eurealist.co.uk

I have not read this site much in the past, but can recomend if only for the last two posts which is all I have read. A thoughtful look at the hunting issue and the story that “Senior Tory MPs are drawing up secret plans to reduce the role of ordinary Conservative members in future leadership elections, a move that is threatening to divide the party”. well worth reading.

The Edge of England’s Sword:

“The test of England

This week’s torrent of legislation rolling out from Parliament sets up 2005 to be the definitive year for the future of this country - which is why I am so bitter about the Tories’ listlessness. For a complete rundown of what things have come to, see the Torygraph, but the most momentous are excerpted below:

The Civil Contingencies Bill. If ’something happens’, the Government will be able to repeal or suspend any Act, apart from the Human Rights Act. The Lords tried this week to preserve Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights (1689), but the Government insisted they might have to be dumped, too.

The Hunting Bill. The Lords won’t pass this, but it will be deemed to have passed, thanks to the provisions of the Parliament Act, unless these are found in this case to be unlawful.”

Snip

And that therefore is the test I allude to in the title. With a moribund Opposition, draconian laws appearing on the statute book and their backs against the wall, friends of Hunting are in for a long and difficult fight, but the seeds of success or failure will be sown in 2005. The Countryside Alliance is the best small ‘c’ conservative campaigning organisation this country has ever seen, and over the years ahead it must grow stronger and, I think, forge links with the representatives of the other disenfranchised and ignored sections of England (e.g. the Campaign for an English Parliament). By doing so, a coalition broad enough to ensure that the ban will be repealed some day can be forged, and if that happens, it will be the the beginnings of the populist conservative movement we desperately need.

And on THE Tory Story

And its not just in electing their own leaders that they have shown themselves up. One of my keenest memories of the 1990s is the night of the final Maastricht vote. A vote which John Major had declared would go his way or result in a General Election which the Tories would lose (as a way to force the Tory rebels into line). It was high drama of the sort that Westminster systems excel at - half-dead MPs being rolled through the lobbies on stretchers, dissenters being manhandled into the relevant lobbies by their more partisan colleagues - and then in the end it was a tie, and the Speaker’s casting vote by convention went with the government and that terrible Treaty became law. Not every MP voted that night. It turned out that one of the rebels - I forget who - threatened with the end of his political career but convinced the Treaty was unspeakably bad for the country sat the whole thing out weeping in the lobby. Had he voted his conscience the Treaty would have been voted down and the government would have fallen but he couldn’t bring himself to do it. And that profile in courage ladies and gentlemen was one of the more independent and daring members of the parliamentary party.

New information about this case has been found, It would seem that the original information was not complete because eventually the case was dismised on appeal, I will not edit the original posting but now wish to make clear that I was wrong to say Siim Kallas, the commissioner from Estonia, was convicted in 2001 of providing false information during his trial for the theft of $10m from the Central Bank of Estonia.

All the indictments were dismised by the high court except the one of providing false information this however was dismised at a lower court much later. Here and Here

EU pushes for Seat on UN Council

Dr. Benita Ferrero-Waldner new EU Commissioner for External Affairs has said the European Union should have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council “The more we speak with one voice, the better for us and the better for Europe. We are not important if we don’t speak with one voice”

When she says the “better for us” she obviously means better for the Commision because she then says and “and better for Europe” so it is clear that she distinguishes between the two, and is making a plea for the Commision to have more power and to be more important on the world stage.

This is not one of those areas where the EU is jumping the gun on the Constitution, because we are assured by the government in its “White Paper on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”
September 2004, p15 that The Constitution will Not “require Britain’s foreign policy to be determined in Brussels” or “abolish the permanent British seat on the United Nations Security Council”

At the moment, there are only five permanent members of the UN Security Council: Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States.

Miss Ferrero-Waldner said that the creation of an EU seat would give greater representation to smaller member states. She believes that Britain and France would not necessarily have to relinquish their seats if an EU position was created. She also thinks that although member states still retain a veto over foreign policy, that they should make more effort to reach a common position.

I would suggest that a little thought Britain and France would not necessarily have to relinquish their seats if an EU position was created, would show how unlikely it is that the other countries would allow the EU (which is not a country so they keep on telling us) to agree in Brussels to reach a common position and then vote on the UN Security Council as a representative of all the 25 states in the Union, and also allow individual states to have a seat as well. Is America going to allow 3 seats to go to the EU block while it only has one, is Russia or China, not likely.
What will happen is that the UN will reform its general council and bring in other countries Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, is even now making such an attempt, he has set up a “high level panel” of international figures that will present its proposals in December.

India, Germany, Japan, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt have all made a case for a permanent seat on the council, there is a suggestion that there might be a two tier council, whatever the eventual outcome, it can be safe to suggested that neither Britain or France will be allowed to take up a seat when so many others are demanding one, and would have the effect of giving them two seats each if the EU were also given a seat, and none would allow the EU to control the UN Council by having three seats or even four if Germany were successful.

So we now come to the government’s white paper, which clearly states that the Constitution will not require Britain’s foreign policy to be determined in Brussels” or “abolish the permanent British seat on the United Nations Security Council, these assurances do seem to be a tad misleading. It perhaps could be argued that the Constitution does not require this, but if we are going to be forced to agree a common policy within the EU and if we are going to loose our seat on the UN Council because of our involvement with the EU, then we should face those points and not pretend they are not going to happen.

We should also expect our own government to be honest about these issues, instead of making claims that have no relevance to the facts. In the long run it does not matter that the Constitution does not require these things of Britain, if we are to loose the ability to make our own foreign policy and our seat on the UN Council by other methods then we have still lost our place in the world and become less important on the world stage, and this loss of power and prestige for Britain will not be replaced because the EU now will speak for us, who really cares what the governor of Texas thinks about world affairs, the president of the USA is a different matter.

Jacques Barrot The French EU Commissioner, is,a convicted criminal. He was sentenced to an 8-month suspended sentence after being convicted in 2000 of stealing from the French government and funnelling the money it into his own party. In France being found guilty of an offence that carried a prison sentence automatically disqualified those convicted from voting for five years and holding public office for ten.

Chirac, who would also be facing charges if he did not have immunity, give him a complete pardon, and not only that but he even made it a criminal offence in France for anybody to ever mention the fact that Jacques Barrot the French EU Commissioner, is a convicted criminal and was given a pardon. If you happen to live in France please don’t read this because if you do I could be in big trouble because you are not allowed to know that Jacques Barrot the French EU Commissioner, is a convicted criminal and was given a pardon.