turning the EEC/EC/EU into a fully-fledged State, a superpower in the world. In international law a Treaty is a contract or agreement between independent States, the High Contracting Parties, as equal sovereign partners. A Constitution is the fundamental law of a State, setting out its institutions of government, how it makes its laws, determines its policies and actions and relates to other States. This treaty will only be a treaty until the Constitution comes into effect. From then on it is the Constitution we will be bound by and will have to obey. "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" states: "This Constitution establishes the European Union." As the European Union already exists as an intergovernmental cooperation between its Member States established by the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, what this Treaty-cum-Constitution proposes is an EU that would constitutionally, legally and politically be a fundamentally different thing from the EU we are at present members of. The Constitution gives the EU now established on the basis of its own Constitution, legal personality and a distinct corporate existence for the first time. Hitherto the EU has had no legal existence apart from its Members. The Constitution changes this. Legally and constitutionally it makes the new EU separate from any of its individual Member States, just as Germany is a separate state from Bavaria or Brandenburg, the USA from Virginia or California, and Canada from Ontario. This is the most essential constitutional step for those who seek to turn the EU into a State, an international actor in its own right for the first time. Article I-6 then provides that "The Constitution and law adopted by the Institution of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States." Thus the proposed Constitution of this new EU overrides and is superior to the Member States' national Constitutions, potentially in all areas of public policy; for the EU Constitution does not seek to reserve any governmental area permanently from EU control. The central issue concerning the EU Constitution is this: Which Constitution takes precedence, the European one or the national? That after all is the central question of politics: Where do power and legitimate authority lie? The "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" is clear. The new EU State and its Constitution will be paramount, The Constitution reapplies the existing body of EU law, some 100,000 pages of it, as if it were made under the constitutional primacy of the Constitution established by the new Treaty. Simultaneously it transfers some 40 further areas of government policy or national decision from the Member States to the new Union, centralising them in the Brussels Institutions. This is no longer a question of States "pooling sovereignty" in some limited areas of government, the better to attain certain agreed purposes. "Pooling sovereignty" was always a misleading term anyway, aimed at disguising from the public the reality of what was happening. The legal concept of sovereignty has nothing to do with international power or economic weight. It refers to the exclusive right of a State to make its own laws, and consequently of its people consequently to govern themselves. It is therefore no more possible to "pool" sovereignty than it is to be half-pregnant! But in so far as people believed that EU membership involved some such pooling, the Constitution's provisions now show the unreality of that. Under the Constitution the sovereign powers of the European Union would be vested in European Institutions, the EU Council, Court, Commission and Parliament, which are given legal supremacy over the laws and sovereignty of the Member States. The EU and its Institutions would become our new sovereign. We would all, for the first time, become legally bound as direct citizens of this new legal entity. One can only be a citizen of a State. Under the Constitution we would legally become citizens of the new European Union, not just as an honorary title, an adjunct to national citizenship, as under the Treaty of Maastricht, but with rights and obligations direct to the European institutions rather than through our national institutions. Article 1-10 provides: "Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Constitution." From An Important Analysis from Ireland on a Grave Day for European Democracy by Anthony Coughlan, who is an economist and Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity College Dublin. So we can clearly see that the statement “The EU is not a State and the Constitution will not change that fact” is very far from the truth it will in fact change everything because it changes the very basis of the EU.

Creeping Competencies

For competence read authority Competencies have been creeping from member states to the EU and as such they have created uncertainty about the balance of power among the different levels of EU governance. They also have brought about uncertainty about the demarcation and distribution of accountability among the actors that operate at the various levels of the European Union. But the phenomenon of 'creeping competencies' is a direct consequence of the Monnet Method: which has the added benefit, to the EU, of allowing a great deal of misdirection to take place over the eventual outcome of any transfer of authority to the EU. The strategy behind the Monnet 'method' was the imprecise and gradual redirection of authority from the national governments to the EU government, in the process of which ambiguous amounts of sovereignty would pass from one level to the other. The important objective for continued integration was to guarantee that the direction of this process was only one way i.e. from national governments to the EU, thus we have the invention of the acquis or ratchet, which is the EU rule that once authority is passed to the EU it cannot be returned to the nation state. Other inventions of the system are combined to facilitate an ongoing process of integration. The integration process because it is on diverse fronts a little bit here and a little bit there, is accompanied by a massive amount of misdirection, this shows itself when changes in member state are explained as modernisation or money saving measures, when in reality they are quite simply changes to bring member states into line with EU proposals. The reorganisation of the British Army is one such measure as explained Here the reorganisation of the post office and British telecom although presented as necessary for the business were no more than the British Government putting into practice the agreed policies of the Union. One case was the old 192 directory inquiry number which was changed and the system opened, up so that now instead of having one single number to dial if we needed to find a number, we have several diverse companies each offering to sell us the number we require, this has actually had the effect of a massive drop in directory enquires, so there is less money being shared amongst the many instead of adding to the profits of BT. A nonsense unless looked at from an EU point of view which is intent upon opening up the market place to all members of the EU. We see that last week the announcement that Britain is cutting back on its consular activities and true to form Mr Straw said the money would save £6 Million a year which would be redirected to other Foreign Office departments, what he did not say was that at the same time as Britain is cutting back on its consular activities the EU is beginning to put in place its own Here So integration has been and will continue to proceed in different areas of authority, at different times, in different amounts, all seemingly as separate unconnected events, but each one is part of the jigsaw of European integration. Of course as from the very beginning of this process the whole concept of the EU as a state will be denied and denied and denied, each time someone has suggested the reason for this or that policy is EU integration, they have been roundly accused of spreading malicious lies, in order to create alarm and undue anti-EU feeling amongst the population, and each time those voices of warning have been shown to be correct, and those accusers have been shown to be untrustworthy in their claims.

Terror defence lawyer to quit

Times Online - Sunday Times" Terror defence lawyer to quit A LEADING defence lawyer has said he will resign this week over the government’s anti-terror laws, condemned as illegal by the law lords, writes Katharine Houreld. Ian MacDonald QC condemned the indefinite detention of suspects without trial or the right to know the evidence against them as “an odious blot on our legal landscape”. snip.. “It would contradict three of the cardinal principles of criminal justice: public trial by an impartial judge and jury of one’s peers, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a right to know, comment on and respond to the case made against the accused.” I totally agree that those three cardinal principals of criminal justice plus the right of the jury not to convict if they feel the law is unjust, which is another threat under consideration, if the government introduce legislation after the Auld Review of the Criminal Courts which the Government regards as a major contribution to its continuing programme of reform/destruction of the criminal justice system,is the basis of our legal system and has been for over a thousand years. The point to remember is that our whole system is under threat with the government’s stealth introduction of Corpus Juris. We should also remember that the law lords did not say this particular infringement on the rights of the accused, is itself against the ECHR, only that it was unfair because it only applied to foreigners and not British Citizens. So Ian MacDonald QC and 8 out of 9 Law lords do not seem to be interested in the basic destruction of British rights, they just want them to be evenly distributed to all of us. Lysander Spooner over 150 years ago set down the reasons the a fair trial in front of a jury of the accused peers was vital to democracy and nothing has change since then to alter the basic truths of his words, in fact all he was doing was repeating that which we have know as a basic freedom literally forever It is unfortunate that this government and this opposition that we have landed ourselves with although full of lawyers do not seem to understand on single thing about British Basic rights. Other post concerning this issue can be found Here and Here and Here and Here and Here

Is the Pope Catholic?”

EU Serf posts on BBC bias “Is the Pope Catholic?” Much has been said about the BBC’s approach to the question of the EU and the unequal treatment of the sophisticated cosmopolitan pro EU spokesmen and the common xenophobic types who don’t like Germans. So the question is, does the BBC favour the EU in its coverage? From Vote No, we have a view of the problem. Our experience is that the BBC has been institutionally sympathetic to the euro and the EU Constitution, sometimes to the point of bias. They give 6 specific ways in which the problem shows itself 1) The wrong approach to this issue 2) The Westminster focus 3) The BBC’s record 4) The importance of reflecting public opinion 5) The BBC’s “cultural bias.” 6) Institutional problems which are particular concernsThe use of independent “experts” who are not genuinely impartial. Use of certain types of people to put the two sides’ cases: Focus on process for “yes” campaigners but issues for sceptics. Follow the link for details and comments on this very important issue, we do after all pay for the BBC, and if it is going to again back the “YES” side in the referendum on the Constitution, and all the evedence suggests that is the going to be the case, we at least should know this, and discount anthing which the BBC airs as EU Propaganda.

No EU Army! we must Barmy!

Christopher Booker in the Telegraph has a section about the restructuring of the British Army into new regiment formations of 1500, men thus destroying the traditional British and Scotish regiments. Also they are eventually to be equipped with electronically-linked vehicles known collectively as the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES). The reason we are not being told is because Mr Hoon last April agreed with his European colleagues that the EU should be able to deploy "battle-groups" of 1,500 men in international danger zones. The guiding principle behind Mr Hoon's controversial restructuring of our Army is to make it compatible with the EU's new defence force. Furthermore, since the Army will be equipped with FRES, it will no longer be able to work alongside US forces – which are planning a totally different system – but only with fellow members of the EU. This has been fully discussed in several posts on Eureferendum which details of the likely horrendous costs of the FRES and explains that this system is not even off the drawing board, however it is supposed to up and running in 2 years time. But the most interesting point Mr Booker makes is that “The Tory front bench was well aware of all this last week, but the word had gone out from their chief defence spokesman, Nicholas Soames, that it was not to be mentioned, because the party does not want the debate on Britain's defences to become a potentially divisive Euro-row. Thus, without the usual White Paper, our most significant defence policy decisions for decades are taken behind the scenes, for reasons not even Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is prepared to reveal.” When our political parties get together in this way and purposefully keep what they are doing a secret behind closed doors, it is clear evidence that none of them are prepared to take a stand for democracy, but like the European Union itself, they will all shout from the rooftops that they have a democratic mandate from the people. We the people need to remind ourselves that, if there is no choice there can be democracy, and when we have done that, we need to remind those whom we elect to represent our views that we want democracy returned to our government. There is only one way to do that, because they quite obviously will not listen, and that is to vote against any party or any candidate that refuses to openly discus the ramification of Britain’s membership of the EU, because no matter what these cretins would like us to believe without our vote they are nothing.

A Few Points to Consider

Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe PREAMBLE DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law, BELIEVING that Europe, reunited after bitter experiences, intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world, CONVINCED that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny, CONVINCED that, thus "United in diversity", Europe offers them the best chance of pursuing, with due regard for the rights of each individual and in awareness of their responsibilities towards future generations and the Earth, the great venture which makes of it a special area of human hope, DETERMINED to continue the work accomplished within the framework of the Treaties establishing the European Communities1 and the Treaty on European Union, by ensuring the continuity of the Community acquis, GRATEFUL to the members of the European Convention for having prepared the draft of this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe, WHO, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows: ARTICLE I-1 Establishment of the Union 1. Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common. The Union shall coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives, and shall exercise on a Community basis the competences they confer on it. ARTICLE I-3 The Union's objectives 2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security andjustice without internal frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted. 5. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Constitution. ARTICLE I-5 Relations between the Union and the Member States 2. Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Constitution.strong> <strong>The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular,to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Constitution or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union. The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives. ARTICLE I-6 Union law The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States. ARTICLE I-7 Legal personality The Union shall have legal personality. ARTICLE I-8 The symbols of the Union The flag of the Union shall be a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background. The anthem of the Union shall be based on the "Ode to Joy" from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven. The motto of the Union shall be: "United in diversity". The currency of the Union shall be the euro. Europe day shall be celebrated on 9 May throughout the Union.

Joining up the Dots to see Mr Monnet`s Dream

Joining up the Dots to see Mr Monnet`s Dream Almost as soon as I had posted that Richard North, “is un-assailed in at looking behind the meaning of any EU statement or document on any EU related subject, instantly getting to the heart of the matter and clearly explaining the ramifications of this or that policy” I notetice this evedence if any were needed that there is not one thing that is happening with our goveremnet that does not have a clear explination if looked at from an EU perspective. Just to remind ourselves, the idea behind the Monnet Method was that “Europe would become united without realising it, as common projects would lead European states to pool their sovereignties”. So we need to observe the dots, and join them up to see the whole picture, this requires a basic understanding of what is happening, which can be gained by looking at EU proposals and then waiting for the signs to appear that those proposal are being implemented. So when our British defence Minister makes a statement that he is going to institute changes to the formation of the British armed forces we are already armed with the knowledge that the EU is intending to implement plans to deploy rapid reaction "battle groups" in international danger zones. The groups, each consisting of 1,500 troops, are scheduled to be deployable by 2007. Dr North takes up the story Here

Will This Work?

I do not often find cause for complaint about Dr North’s views, he is after all one of most knowledgeable and the clearest thinkers on EU matters to be found anywhere, and certainly on the internet he is un-assailed in at looking behind the meaning of any EU statement or document on any EU related subject, instantly getting to the heart of the matter and clearly explaining the ramifications of this or that policy. The Tories have been offering us some policies on the EU which up to know have proved to be based more on wishes than actually holding any hope of fulfilment were they in the unlikely event to win the next election. But as will be seen By Dr North’s post this may be about to change because of the commission’s decision not to enforce the Stability pact France and Germany have in effect taken back the power of their economic control into their own hands, thus the argument is extended that as they have broken the treaties with impunity Britain can also repatriate control of its fishing waters, I suggested that The French and Germans do not have to take any initiative to ignore the Stability pact, they just ignore it. On fishing we would have to initiate a physical defence against any country that decided our declaration was against the treaty. So the thing could come to a head quite quickly. I wondered if that thought had been considered. Another commenter phrased this in a much better manner “They are different, in the sense that the Spanish are not sailing into Germany, dropping nets and hauling up government money, thereby increasing the budget deficit. So the solution to the German budget deficit would not involve boarding and sequestering the vessels of other nations. But we may have to do that to solve our fish deficit”. Dr North said “This has indeed been considered… as well as many other things. Watch this space”. This could be interesting, because if he has had a hand in preparing the argument, I can be fairly certain that it will be air tight, so I will indeed be watching this space. EU Referendum When is it permissible to break EU treaty obligations with impunity? In its leader today the Daily Telegraph gives the answer: when it is the stability pact and the culprits are France and Germany. This is on the back of its report in the business section, announcing that the commission is to let France and Germany off the hook. It has abandoned efforts to punish France and Germany for breach of the stability and growth pact, offering to turn a blind eye to abuse of EU spending rules – something which, incidentally, we picked up last Sunday. According to the Telegraph, Joaquin Almunia, the newly appointed economics commissioner, has bowed to the political reality, and agreed that sanctions procedures against the eurozone's two biggest economies would now be dropped. "Given the action taken by France and Germany, it would appear that no further steps are required at this point," he said. In its leader, the Telegraph very much labours the point, that it is the two states that insisted on the stability pact to curb excessive state spending which have now exceeded its maximum budget deficit (three per cent of GDP) for three years running. It takes to task the French who "do not even bother to disguise the lamentable state of their public finances". With Gallic sang-froid, they cheerfully admit that their deficit will again break the rules next year. And, asks the Telegraph, will the commission fine the miscreants, as it is obliged to do under the pact? Not likely, it says, once again answering its own question. Brussels bent the rules a year ago to suit the Franco-German axis, and it is content to do so again. This amounts to a de facto repatriation of fiscal sovereignty to the nation states. So the stability pact is now as dead as a dodo, and even less lamented. In marking its passing, however, the Telegraph fails to an make the obvious and important point. What this affair underlines is that, for all their legal content and framing, treaties are essentially political constructs. Unless there is the political will to make them work, and the signatories agree to be bound by them - not just at the point of signing or ratification, but through their life – they are so much waste paper. This is something the people who spend their hours pouring over the minutia of treaty texts – the people whom we used to call "barrack-room lawyers" – so often forget. And this has enormous implications for the UK, not least if that unlikely event transpires – the Conservatives win the general election. Then, we will see the commitment to repatriate the CFP come to the fore, and the barrack-room lawyers will immediately cry that this cannot be achieved for, if we do it unilaterally, we will be hauled up in front of the ECJ and fined zillions of euros. The response now is ready made – just like France and Germany were hauled so severely punished for breaching the Growth and Stability Pact?

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle

Further to my recent post Bill of Rights I have received an e-mail with a link to a site The Anglo Saxon Chronicle that takes takes up the final paragraph "If we wish to remain free, we may well have to repeat the struggles of the past to see it off again, but as in the past it will be a long drawn out struggle because once Roman Law takes hold it does not easily relinquish power." Which takes further the concept of Britain’s common law rights and explains some of the legal principals behind them and their self-protecting attributes, so that we can always as a final recourse make claim to them to return the power of our own Government into the hands of the people. Our system of Government is quite complicated, because it relies not on a written Constitution, but on the common law that is the law that grew naturally out of those early days, when we began to associate with our neighbours, it relies on basic concepts which are self-evident and does not rely on a codified system that has been written down, it is if you wish a movable feast. It has been made mainly by judges who have used existing laws as a base for their decisions, often relying on the earlier judgments of others to form their own opinions, with a safeguard always available to the people who form part of their own government and legal system. The concept that we are only ruled by our agreement is central to the whole basis of our laws it is not just an empty political dream the very basis of our system draws heavily on that concept. We decide who will make our laws we decide who will be our king we decide if the laws our law makers initiate are acceptable to us, because we are central to those powers. Without the willing cooperation of the people our system simply would not work. Integral to out freedoms is the ability to change our governments, to be tried by a jury of our peers, who have the power to overturn a law by not convicting anyone if they feel the law is unjust. All of these principals are at present under attack, as our governments continue to try to draw all powers to themselves, the power to elect our law makers is undermined by the party system when the party managers get together and decide not to offer alternatives at an election as has been the case over the EU all main parties are offering the same thing and that is membership of the EU, it does not matter what we want in that case because which ever party we vote for will produce the same result. The right for the people to have a say in our laws in the courts is being undermined by the present moves to deny the right of a jury trial, the right of a jury to overturn a law by not convicting is under threat the Auld report, suggests The defendant should no longer have an elective right to trial by judge and jury that that juries have no right to acquit in defiance of the law or in disregard of the evidence thus removing our participation in our own laws. It may be inconvenient for these who wish to rule us, to have their laws questioned in court, but unless they wish to change our whole system of law, then they do not have a choice. Of course that is exactly what is being attempted, Parliament is taking powers they should not have, they are installing laws which force their rules and remove our rights to object. What they are doing is to attempt to destroy our basic common law rights to rule ourselves. The basis of the British system of government is a closed loop: • the People are sovereign; • their sovereignty is represented by the Monarch whom they, the People, choose; • the Monarch, as head of the Government, oversees the work of the Government; • the Government governs the People. (The Government thus governs the People with the consent of the People.) At the coronation, the Sovereign is acclaimed as the choice of Parliament acting for the People, and the coronation oath, whose continuous history can be traced to the time of the Confessor, and whose development embraces the Magna Carta, confirms that the Sovereign's authority is itself subject to the Law (and thus all authority delegated from the Sovereign is subject to the Law). Without the Monarch, Parliament cannot legislate, for although the Royal Assent is given by the three Lords Commissioners for the Monarch, that Assent has first to be authorised by the Monarch. While it is true that the full authority of the Monarch as Sovereign may be attained only with the Three Estates of the Realm assembled in full Parliament, the Monarch will always retain the Royal Prerogatives: to dismiss the prime minister; and to dissolve the Parliament. We have a balance; we have a closed loop; we have a sovereign people. This is opposed by the Roman System when the parliament has all the power and allows the people only those powers it wishes. But those rights are granted by parliament and are always under the control of parliament. A glance at the EU Charta of Fundamental Rights will show that it grants its citizens the right to life, the right to marry, the right to own property, the right toa fair trial, etc. We in Britian already have these rights by birth and our government’s job is nothing more than to protect those rights, that is what elect and pay them for in the first place, it is not within their power to refuse to honour those rights, or to remove those rights or to give away the powers we loan to them in order that they may protect our rights, to a higher authority. By so doing,by trying to subvert the rights of Englishmen our government have abdicated and are an illegal government, and we have every right to remove them.

ID Cards

The Guardian has an article pointing out the hazards the introduction of this central data base will hold for our freedoms, I am impressed that Henry Porter the journalist who wrote the article has pointed out on of my fears with a lot of this intrusive legislation we are seeing from the present administration but that we with we cannot predict the nature of future governments. The article fininshes thus: This is a chilling prospect, and we should ask ourselves whether we're willing to trust the government with such power. Has the prime minister's behaviour before and after the release of the September WMD dossier been so scrupulous as to suggest that his government would not in extremis abuse such an instrument? Did Mr Blunkett's respect for the traditions of liberty and free speech suggest that we could have had complete faith in him? What about his successor? Let us hope that he is more able to weigh the likely benefits against the undoubted loss of liberty. Simply working on the evidence in the serious organised crime and police bill, I suggest that the restriction of defendants' rights, the curbs on protest and the measures relating to arrest are enough to conclude that the government's aim is to increase the power of the state at the expense of civil liberties. Yet the real concern must be not with Blair, with what Blunkett did or even what Charles may do, but with future governments, the nature of which we cannot predict. We may fret about illegal immigration and improper use of the NHS, but the national identity register, which will include adults' fingerprints and an electronic scan of the face or iris, as well as date of birth and address, is the tyrant's ideal means of control. This is presumably why other English-speaking countries have rejected compulsory schemes backed up by penalties. If we are to accept this sinister legislation, which will cost upwards of £3bn, we should know that it will be a matter of time before a government insists that the unique key to every adult's genetic profile be included on the card. With that would come a data bank of every individual's DNA to be accessed by God knows whom, with God knows what terrifying purpose. Later versions of the ID card might carry a chip called a radio frequency identification (RFID), which can be read from a distance. Thus anyone carrying a card who passes a sensor will give away their position. This is not science fiction. RFID technology is being tested for US passports, and the British police are covertly monitoring an individual's movements with analogous technology on motorways. We must not imagine that respect for individual liberty is innate to the British establishment. With this bill, the government is attempting to change for ever the relationship between the individual and the state in the state's favour. Those who treasure liberty must not let it pass

Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights Yesterday after the announcement of The Law Lords ruling that the indefinite detention of foreign suspects without charge or trial in Belmarsh prison breached their human rights; I was tempted to ask on another Blogg if the Law Lords were concerned about human rights why they did not use British civil rights to challenge the government. Of course the answer is obvious, the Law Lords were responding to a case brought under the ECHR, this has nothing to do with our own basic civil rights. However I did receive an answer to the question from another commenter on the site who said: Habeas corpus has been suspended many times. For instance, it was suspended in the eighteenth century as a precautionary measure against both Jacobites and revolutionary republicans. In the twentieth century it has been suspended in connection with Irish terrorism. It is not part of some sort of immutable British Constitution (as it is in the US and as I wish it were here). While in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution the Convention Parliament declared in the Bill of Rights that 'the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal', it's important to note that laws could still be suspended WITH the consent of Parliament, as is the case today. The Bill of Rights was more concerned with establishing once and for all the privileges of Parliament than the rights of individual citizens(as one should expect from an act passed in the late seventeenth century, well before the conceptualisation of human rights).Also, it's important to remember that no Parliament can bind the actions of future parliaments. Essentially, if Parliament says something is all right, then it is all right. This led me to think about the history of our Common Law rights, because I have always understood that our civil rights were a basic right of British people, and have been since the beginning of any form of government in Britain. The results of my investigation follows, but there is an argument often advanced that there is no British Constitution and Parliament may make any law it wishes both arguments are wrong. Although many MPs and even some professors of law will not agree they can only make a contrary argument by stopping the backward clock at a destination of their choice and building their argument forward on that basis. I will start from the premise that English Law evolves by a process of general adherence to convention and precedent, until parliament or a court alter aspects of it, at which point a new precedent is set. This can be done at any time, and new precedents can likewise be reversed at any time. This is basically the supremacy of Parliament argument, which combined with the notion that no Parliament can bind the actions of future parliaments, creates an argument that nothing defends the British people from a despotic government. Yet the British system of Government has survived for over a thousand years and has been the yardstick against which many other Constitutions not least the American Constitution have been measured? The answer is that of course there is no right of Parliament to make any law it wishes or change any existing law by simply making a new one in its stead, there are such laws that do not fall into the category of Parliamentary law these are not within the power of Parliament to change, and without a revolution they will stand as the basic law of this country for ever. These Laws form the basic backbone of our system of government and legal system. One such law is the Bill of Rights 1688/9 it is a Constitutional statute it is not an ordinary law, to change or repeal a Constitutional statute you must actually put before parliament an act specifically with the intention of changing the Statute. The Bill of rights to date has not been changed it has been amended but those amendments did not disturb the basic rights within the Bill of Rights, the first amendment was the Act of settlement 1701 which was legislation governing the succession to the English Crown. It was passed in 1701 as an amendment to the English Bill of Rights it did not change anything other than the the line of sucsesion of the Monachy. Then againg the Act of Union 1707 between England and Scotland which amongst other provisions included a restatement of the Act of Settlement 1701. The full title if the Bill of rights is “An Act for declaring the Rights and liberties of the Subject and settling the Succession of the Crown” There is also the Act Establishing the Coronation Oath, 1689 which is important in this debate because it clearly creates a defence of our basic rights in perpetuity, as each succeeding monarch must take the oath to maintain those rights. The practice and right of Habeas Corpus was settled practice and law as far back as Magna Carta 1215 and was thus a fundamental part of the unwritten common 'law of the land' and was expressly recognized by Magna Carta. The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 only codified existing common law practice. The Bill of Rights states publicly what were then taken to be self-evident freedoms, it did not mention “The Habeas Corpus Act” but did mention “laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted” so it was quite clear that Habeas Corpus was included in Laws and Liberties although it had only been codified by parliament 10 years previously it was self-evidently part of the basic rights. The Bill of Rights is based on a concept of permanence and declares that any actions taken against its principles are null and void. In fact Both Magna Charta and the Declaration of Rights specifically reject any attempt to amend or abolish them. Bill of Rights “Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made”. Now we approach the question of whether the Bill of Rights in its entirety still stands that is answered because according to The House of Lords “Desuetude” (repeal by lack of use) is unknown to English law, so it must still be on the statue books and must still be relevant to the present day. In 1913 it was ruled that the Bill of Rights still stood, and the Crown could not justify any infringement of its provisions. This in fact was confirmed on 21 July 1993 when the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’ The authority of the Bill of Rights was re-affirmed in a House of Lords judgement in November 2001. An attempt was made to repeal Magna Charta in 1969, when the Statute Laws (Repeal) Act was passed. It repealed Edward 1’s Confirmation of the Great Charter Act of 1297 - but it did not repeal Magna Charta itself. The legal position, a repeal of a statute which gives effect to common law does not repeal the underlying common law itself. The original common law remains untouched. If parliament could be held to have repealed Magna Charta it could also be held to have acted unlawfully in that, by definition, parliament must have exceeded its powers on that occasion. The point that the Parliament that brought in the Bill of Rights was itself illegal is quite pertinent because the parliament declared “Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; by so doing they were in fact taking back those rights and liberties which James II had subverted. When the parliament invited The Prince and Princess of Orange to take the throne that was only on the understanding that they would protect those same rights and liberties, So the Bill of Rights was in fact not an act of parliament but a settlement treaty. A further point the bill of rights removed forever the divine rights of Kings; it did not create a divine right of Parliament. This is now becoming an important issue, because all of the problems associated with the claim of rights 1628 followed by the civil war and then the bill of rights 1689 were in fact all about the divine right of kings, which is another term for code napoleon i.e. the king has all the power and decides the law. This was set against the Anglo Saxon common law which is the people are ruled by themselves. One is top down the other is bottom up, we in Britian have been fighting for our rights under Common Law since William the Conqueror brought back Roman Law in to this country in 1066, that was why we had Magna Carta, The claim of Rights, the Bill of Rights etc. Now we are seeing again an attempt to bring Roman Law back into this country. If we wish to remain free, we may well have to repeat the struggles of the past to see it off again, but as in the past it will be a long drawn out struggle because once Roman Law takes hold it does not easily relinquish power.