eurealist.co.uk

Standing Logic on its Head

Marta Andreasen has finaly been dismised by the EU commision Ms Andreasen
The commision said she “repeatedly and knowingly acted in disregard of her obligations”;
In particular she made “unsubstantiated statements” and “failed to seek authorization for public statements”.

Which is not the case Ms Andreasen was suspended as chief accountant on 28 August 2002 after sending an internal letter to Commission President, Romano Prodi, expressing her concerns about failures in the accounting system. Only later did she go public because it became obvious that nothing was going to happen. Today she said “They want to continue to manage the funds without real control and that’s why they wanted me out”.The new accounting system to be put in place in the Commission will do nothing but add “cosmetic changes”, she said. “It will not solve all the structural problems”.

No but it will be hailed a great step forward in accountability and held up as a defence against anyone else who dares to question the Eurocrats. It would seem that the Commision it not prepared to accept anyone stepping out of line and anyone who does is branded, often as being barmy before being dismised. As it has already been stated in court (Bernard Connolly) complaints about the Commision are close to blasphemy, yes that is a fact! not Eumyth.

Did not the old USSR used to put dissidents in mental institutions, the theory behind this action was that the system was perfect and therefore anyone who could not see that perfection, obviously must be mad! Makes sense when you put it that way doesn’t it, especially if you happen to be standing on your head at the time.

Philip Duly, Campaign Manager, The Freedom Association has received this letter from David Davis regarding the Civil Contingencies Bill. Post below.

Although Mr Davis makes reassuring noises there is nothing concrete about the Conservative proposals and amount to no more than keeping an eye on the Bill as it becomes law. I suppose the Tories want this power for themselves and are happy to see a Labour government put it onto the statute books all ready for then if they ever gain power again.

Dear Mr Duly
Thank you for your email regarding the Civil Contingencies Bill.

I recognise the fears you have over the introduction of this Bill and the potential for some basic freedoms of the British people to be taken away.

Despite the government’s lack of urgency in delivering it - I find it astonishing that it took almost two and half years after September 11th for a Civil Contingencies Bill to be brought forward - I believe that this Bill is necessary. Some of the existing emergency powers legislation dates back to the 1920s and requires updating to reflect new threats. This does not mean, however, that the government should go unchecked and my colleagues and I have been doing - and will continue to do - our utmost to ensure that the potential for misuse of these powers is eliminated.

A government has no greater duty than the protection of the people it governs, and this point will always be at the forefront of all our minds as we scrutinise the government’s proposals. I can, therefore, assure you that my colleagues and I will monitor the detail and potential implications of the Civil Contingencies Bill as the government progresses it through Parliament, and will ensure that the interests of the British people are central to any measures that the Bill introduces.

Yours sincerely
The Rt Hon David Davis MP

UK Civil Contingencies bill

I recived this by e-mail and post it in full thanks to samizdata

Despite still not having received the Royal Assent the UK Civil
Contingencies bill is already in full-swing. The Cabinet office must
have great confidence in Her Majesty’s disinterest in the liberties of
her subjects as they have set up a secretariat with its own hotline
without the necessary legislation being enacted. Contact them through
the main Cabinet Office phone number 0207 270 1234 and ask for the Civil
Contingencies Hotline. You need look no further to find the ‘dark
forces’ the queen spoke about!

The Civil Contingencies Bill: A very British coup

David Carr (London) Civil liberty/regulation • UK affairs
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006757.html

I bet that if I mention the term coup d’etat it conjures up images of
heavily-armed soldiers on the streets, tanks on airport runways and
besieged radio stations. In truth, though, that is precisely the means
by which such things are usually conducted. But they happen in faraway,
third-world countries. It is the kind of thing we have come to associate
with Oxford-educated ‘Generals’ who manage to wrest power from their
tribal rivals in some African shanty-nation or with bandoliered,
mustachioed Bolivians firing their carbines into the air and shouting
“Viva El Nuevo Presidente” while the still-warm body of the old
‘Presidente’ swings from a nearby lamppost. But this is not the kind of
thing that happens in developed countries like Britain. No, this is a
stable country with a proper economy and elections and democratic
governments and political parties and judicial independence and free
speech and the such.

I suppose it is, in part at least, because complacency caused by all
those institutions appearing to be extant that we are about to taken
over in a quiet, stealthy and bloodless coup d’etat all of our own.

Not a shot will be fired. No-one will be rounded up. The airports will
remain open and all the media will stay on air. For now.

No, the weapon of the revolution to come is made only of paper and it is
called the ‘Civil Contingencies Bill’, due to become law next year.

Envisaged, ostensibly, as a means of giving the government sufficient
emergency powers to deal with terrorist threats (as if they do not
already have enough powers), the actuality is a lot darker and goes a
great deal further than that.

The effect of the Bill, once passed into law, will enable any senior
government minister to declare that an ‘emergency’ has happened or is
about to happen and, entirely at his own discretion, enact any
regulations he wishes for the purpose of:

* protecting human life, health or safety
* treating human illness or injury
* protecting or restoring property
* protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel
* protecting or restoring an electronic or other system of communication
* protecting or restoring facilities for transport
* protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health
* protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial
institutions
* preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or
air
* preventing, or mitigating the effects of, flooding
* preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or
destruction of plant life or animal life
* protecting or restoring activities of Her Majesty’s Government
* protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish
Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National
Assembly for Wales, or
* protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.

In other words, regulations for any purpose whatsoever. And that is just
the beginning. The Bill goes on to set out just what those ministerial
fiats can do:

* provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property
(with
or without compensation);
* provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or
plant
life (with or without compensation);
* prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a
specified place;
* require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified
place;
* prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds,
at specified places or at specified times;
* prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;
* prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;

The Bill will also enable said minister to abolish any law or statute at
the stroke of a pen.

These are Bolshevik-style powers, so sweeping and totalitarian that they
sound as if they have been lifted out of some 1930’s banana-republic
manifesto.

The effect (and almost certainly the intention) of these laws will be to
give the Executive complete political control over the country. Bloggers
or media owners who oppose the government can have their businesses
requestioned and shut down. Political opponents can be put under
indefinite house arrest or dragged before kangaroo courts. Meetings or
organised protests can be disbanded and, theoretically at least, the
Executive could even order Parliament (which is an assembly) to be
evacuated and closed.

Under the rubric of ‘terrorist threats’ the Executive is about to equip
itself with awesome and unlimited powers and let no-one delude
themselves that these powers will not be used against, say, pro-hunt
campaigners, petrol protesters and maybe even Samizdatistas. The
Nulabour fantasy of complete control is shortly to be made flesh.

This is probably the last year of Britain as a liberal democracy yet the
mainstream media is (as usual) asleep at the wheel. They will remain
that way. It is up to bloggers to raise the awareness and ring the alarm
bells in the hope that some opposition can be stirred into life.

In 1972 Ross McWhirter summonsed the Attorney-General, claiming that signing the Treaty of Rome was illegal and a breach of the Bill of Rights, forcing British subjects to be bound by laws made since 1958 by foreign powers and therefore without the Queen’s Assent.

The Bill of Rights clearly states how our Parliament must work: The Monarch to give Royal Assent, the hereditary peers of the House of Lords, and MPs sitting in the Commons as the people’s representatives. Any attempt to alter this is a breach of the Bill of rights. This is the basic division of powers that ensures one part of our government cannot control all powers, a balance against tyranny.

Ross also claimed that the Queen was in breach of her Coronation Oath. Because at the Coronation she promised to rule us by our laws that is laws made in our parliament. Before the case could be heard in court Ross opened his door to a gunman (IRA?) who shot him dead.

In 1993 his brother Norris and Rodney Atkinson made a similar charge, questioning the legality of the Maastricht Treaty and summonsing on 7 February 1992, two Privy Counsellors, Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude, for treason.

Article 8 of the Treaty of Maastricht which imposed all-embracing compulsory European citizenship on the Queen and all her United Kingdom subjects, without their express consent, did so ” subject to the duties imposed thereby”

The Queen was thereby rendered subject to past and future judgements of the Court of the European Communities in Luxembourg, from which there is no appeal and which was thereby confirmed in authority over her Courts.

There were 8 cases, some based on the 1795 Treason Act

It is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without … to devise … constraint of the person of our sovereign … his heirs or successors.”

It is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions “tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution” of the United Kingdom

The Attorney-General took over the case and then he dropped it as “not in the public interest”. That in itself breached the Bill of Rights by “suspending the operation of law” and was contrary to natural justice in that the Attorney sat in judgement on his own case.

Five years later in 1998 Tony Blair as one of his first acts as Prime minister of this country brought in the Crime and Disorder Act, which repealed the whole of the Treason Acts of 1790, 1795, 1817, and section 2 of the Treason Felony Act 1848.

One is tempted to ask why, and do we now have a situation where ministers can ignore the British Constitution in the knowledge that they have already removed the crime and the punishment of treason from the statue books, We would then have to back to the acts and Statutes in 1351 and 1555 that the 1795 Treason act was based on (I believe far they have not repealed these) or the rest of the Treason and Felony Act 1848 to find laws to force our governments to obey the British Constitution.