eurealist.co.uk

EURSOC: High Pressure Tactics:

“High Pressure Tactics

By EURSOC Two
02 November, 2004

Which European nation has the toughest record in fighting terror at home? Britain, with its decades of experience of IRA terror and its current role as al-Qaeda target? Spain, with domestic terror of its own and memories of the Madrid massacre still raw?

Actually, it’s France. Yes, France, favourite whipping-boy of the right-wing press for its supposedly endless attempts to ingratiate itself with Islamist extremists.

The Washington Post gives a broad overview of the situation. Earlier this year, some EU countries had their Guantanamo Bay terror suspect citizens returned to their care. In Britain, the media contrived to give the men a heroes welcome. The home office was more sanguine, revealing that surveillance of each of the six suspects released will cost £1 million per year. Sweden’s returnees were given legal aid by their government to sue the US government for ‘wrongful imprisonment.’

In France, however, the four prisoners who were sent back in July haven’t been heard from since. They were whisked off by French security forces, who say that they could be held for up to three years without charge.”

Neil Herron

McConnell drums up support for English devolution
HAMISH MACDONELL
The Scotsman
2nd November
SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR
JACK McConnell warned voters in the north-east of England yesterday that they would put back the cause of devolution 25 years if they rejected plans for a regional assembly. The First Minister travelled to Newcastle to make a last-ditch appeal to voters to support the government’s plans for devolution in the area.

But he ended up delivering the dire warning - the first Labour politician to do so - that a “no” vote in the referendum would end all hope of devolution for the area for at least a decade, and probably longer. Mr McConnell compared this week’s vote to the failed Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 and warned that decision had put back the devolution cause in Scotland by 25 years. He also claimed a “no” vote would send out a signal to the whole of Europe that the North-east was not confident enough to run its own affairs. Mr McConnell’s surprisingly strong words in the debate over regional devolution for England represents the most forthright intervention by any Labour politician in the campaign. Other senior figures, including John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, have tried to play down the implications for the government of a “no” vote.

Couple of points;
I thought devolution was about the regions of England ruling themselves, if that is the case perhaps Mr McConnell should return to Scotland and mind his own business. He is already part of a system that is breaking up Great Britain as a unit, as a Scotsman he has every right to make comments about Britain but not about the devolution of England.
As far as Britain is concerned perhaps he could start by answering a simple question; if the British Parliament were to try to take Britain out of the EU that would also include Scotland, what would the Scottish Parliaments reaction be to that.

A No Vote will also send a signal to all of the EU (Mr McConnell) that the English people do not want their country to be broken up into little pieces so that rules from Brussels can be better installed.

Although I do not live in the North East I have been supporting their ‘NO’ campaign on this blog and by and writing letters to their local papers.

The only problem is that there is in the North East and in the rest of the England already regional assemblies.

So the real question that should be asked is not do you want an assembly but do you want the present assembly to be an elected one. Do you want democracy or not, of course the answer is yes we do want democracy, but the democratic right to decide ourselves if we want the break up of England into regions, with eventually regional parliaments reporting directly to Brussels.

We are not being given that choice, these assemblies are already in place, and are already being funded by government and local councils to take over the running of the regions, they exist at present as unelected and unaccountable Quango`s, but we did not ask for them in the first place.

As the North East is going to be counting the votes for an elected assembly on Thursday, my hopes are that the people will reject the government’s plans, but even if they do, this will still leave the assembly in place.

To be safe from further interference with our Constitution on regional matters we need to somehow get rid of these quango`s then there will be nothing left on which the government can build their regional plans.

So what can we do to ensure that England remains one country with one government in England other than supporting the calls for an English Parliament, which I was originally against but am being persuaded towards by the arguments.

Here are a few suggestions sent by various thinking people;

Peter W Watson
The ODPM is already talking about a “Section 3 Agenda” (”Section 3″
of the White Paper, “Your Region, Your Choice”, that is) whereby
regionalisation will proceed WITHOUT elected regional assemblies.
Watch out for a plethora of initiatives from your “regional” Government
Office - setting up even more “stakeholder forums”, sub-regional
partnerships etc - and further limitations, by the ODPM, on the
core-powers of local government! Beware, however, that the removal of
core-powers from local government may also be cloaked by the
conferment of peripheral ones, such as powers to forbid the handing out
of leaflets (e.g. Gloucester) or the display of unauthorised posters (e.g.
North Somerset)!

Where referundums are concerned, we obviously cannot afford to lose
them. Equally, however, we cannot afford to win them and do nothing
else. Every regime-initiative to by-pass the referendum (be it on the
EU-constitution, or on an elected regional assembly) must be used as
an opportunity to expose the creeping takeover-process. So what can
we do? Well, representatives can be inserted into “stakeholder
forums”, regionalist briefings can be picketed and the presentations of
“strategic partnerships” can be disrupted by intelligent criticism (hearts
and minds must be won!) Inside-information can then be passed to the
media, who may have to take some notice of it. This is easier to do
locally than nationally, and it all adds up.
….
PW
Then we have to stop the funding -

we protest at local level and shut all money and communications and jobs
paid for by council tax payers and close relations with county councils
to Regions - withdraw salaried staff employed by and sent by County
Councils as the Regions are not wanted nor are they accountable

THEN

we file suit that the Regions are either
funded by the EU (foreign interference in our domestic affairs - and let
us see the Commons try and wriggle out of THAT!)

or central government funding of a non elected and NOT WANTED QUANGO

the people waged at the Regional Level are simply parasites and bought
supporters of the government.

Regions have to be removed. I believe we can do it as the population as
a whole now feels it is us and “them” where “they” are the government.

It is all coming along nicely.
……
Jane Bikby

However a couple of the councils for the Yorkshire and Humberside RA are
withdrawing funding. This was Prescott’s flagship, given more money than
the rest and extra power. Is this the start of a revolt?
We must put pressure on Councils, shaming them in letters to the press,
to try and make them think again. Council Tax is higher because of their
contributions, and the taxpayer isn’t told this money is being paid when
they get their bill.
If you know different please let me know.

Neil Herron has done a magnificent job with opposing the NE Assembly,
exposing malpractice etc. and hopefully a NO vote will make them take
stock.

Of course the RA’s are one of the three pillars of regional government. The
other two being Regional Development Agency, and the Regional
Government Office + DTI.
Don’t the EU like the number 3?
As do those behind the EU e.g. Trilateral Commission for one.

Those of us in Lincs have been campaigning against the RA’s for some
time now, and monitoring what they are doing. Josephine being one of the
main hard workers in this.
They love to get publicised via their Development agencies, just as the EU
circle of stars is emblazoned on most things. Creeping awareness and
acceptance strategy.
Yorkshire Forward are a prime example of this.

I agree with Steve that we must try to get a foothold in the things he
mentions, not only to monitor, but to try and change them. Just as the
Europhiles have done in Westminster.

As there seem so little real news I am this morning looking at other sites for interesting titbits.

EU-Serf has a post fisking “The usual suspects” letter to the times last week, destroying their arguments and naming and shaming them, and their organisation “Britain in Europe” which if you can be bothered to follow the link to their site, you will find the usual Euphile meaningless codswallop and also that Sir Edward Heath, is their president, which fact, is all we really need to know about their aims and the believability of their propaganda. This was after all the same man who had the cheek to tell us that there would be no loss of essential sovereignty

Martin Cole at Ironies: has a very good post detailing a report in MensNewsDaily.com about signing the EU Constituion.

Ironies:

“European Leaders Sign Global Destruction Pact”

Such is the headline of an article in MensNewsDaily.com of October 31, 2004 by Roger F. Gay which is linked from here. It begins sensationally enough with this paragraph:

Leaders from 25 established European Union member states plus candidates Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria signed the proposed EU Constitution on Friday. The character of the ‘constitution’ is like something that could only have been invented in France (and in fact it was). If the signing had been more than a symbolic act, then predicting a new era that would make the Cold War look like a picnic would not be out of order.

Then so accurately and chillingly reports the absolute truth:-

If passed into law, a European super-state would be created that leaves little room for state level political decisions and individual rights. Not only would state level decision-making power be lost, but true power would be transferredto appointed officials and a mind-boggling bureaucracy.

There are some extracts from the article and a link Mr Cole finishes with the statement TYRANNY IS AT OUR DOOR for an explanation see Mr Coles e-mail to Samizdata

Richard North at EU referendum points to Lord Pearson`s latest document which is called What is the point of the European Union? Dr North says it is a “brief summary of our relationship with ‘Brussels’ including the case for the United Kingdom to leave the EU, and the case to stay”.

I must admit that I had not read the document, but now I have and I found it a clear and concise evaluation of the case against the EU written in a light-hearted and easy to understand language it is well worth reading.

Dr North explains that “Lord Pearson enumerates the various aspects of the whole project and Britain’s involvement in it, attempts to calculate its financial cost on the basis of Ian Milne’s pamphlet A Cost Too Far?, and merely analyzes the price this country has paid in lost freedom, democracy and the lesser matters of economic competitiveness”

He also mentions a couple of jokes but I found that the whole document was written in a cheerful manner here are just a few gems.

“Please don’t be fooled by the propaganda which says that Parliament can scrutinise and debate EU legislation. Indeed we do, until the cows come home, but we cannot change a comma of it unless that change is unanimously agreed by all the Member States in the Council of Ministers”.

“The Project re-emerged after the Second War and its fundamental idea was (and, believe it or not, still is), that nation states were responsible for the carnage of two World Wars. They must therefore be emasculated, and diluted into a supra-national state, run by a Commission of wise and honest technocrats”.

“Anyone who doubts this should read a brilliant book by Christopher Booker and Richard North, entitled The Great Deception, and published by Continuum Books, which reveals the detailed history of how the people have been misled. The authors have unearthed several internal Foreign Office memos under the 30-year rule. There is one beauty from a senior civil servant in 1971 to a colleague, along the lines of: “Of course this is the end of British democracy as we have known it, but if it is properly handled the people won’t know what’s happened until the end of the century. With any luck, old boy, by then I’ll be dead.”

“It has always been essential to keep the true nature of the Project from the British people. They have to be slowly sucked into the embrace of the corrupt octopus, until it is too late to escape. That is the very essence of the Project, and I hope you will agree it is working pretty well”.