eurealist.co.uk

Neil Herron:

“Referendum spending rules ‘unfair to No vote’(Filed: 25/11/2004)

Spending rules governing the referendum on the European constitution will give the Government an unfair advantage, Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, said yesterday.
He told an academic seminar that ministers should be banned from promoting the European Union constitution using taxpayers’ money for at least 10 weeks before polling day.
Mr Younger said the rules should be changed because it would be wrong for the Government to be allowed to spend unlimited sums highlighting the advantages of the constitution at a time when the organisations campaigning against it could not.”

Solana Denies BBC Report

Euobserver reports that The EU Foreign Minister supposedly in waiting for us all to vote “Yes” but expect him to take on the title anyway, Javier Solana told the BBC that that he had the meeting some months ago with the EU proscribed terrorist organisation Hamas.
But a Statement by the spokesperson of the EU High Representative Javier Solana dated 25th November 2004.

With reference to the BBC interview broadcasted today, the Office of the High Representative Javier Solana clarifies that at no time Dr Solana wished to imply that direct contacts between himself and Hamas had taken place.

Any mention of contacts or meetings with Hamas referred to soundings and impressions conveyed to him but gathered by governments and other parties on the ground.

At no time did the High Representative, nor his Office, hold direct contacts with Hamas or any other organisations appearing on the EU “terrorisrt list”. END

I suppose if the secret meeting did take place then they would want it to remain secret, but is the BBC telling lies or is the EU? such a difficult choice.

EUobserver.com:

“Solana held secret talks with Hamas
25.11.2004 - 09:51 CET | By Honor Mahony

Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, has held secret talks with the Palestinian militant group Hamas, according to the BBC.

Hamas is listed as a terror organisation by the EU.

Mr Solana told the BBC that that he had the meeting some months ago, without saying with whom it was.

He said the meeting came at a time when there seemed to be an opportunity to push for progress.

Mr Solana’s move is likely to cause controversy with some fearing that such a meeting may legitimise terrorist means”

Reform poll on liberty

New poll shows that the overwhelming majority of voters reject infringements on liberty.

This week Reform releases a new ICM poll showing that the overwhelming majority of voters believe that the Government is introducing too much legislation which infringes personal liberty.

Asked in general about “legislation on things like hunting, smoking and parents’ ability to smack their children”, 71 per cent of voters agreed that “Too many infringements on personal liberty are being proposed on matters that should be for individuals to decide for themselves”, while only 27 per cent agreed that “The Government should legislate on such things even if they mean restrictions on personal liberty.”

Unfortunately as over 60% of our regulations now come from the EU, and as mentioned in the previous post we in Britain can do nothing about that, a change of Government without a change in our relationship with the EU will have very little effect on the policies being perused by the British Government. So although the poll points out that 82% of Conservative voters are against the Nanny State unless the Conservative parliamentary party change their view, those voters are going to be sorely disappointed if their party ever gets back into power.

EU Referendum:

“There is a third way ”

Dr Richard North at his very best, completely undermining Denis Mac Shanes or as Dr North prefers with good reason, Mac Shames, EU Myths in the Telegraph.

“Thus, when MacShame rushes on to tell us that “British citizens cannot pick and choose which bits of law they will obey”, what he avoids saying is that if “British citizens” do not like particular bits of (national) law, they have the means to change them, not least though the mechanism of a general election, and not forgetting that civil disobedience is a time-honoured, and honourable, tradition.

But, within the construct of the European Union, the British citizen has – individually or collectively – no means of changing the law. The construct is deliberately “democracy proof” and therefore confounds the very system to which we subscribe. On that basis, we have a conflict between the “people”, who are not bound by the treaties, and the governments, which are”.

My only caveat is that the EU and our government are trying to make us the people also be bound by the treaties or at least the Constitution because as I have posted before it says in the Preamble

Grateful to the members of the European Convention for having prepared 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:]

EU Referendum: “There is a third way “

This has been tried before, the only way these appeals to our constitution can fail is because those in power just ignore that constitution and those with the power to make them listen will not do so. Whilst this is happening the government is removing laws and the blocks on limits to their outright power to do anything they like.

The Consequence of this will only lead to the total lost of any rights we the British people have to be ruled by our consent by people we elect and by laws we agree. It is the road to the total destruction of any and all our rights to the British way of life and to Britain itself. To destroy a thousand years of democracy and a system that has been used as a benchmark for democracy itself is nothing less than treason and is an outrage.

Ironies:

“Alex Dakers accuses Mandelson of Treason in Carlisle

The charge:

In November 2004 Pursuant to Article 213 (2) (ex157(2)) of the treaty establishing the European Community, Peter Benjamin Mandelson; Crown Steward and Bailiff of the manor of Northstead not being a person compelled to do so, took an engagement in the nature of an oath intending to bind the said accused to commit an offence namely treason. He freely gave a solemn oath of fidelity before the Court of Justice of the European Union ‘To perform my duties in complete independence, in the general interests of the communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek nor to take instruction from any government or any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties.’

This being treason and misconduct in a public office in direct contradiction to the Oaths he swore as a Member of Parliament for Hartlepool and that, which he swore as a member of Her Majesties Privy Council.

The full legal arguments

I was struck by a piece on BBC news last night about road safety and new car design, not that this is anything unusual in itself, but the BBC were quoting European figures for road deaths rather than British figures. This seemed to be a bit odd and a new departure for the BBC, but then as transport is now an EU competence not all that surprising.
It seems that a Transport Research Laboratory study concluded that 1,700 fatalities and 42,000 serious injuries to pedestrians and cyclists could be prevented across Europe each year if manufacturers produced cars meeting design requirements of car fronts scheduled to become mandatory in 2010. The BBC did not mention the British share in this projected figure which would be 255 dead and 6,300 seriously injured. If of course the projected figure has any basis in fact and is not just plucked out of thin air.
The Telegraph point out that a health campaign group, Headway, said road accidents were a major contributor to brain injuries which left 11,000 Britons a year needing permanent care, obviously Headway are not talking about the same set of statistics.
The Transport Research Laboratory the BBC were quoting the EU backed Euro NCAP which provides motoring consumers with a realistic and independent assessment of the safety performance of some of the most popular cars sold in Europe. Established in 1997 and now backed by five European Governments, the European Commission and motoring and consumer organisations in every EU country, Euro NCAP has rapidly become a catalyst for encouraging significant safety improvements to new car design.
I would be much happier if the EU were not involved with producing figures from agencies financially supported by them, which just happen to confirm, that what they are already going to do is the right thing, it has about it something of propaganda.
The EU transport policy now under the control of the recently cleared Jacques Barrot, the Commission wants every effort to be made to halve the number of road deaths by 2010. A laudable endeavour no doubt, but when we look at the white paper “for 2010 : time to decide “we realise that it encompasses much more than the redesign of car fronts. The proposal are for appropriate signposting of blackspots, combating excessively
long driving times, harmonising road transport penalties at European level, the
protection of vehicle occupants in the event of impact, harmonising taxes on diesel for professional use, Satellite radionavigation The Commission is proposing that the Galileo system should be operational in 2008.

So on the back of a reasonable policy and a laudable endeavour to save lives we can see that the Commision is also making moves to harmonise taxes, harmonise law, harmonise policing practices and also to promote the Galileo satellite system which will eventually be used as a military resource and cause problems with the USA which has threatened to knock it down if it becomes a treat to their security, and as China is also involved in the system it could well do so.

THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR - 2004 version

Nelson: “Order the signal, Hardy.”

Hardy: “Aye, aye sir.”

Nelson: “Hold on, that’s not what I dictated to the signal officer.
What’s the meaning of this?”

Hardy: “Sorry sir?”

Nelson (reading aloud): “England expects every person to do his duty,
regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion
or disability”. “What gobbledygook is this?”

Hardy: “Admiralty policy, I’m afraid, sir. We’re an equal
opportunities employer now. We had the devil’s own job getting
‘England’ past the censors, lest it be considered racist.”

Nelson: “Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco.”

Hardy: “Sorry sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free
working environments.”

Nelson: “In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the
main brace to steel the men before battle.”

Hardy: “The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. Its part of the
Government’s policy on binge drinking.”

Nelson: “Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we’d better get on with it.
Full speed ahead.”

Hardy: “I think you’ll find that there’s a 4 knot speed limit in this
stretch of water.”

Nelson: “Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in
history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow’s
nest, please.”

Hardy: “That won’t be possible, sir.”

Nelson: “What?”

Hardy: “Health and safety have closed the crow’s nest, sir. No
harness. And they said that rope ladder doesn’t meet regulations. They won’t let
anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected.”

Nelson: “Then get me the ship’s carpenter without delay, Hardy.”

Hardy: “He’s busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo’c’sle
Admiral.”

Nelson: “Wheelchair access? I’ve never heard anything so absurd.”

Hardy: “Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a
barrier-free environment for the differently abled.”

Nelson: “Differently abled? I’ve only one arm and one eye and I refuse
even to hear mention of the word. I didn’t rise to the rank of admiral
by playing the disability card.”

Hardy: “Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in

the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency.”

Nelson: “Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons.”

Hardy: “A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won’t
let the crew up the rigging without crash helmets. And they don’t want

anyone breathing in too much salt - haven’t you seen the adverts?”

Nelson: “I’ve never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell
the men to stand by to engage the enemy.”

Hardy: “The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral.”

Nelson: “What? This is mutiny.”

Hardy: “It’s not that, sir. It’s just that they’re afraid of being
charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There’s a couple of
legal aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks.”

Nelson: “Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?”

Hardy: “Actually, sir, we’re not.”

Nelson: “We’re not?”

Hardy: “No, sir. The Frenchies and the Spanish are our European
partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn’t
even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for
compensation.”

Nelson: “But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil.”

Hardy: “I wouldn’t let the ship’s diversity co-coordinator hear you
saying that sir. You’ll be up on disciplinary.”
Nelson: “You must consider every man an enemy who speaks ill of your
King.”

Hardy: “Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural
age.
Now put on your Kevlar vest; it’s the rules.”

Nelson: “Don’t tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum,
sodomy and the lash?”

Hardy: “As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there’s a ban on corporal punishment.”

Nelson: “What about sodomy?”

Hardy: “I believe it’s to be encouraged, sir.”

Nelson: “In that case …kiss me, Hardy.”

Eurosoc has an interesting link to Fainting in Coyles we can expect to see professional EU propagandists appearing on blogs of “citizens‘ grassroots initiatives to correct the misinformedness, malcomprehension about the EU’s role and competences and shallow prejudice”.

I do have aspirationise they be consummateinised to accustomiseing verbalizeisation in a comprehensiblealise modeiniastion of constructtivness previously to embarkingeising on this enterprise, which we will the entire have to disbursementisingthemforout of our own poketsies, otherwise we will be able to elect to choose them out strait off and consequently be able to markdown their contribution as mere EU party line misinformation .

3.4. Create an “Online dialogue task force”
It would consist of a sufficiently high number of Commission administrators from all DGs in order to cover all community languages and the main EU policy areas. Its tasks would be to actively participate in online discussion fora and chat-rooms which are run by national/regional authorities, political parties, interest groups/associations or as citizens‘ grassroots initiatives. In these fora discussions about European matters sometimes reveal a sobering mixture of factual misinformedness, malcomprehension about the EU’s role and competences and shallow prejudice. Commission officials could participate as experts at the request of the organizers of these fora or on their own initiative as informal participants in these discussions – possibly even clearly identifiable as Commission administrators, which might provoke negative reactions but might also make debates more interesting for other participants. The positive effects of such action would be:
• The quality of information and public discussion could be improved and mis-representations of community policies corrected.
• This way, the citizen would not have to do the first step and visit the Europa server but the Commission would reach the citizen online where he/she already is, namely in those fora, already interested in Europe and engaged in discussion.
• Those citizens could be encouraged to participate in online-debates in other countries and make their voice heard there, thus breaking traditional national barriers and fostering a truly European public.
• Since online citizens are politically speaking generally the most engaged, it is to be expected that they will also function as multipliers in offline debates and will thus ensure that the EU’s online messages will reach out into civil society at large and partly overcome the digital divide.

3.5. Create an electronic equivalent of “Team Europe” to be active in the numerous public online forums, discussion groups and panels which exist in all countries at all levels.
The Online dialogue task force would further ensure an adequate response to participation in online debates organized by the Commission either by direct feedback to participants or by attempts to attract them to register for regular e-mail information sent to them. The task force could even cooperate with a network of European “online campaign supporters“ who are willing and able to communicate Community policies and activities online and also offline in their local environment. This group would act as an online equivalent of Team Europe only with a better structured, more regular and more intensive contact with the Commission and its information resources.

What we are talking about here is a publicly funded group of people hanging around like drunken bookies in chat rooms and web forums, in the comments boxes of leading Euro Bloggers all being paid to push the Commission line. I love the “possibly even clearly identifiable” aspect. Interesting though, maybe the Commission hasn’t really noticed the effect of the blogosphere yet, maybe thinking it an entirely American phenomenon.
Team Europe by the way is a group of 630 experts employed by the Commission to spread the word - a sort of PR Praetorian Guard. Team Europe types and no doubt e-Team Europe look all the world like independents but are used at conferences when an independent but pro European voice. Ingenious.

The Co-rapporteur of this Commission document (see post below) himself practiced what he preached. For year Mr John Wyles was working as the Commission’s propagandist in chief for the Euro. At the same time he wrote a regular column for a magazine called “Euro-impact”. He described himself at this magazine as, “Written by Michael Rolfe, euro-impact’s monthly ‘Thinking about the euro’ columnist on the political context of Economic and Monetary Union and introduction of the euro. This is an abridged version of the full column”. Maybe his readers should have known?

For that matter, with this as a precedence, who, today is a Commission official writing EU propaganda under an assumed name?

UK Independence Party
Back

UKIP MEP threatened with arrest for telling truth to European Parliament

UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, the co-president of the Independence & Democracy Group in the European Parliament, was this morning threatened with legal action by the Parliament’s President for telling the truth about the French Commissioner designate, Jacques Barrot.
18-11-2004

For Immediate Release – 12:00hrs 18th November 2004

UKIP MEP threatened with arrest for telling truth to European Parliament

UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, the co-president of the Independence & Democracy Group in the European Parliament, was this morning threatened with legal action by the Parliament’s President for telling the truth about the French Commissioner designate, Jacques Barrot.

Mr Farage had asked fellow MEPs whether they would ‘buy a used car from this man’, when he revealed that M. Barrot had received an 8 month suspended sentence and was barred from elected office in France for 2 years, after being convicted in 2000 of embezzling FFR 25m (US$ 3.8m) from government funds by diverting it into the coffers of his party.

French President Jacques Chirac subsequently granted M Barrot a presidential amnesty, making it illegal under French law to even mention the conviction. However, Mr Farage felt it was proper that MEPs were informed of the past of the Vice President designate, and used his speech in the Strasbourg chamber to do so.

Many French MEPs were not aware of the conviction, as in compliance with French law it was totally censored from the French media.

The President of the European Parliament, Spaniard Josep Borrell, warned Mr Farage that he should withdraw his remarks, as he may face ‘legal consequences’. Mr Farage, who in theory enjoys Parliamentary immunity while speaking in the chamber, refused to do so, and was, amazingly, condemned by other MEPs for telling the truth.

Mr Farage said, “Yesterday, the Court of Auditors refused to sign off the EU’s accounts for the 10th year in a row, because 93.5% of the EU’s expenditure was, in their words, ‘unsafe or riddled with errors’.

“Today, the European Parliament is prepared to overlook the conviction of a senior member of the Commission for embezzling government funds, and is prepared instead to threaten with arrest the person who reveals it.

“What clearer indication can there possibly be of the corruption and hypocrisy which pervades the entire European project from the lowest to the highest levels?” ENDS

Is sombody at the Telegraph waking up?
Telegraph | Opinion | Home Front
“Look out! More Bills on their way

Here we go again. Pausing only to take on fuel, the legislative locomotive that last Friday ran into the buffers of the last parliamentary session will tomorrow begin another journey, spewing laws and regulations into the chill autumn air.

Over the past year, some 40 Acts of Parliament and more than 3,500 statutory instruments were brought in. Of course, governments have to legislate where it is needed, though you would have thought that after a few centuries of parliamentary democracy it would have been possible by now to devise a criminal justice or education system that could last longer than a year or so; to expect ministers to spend a bit more time at home and leave things alone is probably too much to ask.”

Snip

But what happened to the promise of a Bill to remove the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the Lords and the creation of an independent appointments commission to select non-party members of the Upper House? It was dropped in the spring, ostensibly because Tony Blair felt he had no realistic chance of getting it through Parliament. But he was also concerned that efforts would be made to introduce a democratically elected element in the Lords when what the Government wanted was a fully appointed chamber. It is ironic that ministers made so much during the final stages of the Hunting Bill about the Lords thwarting the wishes of the elected Commons, when they have no intention of giving the Upper House the democratic legitimacy that would render this argument - and the use of the Parliament Act - redundant.

What is always fascinating about a Queen’s Speech is what it does not say. Take this passage from last year’s: “The threat of international terrorism and a changing climate have led to a series of emergencies and heightened concerns for the future. My Government will introduce a Bill creating a long-term foundation for civil contingencies capable of meeting these challenges at a national and local level.” Nothing wrong with that, though there is already a system for dealing with civil defence matters, albeit many years old. But where did it say: “My Government will take the most sweeping and draconian powers ever bestowed upon a British government in peacetime, reserving the right to suspend the foundations of our liberties, such as habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, when it judges that an emergency has occurred”?

Yet, this is what the Civil Contingencies Act allows, and, as is often the case, its exceptional nature only really dawned upon Parliament at a late stage, leading to a flurry of 11th-hour attempts to hose it down. Peers introduced what is known as a “sunset” clause, whereby the measure would lapse after three years unless renewed. This was resisted by the Government, though ministers in the end agreed that if the emergency powers were used, there would be an independent inquiry afterwards to see if they had been properly deployed.

Other than ruling out conscription, there is one exception in the legislation, and one only. The right to strike is specifically exempted from its scope. This seems bizarre. Since the powers are to be used only in the direst circumstances, surely the one thing that the country would not need is for key workers, such as train drivers or firemen, to be taking industrial action. The likelihood must be that they would do their jobs like everyone else when the security of the nation is at stake, but why exempt strikers?

The Government said existing laws ensuring that industrial action did not endanger human life would hold good in these circumstances. It considered that the right to withdraw labour within the law was a fundamental liberty that should be protected, even during emergencies. Yet the same could be said about all the other laws that would be suspended, not least freedom of speech.

As the EU parliament ponders what to do about the news that two of the new EU Commissioners have faced legal problems in the recent past, Martin Coles reminds us that even the New president Barroso has a previous life that he does not wish to be open to public gaze, so much so that he left six years out of his own CV.
Ironies:

“EU President Barroso’s Missing Years

As the past of French EU Commissioner now Vice-President Jaques Barrot, will take centre stage in the EU tomorrow - Is it not time once again to consider the missing years from the CV of President Barroso, first raised on this blog many months ago?

HOW CAN THE EU NOW ACCEPT AS COMMISSION PRESIDENT (according to the report linked below) A MAN WHO HIDES SIX YEARS OF HIS POLITICAL PAST?

Any interested in the Marxist background of the man who will take almost sole charge of the old continent tomorrow morning would be advised to read the report from this link, of which this quote is most pertinent:-

The political history of the conservative Portuguese leader, now 48 years old, began during the leftist military ”Carnation Revolution” of 1974. He was the student leader of the Movement for the Renovation of the Proletariat Party/Portuguese-Marxist Leninist Communist Party (MRPP/PCP-ML).

This was a long name for a miniscule Mao-inspired organisation that had pegged the rest of the political left as ”revisionist”, ‘’social-fascist” and ”imperialist sell-outs”.

In the official biography of the man who is now Portugal’s prime minister, that period of his ”revolutionary outbreak” was left out.

After a brief mention — ”he began his political activity as a very young man, even before Apr. 25, 1974” — six years of his political life were omitted from the official text, which goes on to describe how in 1980 he joined the Social Democratic Party (PSD), which is conservative despite what its name might suggest. “

I supposes this will come under the heading of anti-European Press, or as I prefer to call it informing the public about what is happening, something that happens rarely in the British media. Is there not something treasonous in allowing our armed forces to come under the control of a foreign power? Oh but silly me but did not Tony Blair get rid of all the treason acts in 1998. (talk about protecting your own back)
The Telegraph
Save us from an EU army
(Filed: 22/11/2004)
What else has to happen to convince our politicians that an EU army is not a threat but a reality? It was five years ago that Romano Prodi told a newspaper: “If you don’t want to call it a European army, fine. You can call it Margaret, you can call it Mary-Ann.” Yet we are still in denial. The Tory defence spokesman, Nicholas Soames, speaks rather touchingly of the need for “any EU defence contribution” to be “under the Nato umbrella”.
Tony Blair, in the run-up to the signing of the EU constitution, declared that autonomy in the field of defence was one of Britain’s “red lines”. Already, though, forces with EU cap-badges are patrolling Macedonia and the Congo. In 10 days’ time, the EU will deploy 7,000 soldiers in Bosnia. These troops are answerable, not to Nato, nor to any national capital, but to the EU’s politico-military structures.
Lest any doubt remain, Article 15 of the proposed European Constitution reads, “The Common Foreign and Security Policy shall cover all aspects of foreign policy and all questions relating to Europe’s security” (our italics). As we report today, Britain will join a new 3,000-strong EU Elite Strike Force (each of these three words flirting with the Trades Descriptions Act).
Do not make the mistake of thinking that the CFSP affects only such troops as are explicitly seconded to EU command. On the contrary, European law dictates whom the MoD may hire: yesterday’s news dwelt on the ruling that 8,000 Commonwealth Servicemen would be obliged to take British nationality without mentioning the reason - that European law forbids us to discriminate in favour of “third country nationals”.
It lays down our disciplinary procedures, forcing us to use civil law rather than courts martial. It tells us whom we may fire: a judgment five years ago held that women who left the Services as a result of becoming pregnant must be compensated in defiance of the terms of their contracts. And, worst of all, it distorts our defence procurement, emphasising pan-European defence schemes, such as the ludicrous Eurofighter, over more cost-effective projects.
Snip

There are good reasons why we should co-operate with our European allies on defence matters. We are already doing so: British troops are currently active in, among other things, an Anglo-French air corps, an Anglo-Italian rapid reaction force and an Anglo-Dutch amphibious unit. None of these required EU intervention: all were agreed bilaterally. What is unfolding is qualitatively different from such collaboration.
We are in the process of creating an autonomous EU military capacity separate from Nato and above any single nation-state. For Tony Blair, it is a handy way to demonstrate his European credentials while remaining outside the single currency. But, for the rest of us, it means that our true strategic interests - and, in particular, our alliances with other free, English-speaking nations - are being tossed aside for the sake of Euro-dogma.

The New Privileged Class Speaks

Peter Bradley MP for The Wrekin and the parliamentary private secretary to Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister has admitted that the hunting ban was not about cruelty to animals but was a class war, a grubby attempt to hurt those, who these labour MPs believe are the aristocracy.

“Now that hunting has been banned, we ought at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill was not just about animal welfare and personal freedom, it was class war”. “Labour governments have come and gone and left little impression on the gentry. But a ban on hunting touches them. It threatens their inalienable right to do as they please on their land. For the first time, a decision of a Parliament they don’t control has breached the lodge gates”.
“The old order is going, but its values continue to dominate the Tory belief system. In a culture that now demands equality of opportunity, too many Conservatives can only properly enjoy what others do not have.
That is why they have an ideological commitment to private health and public schools. It’s why they oppose the right to roam and a ban on hunting. For them it’s ownership of property, especially land, and not citizenship that confers privilege. It’s why they believe that the rights of minorities - or at least their minority - should prevail over those of majorities.
But in an age in which we are all aspirational and few are deferential, that is an increasingly unappealing philosophy. The tide is against the Tories as it is against the hunters and, now more than ever, the House of Lords”.
There are here some very serious concerns for all of us to consider, no matter what our views on hunting may be.

For seven long years these MPs have been trying to ban fox hunting on a platform of cruelty to animals, they have gone out of their way to try to show that hunting with hounds is a cruel method of fox control, they have never argued against the control of foxes or the necessity of culling them simply that hunting is not acceptable. Now when it is all over in Parliament, this cretin comes up with the real reason, nothing to do with cruelty to animals at all, we just wanted to hit the toffs where it hurt them.

Perhaps we can now ask this bunch of liars to repay out of their own pockets all the tax money the government has had to spend on the various countryside reports and on the time spent on judge’s inquiry’s into cruelty, when this was never the intention in the firsts place, perhaps they should also be made to pay for the unemployment of ordinary people their mean little law will cause. This also shows that the Country Side alliance were absolutely right to say that the case on cruelty had never been proven.

The hunters have never said that the rights of their minority should prevail over the rights of the majority they have never tried to force people who do not hunt to take up hunting, they have only ever said that their rights as a minority should have the same protection in law as any other minority group.

If this is a class war, who is it against, those who do have, as against those who do not, or is it simply about replacing one small sector who have wealth, with another equally small sector. Rather like the ruling class in communist Russia who just replaced the old system, but the people themselves did not get a look in. If it is about equality then why is it that the new elites can send their children across London to the best state school, or why is it that Tony Blair can get immediate National Health Service treatment that the rest of us have to wait in line for? If the old system is so bad how it is that Diane Abbot is and thousands of other ordinary people are allowed to send their sons to a private school, a right we all have to make a choice. So what exactly is wrong with choice the choice to choose to pay for private health care, the right to choose to pay for private schooling or the right to choose to go hunting?

Peter Bradley admits that this is a class war and it is about power, but the power of whom against whom? the power of the people to elect their own government, the power of the law to define what is and what is not allowed by parliament, or is it merely the power of a few elites elected by a minority of voters in this country to do anything they please, the power to ride roughshod over all our inalienable democratic rights.

It now seems that Peter Bradley and his crew want to hit the lords, where it hurts as well, perhaps we should all be extremely concerned about such an attitude. The House of Lords is not and was never put there to be a rubber stamp for the elected house, its job is not to just nod through the passing wishes of a short term movement, it job is to ensure that the laws of this country and the rights of its people are not taken over by a pack of deviant despotic minded yobs, its job is to protect the democracy of this country from people like Peter Bradley who believe they have an inalienable right to do anything they wish simple because a minority of the people who can vote voted for them.

The division of powers in our system government makes it impossible for our democracy to be taken over by a dictator, so any moves to remove that division are illegal, what we now see happening is that the rules that defend our democracy are being removed, the block to a dictator are being removed, and as Peter Bradley makes clear they will tell you anything to achieve their ends, they need to ban fox hunting because it is cruel, they need to have the power to remove and ignore any and all laws in this country and imprison anyone without trial because of terrorists, they need to issue compulsory ID cards because of terrorists, and so on, but what are they really up, to what is their real agenda. Obviously if we cannot believe them when they tell us the reasons they wish to ban foxhunting, why should we believe them when they tell us anything else.

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.

UKIP Uncovered: “Nigel Farage’s speech of yesterday on the new EU Commission

Nigel Farage’s speech of yesterday on the new EU Commission

Below this is the text of the speech delivered yesterday in the EU Parliament in Strasbourg.

The facts are today causing uproar across the Continent, except in France where a Presidential gagging order prohibits the background of their own appointed Commissioner from being revealed.

Are we all soon to be similarly kept in the dark about the truth regarding our rulers, just as the French are today?

Nigel Farage MEP Leader of the Ind/Dem Group 18th November 2004 :-

Quote

Mr President, Mr Barroso said: ‘I think my team is of high quality’. Well, let us conduct a human audit. I am mindful that audits are not very popular in the European Commission and that auditors - if they do their job properly - get fired, but nonetheless here goes:

From France we have Mr Barrot, who will take on transport. In 2000 he received an eight-month suspended jail sentence for his involvement in an embezzlement case and was banned from holding public office for two years.

From Hungary we have Mr Kovacs, who will take on taxation. For many years he was a Communist apparatchik, a friend of Mr Kadar, the dictator in Hungary, and an outspoken opponent of the values that we hold dear in the West.

His new empire will produce taxation policy and he will look after the customs union from Cork to Vilnius. Are the PPE Group and the British Conservatives really going to vote for that?

From Estonia we have Mr Kallas, who for 20 years was a Soviet Party apparatchik until his newly acquired taste for capitalism got him into trouble. However, to be fair, he was acquitted of abuse and fraud but convicted for providing false information. He is going to be in charge of the anti-fraud drive! You could not make this up!

From the UK we have Mr Mandelson, who will take on the trade portfolio. He, of course, was removed twice from the British Government, but to be fair, he is one of the more competent ones!

From the Netherlands we have Mrs Kroes, who will take on competition. She is accused of lying to the European Parliament. These may be only allegations, but they are made by Mr van Buitenen and should be listened to.

Ask yourself a question: would you buy a used car from this Commission? The answer simply must be ‘No’! Even if they were competent and even if this were a high-quality Commission - sorry, Mr Barroso, but I do not think it is - we would still vote ‘No’ on the political principle that the Commission is the guardian of the Treaties; the Commission is the motor for integration; the Commission initiates the legislation that is damaging our businesses across Europe so badly; the Commission is the embodiment of all that is worst in this European Union; the Commission is the government of Europe and is not directly accountable to anybody.

Please, when you vote, take note that 20 of these Commissioners have already said that they intend to attempt to implement the Constitution even before it has been ratified by Member State governments. In the face of such breathtaking arrogance, nobody in the Independence and Democracy Group will vote for this Commission.

“Ten Million Dollar Affair.”

One of the seven Ex Communists in the new EU Commision is also a convicted criminal, 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.

Denis MacShane
“I welcome the European Parliament’s strong vote for the new Commission today. And I wish to pass on my congratulations to Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso who has built an effective and modern looking team drawing on the experience and enthusiasm from all 25 countries. It comes at an exciting time for a new look Europe that now needs to press ahead to take forward a dynamic and exciting agenda and tackle the challenges that we all face.”

I was well aware that the EU Commision is the dumping ground of our own shady characters and did ask the rhetorical question which other country would send a person who had been sacked twice for shady dealings to the EU commision, where they would be the power behind all the laws we must obey but be above the lawn themselves. Well is seems just about every country is at it we now have a Commision made up of two convicted criminals and seven ex Communists along with a minister who will be making laws for farming and giving grants to farmers, whos husband owns a very big farm.

As to be expected with the EU a person who has been convicted of giving false information in court Siim Kallas has been made a vice president of the Commision and given… wait for it… yes the anti-fraud portfolio. So this convicted criminal is going to be in charge of rooting out fraud in the EU. Our own Neil Kinnock was worse than a waste of space in that job, proving his incompetence by actually sacking people who found fraud, but no one ever suggested that although he proved useless he was bent himself, the same cannot be said of Siim Kallas.

In words that do not belie Mr Kallas past as a very senior Communists, he said that the “security at the Commission must be dramatically improved. We must tackle unfriendly intelligence against the Commission”. Also showing his past Communist roots Mr Kallas made it clear that the commision should not bother to wait for the ratification of the EU Constitution when he said “The Commission should already build on the political commitment to greater integration expressed by member states” so much for democracy.

So this convicted criminal wants the EU Commision to be a secret conclave that does not allow openness as it makes its rules to implement the EU Constitution, before it has any legal rights to do so, whilst the same time taking action to prevent unfriendly intelligence against the Commision. So we now must not make any troublesome comments about the EU Commision of course the EU has already taken the view legally that to criticise the EU is close to blasphemy.

And they have the outright audacity to suggest that the EU is a democratic organisation.

Europhiles led by Leon Brittan, ex EU Commissioner and to quote his own words “a raving ‘Europhiliac’ have attacked Gordon Brown for what they termed an “unnecessarily hostile approach to the European Union”.

Mr Brown’s crime was that he attacked other EU states for penalising innovative companies, and not being fair to British firms, and accusing Brussels of failing to prevent some member states using state aid to support failing firms and national champions.

Mr Brown was told that if he continued to concentrate on highlighting Europe’s defects it would be impossible to win a referendum on the EU constitution let alone the single currency.

From Anne Palmer

It is not the Chancellor that could cost the Government the referendum, but the European Union itself and its desire to govern forever all 500 million plus people that are under the umbrella of the EU.

Let us face the fact that if the people’s government is forever to be the European Union Commission/Council, then National governments have abdicated voluntarily from office.

The people cannot be loyal to two governments. Our Government cannot be loyal to their solemn oaths to their Queen and uphold their own Constitution and be loyal to the European Union at the same time.

Most sensible Members of Parliament should start asking themselves, “just how long do they think the people are going to stand passively by and allow this ’self destruct’ action to happen yet be subjected to an alien European Union Constitution which holds many, many articles which they would normally vote against if they had been given the opportunity”. The people for instance, would never have agreed to any part of the Union’s Justice and Home affairs which automatically destroys their Constitution.

The choice for the people is quite simple. They can choose between their loyalty and their oath of allegiance to their Queen and this Country, or they can choose to be loyal to the European Union. They cannot be loyal and true to both.

The people at present, have a duty to prevent any other body of people other than their own Head of State and Government from governing them. This is why our Government and Parliamentarians have gone through the rigmarole of ’scrutiny’ of EU legislation and then incorporating EU law into our system. The EU Constitution makes clear that it is to be ‘direct law’.

The people have a duty to prevent any other body of people other than their own Government from running British economy (every aspect of it) and all that that entails, and if they do not like what is happening they have the opportunity of ousting them at the next general election. (They cannot oust anyone from the European Central Bank). They have a duty to their British Forces that they wear only British uniforms and fight under the British Flag and Country to which the British forces pledge their oath. They can be ‘loaned out’ and fight the battles with others but at all times their pledge is to this Country and they wear the Uniform of the British Army. (See also when they join in with the United Nations and NATO)

There is a choice now, to decide in a referendum for the EU to become their country and an EU Government in full control and to obey all EU laws, or come out of the Union altogether. There is no longer a choice of half in or out of the EU. We either embrace the EU fully, or deliberately repudiate the Treaties between what is now the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Many ordinary people now feel that our involvement in the European Community was incompatible with our Constitution right from the very beginning. One thing is very certain, the British people are fed up of “spin”, it is about time the politicians understood that too, the people want, need and must have the true facts about what ratifying the European Constitution entails.

Anne Palamer