eurealist.co.uk

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

Jonathan Lockhart’s Notebook: The politics of failure

The Wrong Tactics, The Wrong Policies and The Wrong Leader

The Times
Tories fail to make capital
Anatole Kaletsky

With Labour on the ropes, why has the Conservative Party failed to provide an effective opposition

WHAT IS wrong with the Tories? At a time when the Government is on the ropes over David Blunkett, when Tony Blair is universally loathed and distrusted, how is it that the Tories’ highest hope for the general election is to reduce the Labour majority from 159 seats to about 100? Why, when the Prime Minister is hardly on speaking terms with his Chancellor, are the media full of stories not about Labour strife but about internecine warfare in Conservative Central Office?

The answer is simple: the Conservative Party has the wrong tactics, the wrong policies and the wrong leader….

The article goes on to suggest that the Tories have made tactical errors firstly by assuming that Labour would mess up the economy this was based on the “arrogant belief that they have a superior understanding of money”

“Their second tactical blunder was more surprising. Why on earth did the most oppositional Opposition in living memory support the Government on the one policy which was most obviously going wrong — Iraq?” it is suggested that the Tories were right to support the government initially because they were told the same lies as the rest of us and “The Tories’ initial backing for the invasion may have been justifiable on the standard ground of national security when Britain faced a military threat”
They made the tactical mistake of not removeing their support as soon as it became clear that the whole country had been led up the garden path by Blair.

“By failing to do this, the Tories ceded to the Liberal Democrats not only the huge anti-Blair protest vote, but also the principal constitutional role of the loyal Opposition in time of war”.

The article goes on “These tactical blunders, while serious, might not have been fatal if the Tories had some positive alternative policies to offer voters disillusioned with Mr Blair. The failure to develop any strategic vision has been the Tories’ besetting sin.” And later suggest that “Tory strategy could be built on the three pillars which have sustained Conservative ideology for the past 300 years: property, nationalism and freedom.”

When it comes to bureaucracy, the Tories are staring at an open goal. The pendulum of public opinion, which became more sympathetic to government in the late 1990s after 17 years of Thatcherite laissez faire, is now swinging back. The excesses of state interference in everything from employment discrimination and university education to hunting and nutrition have revived the view among voters that government is their enemy, not their friend. But to tap this sentiment the Tories must go beyond generalised diatribes about the nanny State. They need explicit policies — for example, to exempt very small businesses from all legislation on employment and company law that is not related to public safety.

Turning to patriotism, the Tory position should again be perfectly clear. Mr Blair’s toadying to America over Iraq has humiliated Britain and endangered British lives, without advancing any definable national interest. His support for ever-closer integration with Europe is an even greater threat to Britain’s independence. A much more robust position towards both America and Europe would surely appeal to many voters, but nationalism can only work in the context of a coherent Conservative programme, built around domestic policy and economics, and not as an end in itself.”

“Why have the Tories failed to come up with a programme of this kind? This brings us to the party’s most obvious flaw: leadership”.

A leadership which has agreed to not oppose some very damaging New Labour proposals to this countries democracy, which is inconceivable as this is natural Tory ground.

The new -Religious Hatred proposals a clear attack on free speech

The Civil Contingencies Bill, which David Davis in a reply to my letter suggested the powers were needed by government. The Tories could have easily objected to this bill on the grounds of freedom and government accountability in a bill which gives the government such draconian powers over the people that have never been needed in our whole history. But instead the Tories went to the line over Fox Hunting.

And now we are to understand that this flawed Tory Leader is going to support the Government over ID Cards.

We do not expect an opposition to oppose everything a government proposes, there are things that the Tories could support, but not those things which have the effect of undermining basic Tory principals.

There are so many open doors that the Tories could use to oppose this government that would at the same time show the Conservatives were concerned for this country the peoples freedoms and also put to the forefront of voters minds true Tory beliefs and start to remove the Animal Farm, idea that New labour by repeating the same mantra over and over again have planted firmly in the voters heads Labour Good Tory Bad:

Tony Blair’s disregards parliament, announcing proposals directly to the people via the media and turning the whole system of parliamentary debate into a circus,
The manipulation of independent reports, by setting the parameters of the investigation so narrow that the report ignores the real issues.
The rules by diktat, ignoring the advice of elected members of the Cabinet and relying on a close circle of unelected friends
Destroying the constitution; The House of Lords reform the Law reform
The fact that over 20% of Britain’s population now work for the government which is a direct cost to the taxpayer. Nanny Knows Best

We cannot say this enough times this from Dr RichardNorth EU Referendum

A union of sovereign states

One of the more egregious lies set out in the FCO?s “Explanatory Memorandum on the EU Constitutional Treaty” is the claim that the new treaty “makes clearer than ever before” that the EU is “a union of sovereign states which only exercises those powers given to it by its members.”

In context, this is part of Blair?s general defence to the charge that the EU will, with the advent of its own constitution, become a “superstate”. But, leaving aside that defence, one cannot allow the lie of “a union of sovereign states” to rest unchallenged.

The simple rebuttal can be summed up in a single argument. Essentially, with the advent of the constitution, the EU acquired its own legal personality (Art. 1-7). With that, it is a legal entity in its own right, with its own set of rules, its own governing bodies, and entirely autonomous powers. It is not a union of states. It is an autonomous government.

The member states may have given birth to this “Union” but in the same way that a child once born forges a life independent of its mother, so too is the EU an entity in its own right.

For sure, it can only exercise those powers given to it by its members, but those powers, once given, are absolute - there is no provision for their return, no mechanism for scrutiny by the member states, and no check on how it uses those powers. The EU can use them entirely at its own discretion, without further reference to the member states and, in fact, is superior to the member states in the exercise of those powers.

But to claim that the EU is, or was ever intended to be, a union of “sovereign states” is to misunderstand the nature and the history of the project. To find out what was originally intended, all they have to do is read the very first lines of preamble to the original 1957 Treaty of Rome. This states, bold as brass:

Determined to lay the foundations of ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe.
This is not a declaration of union between governments, much less states. The union of peoples means what it says; the aim was always to bypass the national governments, to remove the evils, as the founding fathers thought, of nationalism.

Their whole objective was to create citizens of Europe, with their rights stemming from their new government of Europe, to which they also owed duties. And that much is set out in the new constitution (Art. 1-10):

Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the constitution.
As to the union of peoples, nothing of that original intention has changed and although, for pragmatic reasons, the phrase “ever closer union” has been removed, the preamble to the constitution keeps the original intention clear with the statement:

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.
That point is then reinforced in Art. 1-1 of the constitution ? the very first line of the damn thing: “Reflecting the will of the people?”. Only then does it add “?and the States of Europe”, going on to say: “?to build of common future”. In that context, states are secondary to the people.

One can only conclude, as we have done before, that either the FCO is lying through its teeth, or it simply does not know what is going on. Either way, by act, default or sufferance, it is perpetrating a lie.

That Parking Problem Again
High Barnes
Sunderland
7th December 2004

Your ref: PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
Our ref:96256134

Ms K Valentine
For Parking and Business Service Manager
Newcastle City Council
Public Health and Environmental Protection Division
Enterprise and Environment Cultural Directorate
Civic Centre
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 8PB

Dear Ms. Valentine,

Excess Ticket No. 96256134 Veh. Reg. No R24PJR
11/10/2004 – STADIUM CAR PARK (OFF)

I have been forwarded the enclosed form by Mr. Colin Moran the registered keeper of the vehicle above in relation to the alleged offence. We were attending a function in St. James’ Park and had been advised to use the space by the organisers but I understand that Mr. Moran has, or is in the process of challenging this alleged offence.

You make reference to the fact that I am required ‘pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984’ to return the statement of facts within seven days. I would be grateful, as you allude to the fact that this is an offence and could result in legal action, if you could send me a copy of the relevant section of the act and the nature and scale of offence.

Secondly, you are asking me to pay ‘a cheque/postal order for £60,’ for an alleged offence.

I do believe that Newcastle City Council are attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. I have enclosed a copy of the Bill of Rights 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section highlighted :

“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”

This clearly states that a conviction is necessary before a fine can be imposed. Therefore, Newcastle City Council have no authority to demand money for an alleged offence unless it is dealt with by a Court of Law and your actions are unlawful.

I would be grateful if you could also clarify the nature of the alleged offence committed by myself and provide a copy of the section of the relevant statute because neither the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes any reference whatsoever to expressly repealing the Bill of Rights 1689.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have enclosed a copy of the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

As stated in the ‘Metric Martyrs’ Judgment in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen’s Bench Division (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a full copy of the Judgment with the relevant sections 62 and 63 highlighted):

62 “We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were ‘ordinary’ statutes and ‘constitutional’ statutes. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Union, the Reform Acts etc.”

63. “Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…”

As you are no doubt aware, Sunderland City Council went to quite considerable lengths to achieve the Metric Martyrs Judgment and the precedent set by Lord Justice Laws is clear and unambiguous. In highlighting this and enclosing the relevant documentation members of Newcastle City Council can now have no excuse for ignorance in this matter.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that the ultimate legal responsibility not only lies with the Chief Executive, but also with all the elected members of Newcastle City Council and I would be grateful if you could confirm that you will advise the relevant officers of Newcastle City Council that they are breaking the law by attempting to claim powers forbidden to them.

Therefore, please accept this letter as formal notice that I require any allegations against me to be specified and referred for trial in a proper and orderly manner, should you wish to proceed against me for the alleged offence.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron

Cc .Ian Stratford, Chief Executive, Newcastle City Council
cc. Peter Arnold, leader, Newcastle City Council

ENCLOSURES:

1. Copy of Your communication PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
2. Copy of Road Traffic Act 1991
3. Copy of the Bill of Rights
4 .Copy of the Metric Martyrs Judgment

Jack Straw defends the cutting or down grading 30 British Embassies around the globe as a money saving exercise, Straw said the money would save £6 Million a year which would be redirected to other Foreign Office departments.

Michael Ancram, the Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, said: “The Government must give a far clearer reason for making these dramatic changes and must show that British commercial interests and the interests of Britons abroad will not be affected.”

At what point I wonder are these two fine upstanding gentlemen going to tell the British people that Britain will soon not need any embassies, because they would only duplicate the work of the now ongoing EU diplomatic core under the new EU Foreign Minister.

Needless to say the EU of course does not have authority for either of these innervations until the Constitution is ratified; but they are not going to be waiting for any democratic decision as the paper Ratification Bottleneck points out “adopting a few measures that would allow for anticipated application of some of the more significant innovations contained in the Constitution could facilitate the ratification process itself, in fact some of these innovations are the subject of intense political debate in a few countries. Those opposing the Constitution interpret them in a distorted fashion, spreading unfounded alarm”.

Without in any way wishing to distort this particular innovation, or spread undue alarm, might is not be considered rather fortuitous that just at the time the EU, which by the way is not a state, and not intending to become a state, is building up its own diplomatic core, employing and training EU diplomats and preparing to open its own EU embassies in order to look after EU Citizens etc and promote the EU across the world, just at this time Britain is deciding to cut back on exactly those very same services for Britain. Might it not also with out spreading undue alarm be pertinent to ask what the latest situation is on Tony’s Red Line on Foreign policy?

My father always told me; never believe what people tell you, only believe what they do. That is as good a maxim as any when we are watching the non EU state become more and more stately!

So, David Blunkett has resigned, this is after weeks of telling us all that he had done nothing wrong, then some e-mails come to light that point towards evidence of fast tracking the visa for his girlfriends nanny, he suddenly remembers that possible just possible he did do something that requires his resignation.

Of course we believe him don’t we, the television hacks certainly do, watching Cannel 4 news this evening was a sickening display of sycophantic concern for this honest Blind politician, who although being Blind had risen to top of his profession, which just goes to show what a marvellous society we live in, when a Blind person can against all the odds become Home Sectary, and what a wonderful honest Blind politician he was, who did not used the fact that he was Blind to ask for any special privileges, not that anyone would suggest that their concern was because Blunket was Blind of course not.

Apart for the sycophantic burbling from John Snow, we were treated to interviews with various colleagues, who all spouted about how honest and Blind, Blunkett was and what a great Blind man, and a fantastically difficult it must have been when being a Blind man, his wife left him on the very night he was elected to parliament, and we are sure we have not seen the last of him.

Now just to put things in perspective this is a politician who used his position to gain favours he has been found out and has had to resign when he could hang on no longer. He is not a hero, if he were a policeman he would have been suspended until the facts of the case were investigated, he would then have been dismised and probably prosecuted for fraud.

Now strange as it may seem, I do not really care that Blunkett used his position to obtain a favour for a friend, or that as his friend he spent £180 of public money on a train ticket for them, I do care when a major news channel goes all out to tell us all what a great man he is, and what a loss to the party if not the country, his going will be. Normally Channel 4 news although strictly liberal left is one of the better outlets on British television, they always cover more stories, in more depth and with more insight than the other news choices, but I think Blunkett resignation got the better of them tonight, he is after all only one more in a fairly long list of disgraced politicians who have had to leave their post.

There seems to be some sort of impression in the minds of many Eurosceptics that Britain is now under the domination of some sort of devilish continental European elite that is accountable to no one and controls all aspects of our lives. (In the case of pro-Europeans, they obviously control our minds too!) It certainly makes for great propaganda. The trouble is that even a relatively dim light of logic can reveal that it is all nonsense. The sad reality is that there is no such elite.

James, at Lose the Delusion has a post Scaring The Masses in which he argues that there is “no European elite that is accountable to anyone one and controls all aspects of our lives”. I would take issue with that concept on several fronts firstly it is an attempt, possibly subconsciously, to convey the image that the EU is somehow democratic, secondly it denies the historical contexts of the union and thirdly is suggests that the we that people actually have a say in matters EU.

Although I welcome the opportunity to debate these maters with a confirmed yet reasonable Pro-European, I do have some sympathy with problems of attempting to refute a soundly based Eurosceptic premise that the EU is not Democratic. All we need to do is to look at the writings of the founding fathers to give the lie to any dispute. Without doubt the EU has a great problem at the moment because it has been constructed on shaky ground without any legality other than its own, which is based on very shaky treaties that if they were ever seriously challenged in just about any European country would prove to be unsustainable.

For instance:
Act of 1972 authorized the ratification of Community treaties, applied the force of European law to the domestic order, and also ensured its primacy - in the event Parliament did not decide differently. This Act has since been followed by others in relation to the Single European Act and the Treaty of European Union. British courts have interpreted these principles to ensure the primacy of European law unless the will of Parliament is unequivocally not to comply with Community obligations

However to return to the plot;
It is difficult to argue that there is no European Elite, when the whole project to date has been conducted by an elite technocratic High Authority, which has not been run by politicians of the European nation states; it was designed to be a body of experts and administrators, coming from the nation states, but independent from them and loyal to the European idea. Each Commissioner swears to oath of elegance to the EU alone they swear not to take instructions from any other body.

Monnet, who instigated the method to be used to integrate Europe, knew that the various sovereign states of Europe would not naturally agree to give up their powers to a Supra national construct. So the way to unite Europe would be to get them to work together under the umbrella of the Union on common interests, and convince them to act on these to achieve certain separate interests, this would condition the governments and the people in co-operation and institutionalise that cooperation under the control of the Union. Given time, Europe would become united without realising it, as common projects would lead European states to pool their sovereignties.

At its core was the concept of ‘spill over, that once initially triggered, European integration would be self-sustaining. Initial co-operation on partial, projects would get the internal dynamics of the community going, leading it to further, co-operation. Cooperation in one sector would gradually require co-operation in other sectors. The peoples support was not necessary in fact it was not wanted, this was to follow later as loyalties would be ‘redirected’ from the national to the European level.
But the whole plan rested not on democratic decisions taken by democratically accountable governments but on that central driving force of technocratic elitism: The EU Commision.

To now try to suggest that there is no central European Elite is to deny historical and present day fact, the Commissions main, in fact its only job is to be the driving force towards European integration in this it is supported by the ECJ.

The problem the EU has is that it now must resurrect another of Monnet’s ideas to proceed with its goals, and that is political integration, hence we see the EU Constitution, it is vital for the process to continue. But now finaly they are being forced to consult the people, we at last are to be allowed a say in this project but because it is so vital we can expect a great deal of confusing data to emerge, and as Britian is by and large ambivalent to the EU much of the flack will be heading this way.

All in a Flap over that Flag
Europhobia has a post about a pub landlord in Worthing, who has been prevented from flying the EU Flag
“>”A totalitarian foreign power which, with the help of Quislings in Westminster, intends to take over our country“

The flag was spotted by a UKIP supporter who complained to the Council about the “foul emblem”, which apparently offends him when he has to walk past it. The Council ruled “The EU flag is not a national flag and thereby falls within the same category as any advertising-type flag. These require advertising consent from the council.”

I take a diferent view of this, than that expressed by Europhobia, because Worthing Borough Council, god bless them, have in fact hit the nail on the head, The European flag, later adopted by the EU is used for advertising the EU, it is part of a massive propaganda campaign instigated by the EU Commision in order to shape and manipulate public opinion on the merits of European integration.

The EU takes our money then returns some of it to us in the form of loans or grants for selected projects, just as long as those in receipt of the money enhance or support the EU project.

Worthing Council have said that the EU is not a state but I do not think we need them to tell us that, everybody associated with the construct will happily confirm that the EU is not a state, in fact they go out of their way to show it is not a state, even as we see a continual competence creep and an extension of the EU into the very fabric of our society, even as it takes on all the trappings of a state.

This is why we need to have an open discussion about our place in the union.

I would say that at some point the EU will become a state that is certainly the aim of the Union and has been since the beginning. We would be further down this road except for the French, who refused to allow the political arm of the EU to develop and voted it down in the 50s this instead was replaced by “The Monnet method”:. Or political integration by stealth.

Although Design for Freedom, largely written by Peter Thorneycroft MP, 1947
No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice, which any adequate plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked…to make changes of which they may not at first recognise the advantages themselves..

Which effectively describes the Monnet method

Should we not therefore decide now that we do or we do not wish to be part of that state, rather than allowing this integration by stealth continue until we suddenly wake up and find the Britian is no longer capable of running its own affairs, that our government cannot make any decisions on what is best for Britian without first checking to see if they will be allowed to do so, from their masters in Brussels.

If any people have doubts about the intentions of the EU the following might help clarify the situation.

This from
BUILDING A POLITICAL EUROPE 50 proposals for tomorrow’s Europe Dominique Strauss-Kahn Chairperson of the Round Table “A sustainable project for tomorrow’s Europe”
formed on the initiative of the President of the European Commission

The question of a further move towards a political Europe arises again today. First of all, because the Union has gradually extended its areas of competence (agriculture, VAT harmonisation, internal market, euro, etc.) and has thus assumed growing political weight. Then, because the expectations of the Union are now clearly political: economic prosperity, through completion of the internal market via the euro; progress in social matters (with the “social agenda”) and on the environment (with the “strategy of sustainable development”); police and justice (within the justice and home affairs pillar);
diplomacy and defence (with the European security and defence policy). The question of the ultimate purpose of the European venture is therefore facing us again: should the Union return to the long-term political vision of the founding fathers, who regarded the “concrete achievements” as a “first step in the federation of Europe”5? Or should it continue along the path on which it has embarked and propose no more than a framework for ever-closer cooperation between independent States?

Bringing out the feeling of belonging to the Union. There can be no democracy without demos, without a European people. This people exists, it shares a model of society. But it is not always aware of it. The report proposes three lines to promote the creation of European awareness: they concern mobility of people, education and culture

Strand XVII: reinforcing the feeling of belonging to the Union
􀂾 Proposal 42: introduce into university courses the compulsory completion of at least one
year of study within the Union outside the country of origin
􀂾 Proposal 43: promote mobility between national civil services.
􀂾 Proposal 44: launch the debate about granting Union citizens the right to vote in national
elections in the country in which they reside.
􀂾 Proposal 45: introduce the teaching of European history in schools.
􀂾Proposal 46: support the European museum project.
􀂾 Proposal 47: complement civic education at school with awareness of European values
and presentation of Union institutions.
􀂾 Proposal 48: institute compulsory learning of a second European language at primary
school.
􀂾 Proposal 49: increase significantly the European Union budget contribution to culture,
first and foremost in the form of financial support for the production of European works.

They might have included flying the flag for the EU.

Also defines Proaganda as used in the report.
Federalist Thought Control: The Brussels Propaganda Machine

There can never be a pan-European democracy unless there is a European people-a European public consciousness, a European public opinion and a European political discourse. Yet they are central to any claim the EU may make to genuine popular consent and to democratic legitimacy. They are therefore an integral part of the attempt to create a country called Europe.

Large sums of taxpayers money is being devoted to a propaganda exercise in order to shape and manipulate public opinion on the merits of European integration. A vast range of material is sent directly to the public from taxpayer-funded network of organisations taking forward an integrationist agenda.

The EU itself believes that it has a mission to educate the public. Helpfully, senior representatives of the European Commission have not been shy in claiming a role in a campaign to ‘educate’ the public as to the advantages of EU membership. In an interview on the BBC’s Breakfast with Frost the former EC President Jacques Santer said: We have as politicians to inform the population and train them in this direction”. More importantly, those who would doubt our claim that the EU is engaged in a long term project to shift the public’s loyalties from the nation-state to the EU’s institutions and underpin the newly emerging European State should consider the following details from the many treaties, reports and plans to foster ‘European consciousness’:
• The Adonnino Report 1985, where Pietro Adonnino MEP proposed numerous methods to promote the integration of Europe.
• The ambitions of the EU culturalists were also set out in the Maastricht Treaty 1992, which enshrined such goals as “the dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples”. Funding was made available for such activities so long as the recipients could demonstrate the activity had a European dimension.
• The EU’s de Clercq Report 1993 devised initiatives to ensure that:
“…European identity must be ‘ingrained in people’s minds’ as a ‘good product’ using marketing techniques and that certain social categories, particularly ‘women and youth’, should become ‘priority target groups’. More controversially, it suggested that newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union…so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause.”
This ties in with a parallel report by the Commission’s Media and Culture Directorate, which showed that money has been made available for the media to promote “a more positive line towards Europe”.
• The Pex Report 1998 called for measures to “increase awareness of the achievements and advantages of the Union and foster public support for the forthcoming stages of the integration process”. In particular it proposed targeting of the “least favoured” elements of society to persuade them of the glory of the EU. Later that year, a report on the Commission’s Euro communication and information strategy stated that acceptance of the Euro will be decisive for pursuing European construction. It demanded extra funding, some of which was directed to campaigns in the UK. It established ‘Euro mediators’ for disadvantaged sections of society, while the role of children as information multipliers was acknowledged. Women were to be targeted because “they manage the finances of the family, go shopping, etc.”
• The inclusion in The Amsterdam Treaty 1998 of provisions relating to cultural matters demonstrated the determination of the EU to “deepen the solidarity between their peoples” by establishing “a citizenship common to nationals” of all member states. Cultural integration lies at the heart of the drive towards “ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe”. Key to this process is the provision that the EU must take cultural aspects into account in all other policies.
• Agenda 2000 observed that “the consent and support of European public opinion to enlargement is a clear pre-requisite for the realisation of the project. This will require, during the pre-accession period, a substantial public information effort in both the present and the acceding member states”.
So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth: the EU is deeply committed to waging a propagandist war on those who oppose its integrationist ambitions.

We do not take issue with the studying of other cultures, societies, peoples and languages. On the contrary such links are culturally valuable and indispensable to the formation of a broader mind. We take issue when the EU flag is hoisted upon these studies, and Europe treated as being synonymous with the EU. There is no room for programming primary school pupils that they the are Euro-citizens of tomorrow and any authorised schools project must be balanced.

For more information on EU Propaganda we are all paying for through our taxes.

More on EU Propaganda:
How the EU uses education and academia to sell integration

The golf-ball as a symbol of integration

The mythology of the EU – Countered

The EU’s propagandist use of Europe’s Churches

What is happening, further to my post here to British political life coming too. Labour fought against this tooth and nail, now it a good idea all of a sudden. We vote Labour and get Tory and Conservative and get, well who knows what, but certainly not conservative. One thing is certain which ever we vote for we get EU.

Times Online - Britain:

“New plan for one million to buy homes splits Labour”

The dispute is casting a shadow over Downing Street’s plan to put housing at the top of Tony Blair’s third-term agenda, with property ownership expected to be one of several “new offers” underpinning Labour’s next manifesto.

I do not often mention corruption in the EU because I feel there are far more things wrong with that construct than the unaccountability of its funds. However I did notice these two letters in the times, and have thoughts the same myself. When I hear that the EU Commision is sending observers to check that other countries election are fair, I am always reminded that they themselves are not elected and not accountable, so who are they to jump on their high horse about others.

Times Online - Comment

Romania shows up EU corruption
From Mr Tom Fane
Sir, Mr Chris Davies, MEP (letter, December 9), is concerned that Romania should not be admitted to the EU because “corruption in Romania remains serious and widespread”.

This is the EU whose own accountants have failed to sign off the EU accounts for ten years because they cannot trace where most of the funds have gone; the EU which sacks whistleblowers such as Marta Andreasen and Paul van Buitenen (now an MEP) when they point out widespread fraud.

I suspect that Romania has nothing on the EU.

Regards,

From Mrs Val Cowell

Sir, I am unimpressed by crocodile tears from Chris Davies over corruption in Romania.

Last May, UKIP MEPs, with help from their colleagues in France and the Netherlands, presented to the European Parliament a motion of censure to be served on the European Commission regarding its failure to act over massive financial fraud in the EU’s statistical office.

Chris Davies voted against the motion, as did many UK Labour and Conservative MEPs.

Yours faithfully,

It has often been said that Tony Blair is the best Conservative Prime Minister this country has ever had, the only problem I have with that is Blair is not a Conservative, and to suggest he is, is a slur on real Conservative values. Which is why I feel a little hesitant to describe Michael Howard as the best labour opposition leader this country has ever had, but I will pursue the analogy in spite of my misgivings, and even if real Labour supporters are insulted.

The Conservative party are not producing real Conservative policies, they are instead on the run from the power of the present administration and its allies in the media, they have in fact been eviscerated by the constant change of leadership the basic argument over the EU and the anti Tory media, so much so that they are frightened to stand up and say what is wrong with New Labours rush to destroy all that once made Britain a free society. They are terrified of being branded reactionary by standing on real Conservative policies which are based on the freedoms of the individual to choose their way of life without interference from the government.

It now seem that despite facing resignation threats from members of his Shadow Cabinet (which must be a misnomer because you must have substance to cast a shadow) Michael has announced that the Conservatives will support the Governments scheme to force ID cards on the population of this country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4093583.stm

Yet again Howard is going to make himself and his party look stupid, undermine any opposition to the scheme and expose shadow ministers to ridicule, because despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives pledged to hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.

So it is halfway house Howard on the march to nowhere again, why on earth would anyone wish to vote for this man to be Prime Minister is beyond me. The fact that the Conservative forced a parliamentary crisis over fox hunting, yet meekly allowed the Civil Contingencies Bill through without real opposition is indication enough that the Conservative party no longer believes in conservative values. I have to agree with Kilroy-Silk who said the Consevative Party is dying and we should kill them off. Then perhaps from the ashes of this disreputable rabble a new party might emerge which is not going to be afraid to be what their title claims, Conservative!