eurealist.co.uk

EU referendum: The Luck of the Irish
The Irish should vote to free us all from the Lisbon Treaty and the loss of sovereignty it represents

EU referendum: The Luck of the Irish -Times Online

The lack of clarity should make it impossible for any country to sign this document. It is a piece of deliberate obfuscation by technocrats who wish to proceed with a considerable erosion of national sovereignty under a smokescreen of “tidying up”. As a result of its vague wording, the treaty is dangerously ambiguous. Countries which imagine that they have negotiated opt-outs from unpopular bits risk finding out in years to come that the European Court of Justice takes a different view.

I really find it difficult to disagree with main thrust of the article written by Peter Mullins Telegraph

He is bemoaning the persecution being endured by the Church worldwide and the loss of Christian values in Britain. He suggests that much of this is down to the politicians, but the church also has its own questions to answer.

I came to this article thorough the reference to the Bishop of Hereford who was fined £47,000 and made to attend a re-education course because he refused to employ a practising homosexual in his diocese’s youth services? (I understand from a local source that there could have been strong historic reasons in Hereford for the Bishop’s decision but that is not the point of this meander)

On the surface it looks as if secular political society has begun to enforce its principles on religion, this is to perhaps state the obvious, it is a muddled concept to say on one hand that there must be total freedom of religion and on the other to say only within prescribe limits set by a secular law. In fact as I think about it, the claim of total religious freedom is a bit of a misnomer in the first place, because society would find some religious practices unacceptable. So the concept must, in any case, be total freedom within limits.

So we are debating limits rather than principals and limits are defined by social acceptability rather than a predetermined code. Religious belief is however not defined by social limits it is the belief that defines social limits. It would seem that the Anglican Church has not defined its own social limits or rather those limits are movable, which might lead as many to question the direction of the church, as question the direction of the nation.

Of course in the Bishops case some are bleating about how the church has been taught a lesson etc. but the odd thing is the Church sort of won his case, because most of the claims were dismissed, the judge did however find for the claimant on the grounds that Church of England teaching from the House of Bishops did not require Anglicans (other than ministers) to commit for life to celibacy or marriage.

Which brings me back to Peter Mullins and the few sentences that stood out for me-

Urgent though it is, the threat from a murderous jihad is not the worst we have to face at Easter 2008. Any civilisation has a hope of defending itself against even the most ruthless enemy so long as it preserves the integrity of its own culture and traditions. But for 40 years our governments in Britain have done nothing but undermine the essential quality of our way of life. Those elected to defend the realm have destroyed it. The shepherds are hirelings.

The authority of Parliament is a joke in an age ruled by spin and the Prime Minister’s gang of party interest. New Labour has created its own client state out of millions on benefits and 800,000 new civil servants, bribed by the sort of job security and pension entitlements long vanished in the private sector. Public services are near collapse - try getting anywhere by road or rail this holiday weekend. The NHS is a disgrace. “State education” is an oxymoron. The Government loses our national records and lately there have been convictions for vote-rigging.

We might have expected the Church to resist the decay, but instead it has connived with the destructive sexual and social revolution begun in the 1960s.

Yes the church has connived quite a bit in the destruction of our society but it has also connived with the politicians to destroy the authority of Parliament and the Nation State

And furthermore it has done so in exactly the same way as our politicians have, by ignoring the basic principals and going for the non confrontational modern management approach.

If the teachings of the church are based on the bible and if the bible says homosexuality is a sin then why has the church condoned the practice and relaxed its laws in relationship to sex within marriage. Is basically the same point as; if our constitution says anyone who connives with outside powers to undermines the nation state is a traitor, then why has that principal been ignored by so many of our governments.

The judge fund the House of Bishops did not require Anglicans (other than ministers) to commit for life to celibacy or marriage, so the house of Bishops do not follow the principals of their own bible, as they do not then it is apparent that the beliefs of the Anglican church is a movable feast. Perhaps the church has fallen into the trap of moving its fundamental principals with the intention of becoming more attractive to a larger audience. If it has then it is odd that it should do so in the face of the evidence which show those churches, sects or religions which stick to principals and loudly proclaim those principals are the ones which are growing. I do not know, but would the tribunals argument hold good for Muslims? From the press I would have thought not, they seem to be steadfast in defending the basic principals of their religion, if that is the case perhaps, had it been a Muslim cleric, rather than an Anglican bishop the outcome of the case might have been different.

Our political parties of course are into the same self-defeating game in that their principals, their political belief system is also a movable feast. No longer can we vote for a party because we share its basic ideals, and understand that it will act as is necessary when in government, but always with the intention of maintaining those ideals, as far as possible on a sea of international liquidity. Instead we are offered a political masque based on nothing more than a determination to gain power. We have got to get this government out – is simply not a good enough call to arms, what exactly will be different if we do vote against the Labour party, what different direction will a Conservative administration take this country and do we want to go there with them, it is up to them to decide where they would like to be and then convince us that they can be trusted to deliver and that we should join them.

As we have witnessed neither the Anglican Church or the state hold a central defining belief system, whether that be Christianity, democracy or nationhood, the church will not stand by its basic principals and the government will not stand by its nation. Both will be blown along with the wind, and with no moral compass to guide them they cannot hope to offer us any guidance for the future either of our church or our nation state.

Technorati Tags:
Christian values in Britain, Bishop of Hereford, Peter Mullins, basic ideals
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

A post on Conservative Home about the refusal of by Salisbury District Council to allow Ted Heath’s wish that his house be opened to the public as a museum has cause a bit of to do.

Of course the decision by the council has nothing to do with Heath’s term as Prime minister when he took this country into the European project, apparently 16 of his ex -neighbours objected the scheme, claiming it would ruin the unspoiled and peaceful character and setting of majestic Salisbury Cathedral.

However as these things go it was Heath’s term in office that sparked the debate with special reference to British entry into the Common Market EU, one of the commenters wrote it was a pity he did not live long enough to be tried for treason.

I added my bit because many do not seem to understand that theoretically Heath did commit treason as he worked with other to undermine the sovereignty of his own state and that is treason according to the British laws of the time.

As Heath was instrumental in taking this country into the European Project which undermines our parliamentary sovereignty and undermines the British state there is an argument that he committed treason, according to the British Constitution; Tony Blair acknowledged that point last year;

The British problem with our membership of the EU may derive from the curious and tortured circumstances of its birth. But long since, it has taken on a unique life of its own. The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe. It’s sort of: isolation or treason.
Tony Blair 02/02/06 OXFORD
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9003.asp

It is an offence under Section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 “within the realm or without … to devise … constraint of the person of our sovereign … his heirs or successors.”
It is an offence under section 1 of the Treason Act 1795 to engage in actions “tending to the overthrow of the laws, government and happy constitution” of the United Kingdom
The Attorney-General took over the cases brought against our leaders under the Treason Act 1795 and then he dropped them as “not in the public interest”.

That in itself breached the Bill of Rights by “suspending the operation of law” and was contrary to natural justice in that the Attorney sat in judgement on his own case.

Of course as Blair has since repealed the Treason Act 1795 no more action can be brought, but when Heath took this country into the Union the Treason act was still in force as was the Bill of Rights 1689 it still is in fact.

As there is documentary proof that Heath knew the full extent of the European project and exactly what was planned for the British state there can be no argument that he did not understand the full implication of his actions. Sorry I cannot give respect to a leader who only holds his position because he has taken an oath of allegiance to his state and then works to undermine that state.

Of course as another commenter noted “there’s no sensible argument of treason. Since the Queen ratified the Treaty of Rome and Parliament (comprised of Queen, Lords and Commons) enacted the European Communities Act, you’re living in a fantasy land.”

Treason does not fail because many colluded together to commit the crime, The Queen members of The Lords and the members of the Commons all took an oath of allegiance to Britian, the fact that we have effectually ended up with a revolutionary system that ignores the previous constitution of Britian does not mean that according to that Constitution there was no treason.

It has been argued that even the previous constitution was also arrived at by treason, because the Parliament that agreed it had no legal right to do so.

Another commenter picked up on the Bill of Rights point

“still in force as was the Bill of Rights 1689 it still is in fact.”

Think you’ll find that no politician, judge, or lawyer would agree with you on that, in that the Bill of Rights explicitly sets out to limit the powers of government, and I don’t think you’d find anybody who could enforce such limits actually willing to do so.

Which is a reasonable point to make however, it is wrong to assume that because no one is willing to enforce the Bill of Rights that it does not still have power if you look at the laws which supposedly undermine it becomes clear that they do not in fact do so. And as the Metric Martyrs case showed it is still Constitutional law in Britian as it has not been directly repealed.

Lord Justice Laws ruling on that case was that although parliament is sovereign there are some laws that are so important that they cannot be changed by implication and can only be changed by direct legislation he mentioned both Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights as being examples of such laws, to date Lord Laws ruling has not been challenged.

Britain has arrived at the present constitutional mess because the people we elect have simply ignored the Constitutional settlement of the British state, they all swear allegiance to the British state they all swear allegiance to the Queen who took an oath to uphold our laws and our Constitution, Tony Blair is right Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain.

But neither Ted Heath or any of our prime minister up to an including Blair have been elected by or taken an oath of allegiance to the EU. They own their positions exclusively as a consequence of being elected by the British people and even then may only take those offices after they have taken an oath of allegiance to the British state.

The thought step that is missing is that this obviously must mean that all of our leaders who have given their power away, have also given our power away to elect our own law makers, and British sovereignty rests with the people.

It has been a long quite revolution which has removed our sovereignty and forced us to become citizens of a foreign state in the making which has been conducted by political leaders who have both ignored their oath of allegiance to the British state and the British people and have constantly lied to the people about what they have been doing. We now find that after 33 years of membership of the European Project that it has changed from a group of sovereign nation states joining together for trading proposes to the overriding law making agency of our country where the vast majority of the laws which we must obey are made by people we do not elect and cannot influence with our votes.

I would call that treason to the British state and the British people who have at no time ever given their consent to the destruction of the British state.

The Saga of “Treason Act 1795”. By Anne Palmer, 8.3.2005.

As many of your are aware, I trail certain debates in our Parliament and also, from time to time, the European Parliament, and so it was on 17th November 2004 in a reply to Lord Tebbit’s question, “Whether, and if so by what statutory provision, treason remains a criminal offence?” [HL, 4921] to which the Baroness of Scotland replied, “Treason remains a criminal offence under the treason Acts of 1351, 1702, 1795 and 1842, and the Treason Felony Act 1848”.

Glaring out at me, and for very uncomfortable personal reasons was the 1795 Treason Act which I now know was repealed during the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, having heard this from the Judge sitting on a case of Misprision of Treason in the Walsall Court, September 2004.

I immediately wrote a letter to Lady Scotland with a copy to Lord Tebbit, and as always with a letter that concerns our Constitution, made absolutely clear it was an open letter. (In other words, it is not just MY Constitution)

The reply came from the Home Office, which as well as the points quoted by Lady Scotland during the debate, was this particular one, “The 1795 Act outlawed plots to kill, maim, imprison etc the Sovereign, his heirs and successors. In modern practice, such acts would be covered by conspiracy law which was placed on a statutory footing by the Criminal Law Act 1977. The maximum sentence for conspiracy is the same as the offence the defendant conspired to commit. For example, a person convicted of conspiracy to murder of conspiracy to commit another serious offence for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, could be sentences to life imprisonment for the conspiracy too.” In September 2004, Derek Bennett, (UKIP) attended the Magistrate’s Court in Walsall in an attempt to bring charges of Misprision of Treason against certain members of Government who intend to incorporate the proposed EU Constitution into our system.

The use of the constitutional 1795 Treason Act thwarted his attempt because unbeknown to many (even Baroness Scotland in the House of Lords), it was repealed in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act.

The 1795 Treason Act was last used by Rodney Atkinson and the late Norris McWhirter in the Misprison of Treason case at Hexham (Northumberland) Magistrates Court 9th September 1993. It was obviously the right Treason Act to use for the number of charges placed before the Court at that time, and would remain so now if still “active”.

t therefore was not repealed in 1998 simply because ‘it had not been used for many years’. It had been. It was also used by many people who did not know of its repeal, trying to prevent the Nice Treaty from being ratified, in the year 2000 and 2001 and again by Derek in 2004 against the EU Constitution.

My reply from the Home Office also stated, “despite an extensive search of our records, we have not been able to ascertain why the 1795 Act was itself repealed at that time (All the officials who worked in this Unit during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act have since moved on so we have not had the benefit of their knowledge)”.

I find it difficult to comprehend that such an important department can muddle along in such a fashion! Lord Tebbit raised a similar question in the House of Lords, on 7th March 2005 and there was still no satisfactory answer and no one seems to be fully aware of why the whole Act was repealed in what was mainly a Bill to do with youth, in fact the debates go from debating the “effect of child’s silence at trial” to “abolishing the death penalty for treason and piracy”. (31st March 1998) The switch makes no sense. Lord Stoddart questioned whether, when becoming an EU Commissioner the making of an Oath to the European Union having previously made an oath of allegiance to the Queen, was treasonable, to which the Baroness of Scotland replied, “My Lords, I hesitate as always to give any disappointment to the noble Lord, but I have to tell him that the EU constitution is, unfortunately, not a treasonable document”. Quite right of course, for on its own it is not a treasonable document, however, incorporate it into our system, it would automatically override our own Constitution, (and states so in the Constitutional document) which, according to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the constitution “is an act of treason”.

Whereas it was established in 1932 that “No Parliament may bind its successors” etc, etc. There are those that believe our entry into the European Community in 1972 was unlawful, even though it was a “Treaty”. The Treaty however, gave Community law supremacy over our law.

There is the added problem that the people were also deliberately misled during the 1975 referendum campaign in an effort to persuade the people to vote to “remain in the European Community”. Lord Denning ruled (Macarthy’s Ltd V Smith) that “ultimate sovereignty still rests with Parliament: Community Law prevails only because Parliament wants it to prevail. Etc”. Government’s belief that Parliament is still sovereign and can come out of the now European Union by simply repealing the European Communities Act will end if ever the EU Constitution, signed by the Rt Hon Anthony Blair, is ratified.

Although there is an exit clause in the EU Constitution, it would require the agreement of the remaining 24 Countries to allow us to withdraw. Do not hold you breath for that to happen. They need us, far more than we need them for that to happen. No Government has the right to sign our Country away to be governed forever, (or for an unlimited period) by anyone other than our own Government that we the people elect and whose sworn oath of allegiance by all British subjects, is to the Crown and this Country at all times.

As there appears to be no apparent reason why the recently used 1795 Treason Act has been repealed, I now suggest that the Treason Act 1795 be re-instated, for there may well come a time when it is needed in the future. Anne Palmer.

George Blake worked against the British nation state because he believed in a different ideal. Working against your Nation state is treason, more so if you have sworn to uphold the laws of that state and serve your monarch and preserve their realm, Blake did both.

But then so many more have done exactly the same thing Tony Blair, Mr Major, Mrs Thatcher, Mr Callahan, Mr Wilson, Mr Heath, Lords Pattern and Kinnock to name but a few. We even have one man who admitted that although he has been at the top of the British Civil Service and held some its most senior jobs he has secretly been working against British interest for 30 years, he has now been ennobled.

In fact this Government have been ridding us of various Acts of Treason over the past 7 years.
What we have left The Treason Felony Act 1848, and a treason act dating back to the 12 century, However according to1848 Act it is treason if
“any person whatsoever [shall, within the United Kingdom or without] devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honour or Royal Name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom“.

And “any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without devise or intend to put any force or constraint upon both Houses or either House of Parliament”.

Quote!

The British problem with our membership of the EU may derive from the curious and tortured circumstances of its birth. But long since, it has taken on a unique life of its own. The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe. It’s sort of: isolation or treason.

Tony Blair 02/02/06 OXFORD

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9003.asp

So why be so hard on poor old Blake he after all was only doing what he thought was in the best interest of his ideals.

I have no idea whether treason was committed in 1972/3 when we joined the then European Community, or at a later date, but the people were indeed told lie after lie on what the Community was about, it was “just a Common Market”, “about trade” and there would be “no loss of sovereignty”. Now we allegedly have Commissioner Mandelson saying that we should be prepared to give up more sovereignty.
The Prime Minister’s signature is already on the Treaty ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTION for Europe, his intention to give the governing of this Country to the European Union will remain there for all time for future generations to read. We know now, without a doubt, that the EU Constitution would override our own Constitution thus replacing and destroying it. That, according to R v Thistlewood 1820, is an Act of Treason, but I the biggest act of treason to me, is the violation of the allegiance owed to the sovereign and our country. Our Country and our way of life is nothing if we are not prepared to fight for both, as thousands of others have done in the past.

Why couldn’t the founders of the then European Community tell the truth of what they wanted to achieve? More importantly, why couldn’t our own Politicians tell the people the important truth of what the European Community was slowly, step by step to become. There would have been a choice at that time if the truth had been told to the people. That choice would have been between a sovereign and independent Nation State with its unique Commonwealth of Nations or be subsumed (or consumed) into the coming new state of European Union, a Union with its own Constitution. A Union by which the only means of communication is generally through an interpreter.

The loss of Parliamentary sovereignty, so often denied by our Parliamentarians, is now becoming apparent to many, though not yet to all citizens.

To quote Commission President Barosso 31st March 2006, “Firstly, the Community is a creation of law. It is this, at the end of the day, which has allowed the successful and peaceful unification of our continent, when all previous attempts to unite Europe by force have failed.” We fought to keep our Country FREE, not to be united and have others govern us. Do ‘today’s’ politicians not understand that?

“Secondly, the community is a source of law. This is the spark of fire which bring life and dynamism to what would otherwise be just another association of states. The Commission, with its largely exclusive right of initiation, has a central role to play here. It is the motor of Europe’s law-making engine.”

The people are seeing for themselves that this present Government is following all EU Laws to the hilt whether it is in Britain’s interests or not, so much so that if we continue down this present path, it will end in the total destruction of this Country, for it will no longer have the ability to govern itself, or defend itself (the latter is an absolute tragedy. There is no legal base for some Article’s from the EU Constitution that are being put through at the moment, for they need inclusion in a Treaty.

The people of Britain are a strange race and even though there has been a deliberate attempt by Government to mix all different nations up, strangely these different nations residing permanently here in the United Kingdom have become united in a way the present government does not and could never understand. As our new citizens now realise that they too will lose everything and the way of life they have come to love as much as a British national, they will fight against rule by the European Union, for once the latter has complete power, it will not be as even our own Ministers thought it would be. We have seen the totalitarian ways of this present Government now it is in its third term and the powers it will give itself with ID Cards, SOCA and the draconian, totalitarian powers held in The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Reminiscent of Hitler’s Enabling Bill in the 1930’s). We have seen for ourselves the useless Opposition Parties that do not oppose but appear to simply go along with wanting that same federal State of European Union, along with Blair. The British people will not succumb to permanent rule by Brussels, they cannot do so because it is against their own Constitution to which they owe their allegiance. They are citizens of this Country and will remain so and they will never give their allegiance to the Union. It would be treason so to do. All nations agreeing to work together would have been great, but “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” Lord Acton, 1887. And that saying is as true today as it was then.

Anne Palmer 7.4.2006.
Edit

1. Anne Palmer Says:

   November 8th, 2007 at 11:29 am e

   Rodney Atkinson and the late Noris McWhirter attempted to bring charges of Treason, as recorded in their book “Treason at Maastricht”. They did not succeed. In the year 2000, a number of people also tried, re Nice using the 1795 Treason Act, the same Act that Atkinson and McWhirter had used. Unbeknown to them, during the passing of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 during its passage through the House of Lords, an effort -towards the end of their debates- was made to (allegedly) remove the death penalty from certain Treason Acts- however, IN ERROR the whole acts were replealed. To me, I have never understood WHY, during that particular act, there was a desire to remove the death penalty (and thus repleaed the whole) during that particular debate. Why not bring forth a separate debate headed the Repeal of the Death Penalty from certain Treason Acts? Among those repealed was the 1795. The people that went to Court therefore had no chance to win or go through with any case. There has been no attempt to correct that ERROR.

From Anne Palmer 20.4.2006.

Without doubt, one of the most important jobs of a Prime Minister and His/Her Government is to ensure that the Country is always ready, able and willing to defend itself. To ensure their military staff has adequate supplies and that the forces that have to use them, can rely on them at all times. This has not always been the case. The forces equipment and supplies should not be open to EU Competition Policy for we need to be sure that “trade secrets” remain secret, available, and most of all, reliable. This makes absolute common sense. We may not always be able to rely on ‘our friends in the European Union.’ The most expensive is not always the best, and the cheapest often turns out to be the most expensive in the costly loss of life. Even our own suppliers in the last war sabotaged bombs at times. The lives of our forces depend on their training and equipment, and fairly recently there was a problem with supplies when our forces were (about to go) on active service.

The Security and Defence of the State is probably the one that lends itself least of all to such a body that is the European Union. We are in NATO and also take part in the United Nations, but neither of those two make our laws or rule every nook and cranny of our lives. The EU however does and now also requires a Common Policy on both Security and Defence and Foreign Policy, and that is a step too far. A Country must at all times be in complete control of its own defence and foreign Policy. If it places itself in a position that it cannot defend itself, or its forces are not kept up to strength, more ordinary people will die as a result. Britain was unprepared for war in 1939 for the warnings went unheeded. We had had the war to end wars in the First World War hadn’t we? If we listen to the politicians now there will never be another war. We are more likely now to have another war than we have been in the last 50 years. We should be prepared for that war regardless of what the European Union wants, or dictates, for the responsibility is our Prime Ministers.

Javier Solano, the would be European Foreign Minister has written, ”No one would have dared to bet that the Union would soon have direct responsibility for crisis management, have a military committee and military staff, be responsible for military operations, have an armament agency, a solidarity clause in the event of a terrorist attack and, above all, a common vision of the threats we face and appropriate responses to them—in other words a genuinely European security strategy. However, these are now tangible realities in the European Union”.

In ”Open Europe” briefing note it states, ”One area of EU policy where Tony Blair’s legacy will be most noticeable in the future is defence. The Government has long argued that its decision to integrate the UK’s capabilities into a common EU defence would not undermine NATO or the UK’s relationship with other allies such as the US.

But the American Congress’ recent decision to block UK access to cutting edge US technology (the ITAR waiver) over fears of leakage’ to other European allies and the loss of the contract to make engines for the joint-Strike Fighter show that this strategy is fast becoming unstuck”.

Whether it undermines NATO or not is not the main importance of this decision. It is a totally wrong decision for this Country. It will not prevent wars, but may have the opposite effect. The European Union even if it becomes one state or a United States of Europe can never be equal to or like the United States of America, for Britain is an Island race, we are not even attached to mainland Europe, and unlike America, we do not all speak the same language, understand each other’s ways or customs, and to even socialise with them, we need an interpreter.

This article has been brought about because of my concern over the proposed treacherous (I will go further, and say treasonous) Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill for it gives far too much power to one person and the right to remove any laws, even our long standing Constitution of our Country and, as you are aware, according to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the Constitution, is an act of treason. The Bill, should it go forward in its present proposed form into an Act,

would also provide the opportunity to ratify the EU Constitution, or what ever name it ends up with, thus going against the wishes of the vast majority of people here in the United Kingdom. Why would any member of our Parliament want such powers? This is not the Germany of the 1930’s and the rise of the Third Reich, even though we vowed no one should ever have such powers again, they have already been taken, for in a real emergency there is the Civil Contingences Act.

Eventually, if we remain in the EU, slowly at first and under a weak leader, full authority for the control of everything to do with our forces will go to the European Union. Our present Prime Minister agrees to a European Defence Agency, a Common Policy and a European Foreign Minister, the next one may not. What then?

But who will eventually be in charge of our Nuclear weapons? There is a desire for one finger only on the button. The first time I came across that need was from Monnet’s speech before the European Congress of the German Parliamentary Social-Democratic Party February 25^th 1964. Part of the speech was blocked out in the English version, but I happened to also have a copy in French. My translation may be a little rusty but I am sure you will get the gist.

“It is evident that it will be dangerous to contemplate a proliferation of national nuclear forces which goes against Europe’s unification, which separates instead of unites and which creates some dangerous equality.

The situation will be altered fundamentally when our Countries resources create a district authority capable of administering and controlling the nuclear mediums.

The Multilateral organisational power when this is transformed and takes place in a European Community Force in association with the American Force. It is in effect essential that the United States and Europe are in an equal partnership. It is a matter that together and without ambiguity that the world is namely convinced of their association and that together they try to find the organisation of peace and a peaceful coexistence with the USSR.

It is essential to be clear to everyone in the East and West alike that our goal is not the increase of nuclear forces, but on the contrary the establishment of conditions which will gradually make it possible to eliminate them. Indeed, the achievement of European unity and equal partnership with America are not only vital for the economic future and the defence of the West; they are also indispensable to the organisation of peace.

While the federal German Republic is already united to the European Community, and participates with other countries of the West in a common future, the Germans are still divided. The tragic problem of the divided Germans remains in its entirety. It must be solved. The reuniting of the Germans in the European Community is a necessity for the maintenance of peace.

I cannot and will not forget that, only five years after an appalling war, former enemies met to build together a common future in equality and freedom. Their common destiny took the name of Europe. Since that beginning in 1950, great progress has been made. The work of transformation has continued; the institutions set up are at work; the union of Europe is being established on foundations which every day grow firmer”. (That reminds me of Commissioner President Barosso, on the 31^st March 2006, when he said, “Firstly, the Community is a creation of law. It is this, at the end of the day, which has allowed the successful and peaceful unification of our continent, when all previous attempt to unite Europe by force have failed.”

I will end it with Monnet’s own sentence, for this theme runs throughout the whole speech); “The United States of Europe has begun to be built”.

In the European Parliament on the 14^th Feb 1984 a Mr Faure said, “The European Union means political union, and political union of course means a federal structure, in other words the United States of Europe. Like the United States of America? Just so. Although this is a timid document, it is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe that we can and must authenticate today with our votes.

………. As the currency is the essential fuel of the economy, so a nuclear strike force is the supreme guarantee of security. A proper European defence entity should have a single decision –maker for this ultimate weapon, in other words a President of the United States of Europe. It is unthinkable that control over nuclear weapons should be shared among twelve countries (as they were then) and entrusted to twelve key-holders. It is no less unthinkable that the countries which are most advanced in those technologies, of which my own country is one, should jealously guard a monopoly of them, of arrogating to themselves a suzerainty totally out of keeping with the spirit of a community of free and fraternal peoples: fratres consanguinei”.

“As high technology in industry conditions economic and social well-being, so high technology in armaments conditions diplomatic influence. The future President of the United States of Europe alone, and he alone, will be able to make his voice, our voice, heard, to ensure that Europe’s security does not depend on decisions over which it has absolutely no control. He will assume the authority necessary to secure a halt, world wide, in the senseless arms race and escalation or procurement budgets, etc” END.

Although we have been told many times that there is not going to be a European Army, European Police force, a European Foreign Minister etc, (Romano Prodi helpfully reminded us, “You can call it what you like. You can call it Margaret. You can call it Mary Ann. It is still a European army.”) I have taken the trouble to write this down because I want to bring to the attention to those in power, the dangerous path they tread, for I am going back even further than Monnet’s speech, to one Klaus Fuchs, a man that my own father met when Fuchs was held in Stafford Gaol. (Just to clarify, my father worked as an instructor there) Klaus Fuchs was a brilliant scientist, born in Russelsheim Germany and when Hitler came to power he made his way through France to Britain. In 1943 he was sent out to the United States to work on the atom bomb. He was also in touch with a Soviet man and it was to him the Fuchs gave drawings of the “Fat Man” bomb, (the bomb that the Americans dropped on Nagasaki)

Back in the UK he worked at Harwell Atomic Research Centre but, unbeknown to the British, he was still in touch with his Soviet contact. It wasn’t until 1949/50 that he was suspected of having given classified nuclear weapon secrets to the Soviet Union. He betrayed all those in America and the UK that had trusted him and had given him sanctuary out of reach of Hitler during the war. He was tried at the old Bailey but had pleaded guilty because he hoped his confession would help atone for his wrongdoing although I understand he did expect the death penalty. He wasn’t hung for his treason, but other Countries had the opportunity of learning the Bomb’s secrets much sooner because of his treachery. How quickly the world can change and how quickly a friendly Country can change into an enemy? We can never be sure, or be too careful. For most people, the giving away to another country the plans to new weapons would be treason, the same can apply to the giving away of the bomb itself.

There is great danger in closer and deeper integration into the European Union for we are at a point where the Union is implementing new Agencies that were in the EU Constitution that was rejected by two Countries and Governments are accepting this tactic. One of the things that might be a temptation to give away is control over our nuclear weapons through a European Common Defence Policy or European Common Defence Agency. I have no idea if the Prime Minister’s legacy is to complete the new State of Europe, for if that is his legacy he has to destroy his own special Country to do it, and it is indeed ‘special’. Not only would the £44 Billion a year cripple us, so is the loss of our great industries and essential services through EU Competition Policy, which only the UK appears to be applying.

We are already vulnerable as a country. The tide is turning financially-deliberately so I believe- so the time may come when the cry goes up, “we will have to join the euro”, or, “we cannot survive on our own” etc. This Country is not for sale and it is not for giving away either.

I will conclude by looking at the EU Constitution through the eyes of Martin Ortega and a couple of the comments he makes about them, in which he points out Article 1-40 (1) The Common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy, etc. He continues, “Arguably this description of EU Forces missions is adequate for three reasons: it contains sufficiently broad terms, peace-keeping, conflict-prevention and strengthening internal security, encompassing all possible operations; it does not refer to any particular geographical zone, and the description stresses respect for the principles of the UN Charter”.

“The general description quoted above is developed further in another article that draws from-and goes beyond-the Petersburg text;”-

Article III-210 (Ex Article 17 TEU)

1, The tasks referred to in Art 1-40 (1) in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, etc.

All I can suggest is that a closer look at the meaning of these particular Articles. Because I believe the text has been very carefully chosen. Plus, the translation may also be different from other nations in the EU. My copies of Monnet’s speeches are a good example of the differences.

We, as a country, should we wish to remain a Sovereign Country, independent from others but willing to work with them as we do with America, should pull out of the European Union now, for it makes our laws, we have to change our Constitution, or ignore it, in order to obey EU Laws (As they would be if ever the EU Constitution is accepted).

“However, member states might be inclined to choose the EU military option for reasons connected with the idea of legitimacy, on the one hand and with more practical considerations, on the other. A European force may be useful in certain circumstances because the EU flag might confer a unique legitimacy to a given operation”. (No, not my words at all) they are from the EU Security and Defence Booklet 1999-2004 with 298 pages. When we defend ourselves, WE ARE LEGITIMATE anyway, and we fight under our own flag. We fight under the United Nation’s Flag when necessary. We would probably do the same under the EU emblem but not through a Common EU Policy.

If the treacherous Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill becomes and Act, any Prime Minister would be able to give away control of all our weapons, but he or she would forever be regarded in the same way as Klaus Fuchs.

If it wasn’t treason in joining the European Community at the time of the Treaty of Rome as many think it was now that they are aware of what the true document contained and not what they were told was in it, then it surely will be treason if the sovereignty and governing of this Country is given over to Brussels permanently, as prescribed in the European Union Constitution with full legal personality?

This from Anne Palmer 11.3.2006.

A Traitor’s Bill. Known also as the Abolition of Parliament Bill. Officially called The Legislative Regulatory Reform Bill.

I would like to draw attention to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill presently going through Parliament one way or another. This has been known by the title, “The Abolition of Parliament Bill”, but I will forever call it, “The Traitor’s Bill”, for I believe that is exactly what it is, for who is to know what kind of person might be Prime Minister of this Country in the future? Under this legislation it could be President Chirac or the President of the European Union. (AS one MP has already suggested)

Each and every Member of Parliament and those that sit in the House of Lords all pledge their Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Engraved forever in hearts and minds is or should be, the knowledge that “the essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the sovereign”.

There are two sides put in the debates, and if you trust what this present Government are saying, then there is a tendency to sway towards them. If, on the other hand there is a tendency to believe the opposition’s interpretation of the Bill, then of course one would believe them. I, on the other hand believe very strongly, that anything that can either mean all things to all men or puts our system of government at risk, and more importantly places the Crown at risk, our Common Law Constitution, the sovereignty of government, parliament and the people, then the legislation proposed should not, not even one tiny little bit of it, be accepted. If there is any doubt what so ever of the effect this legislation would have to our Constitution, our country or the governing of it, the proposed legislation should be aborted. We must at all times err on the side of caution. Friends can quickly change into enemies. Nothing should place the Crown or this Country in jeopardy. We have gone to war for less.

This Bill appears to be being rushed through our Parliament. I obviously must miss many points made and it is clear that some debates are NOT RECORDED for the likes of me to read. I cannot read everything, in any case time does not permit although I do read into the early hours of the morning, until three this morning. Such is the way these “Debates” are set up, there is absolutely no way can amendments that are put forward by the Opposition, get through. The government will have its way apparently. The needs of the people,(or what they want) does not enter into the Government’s scheme of things.

Should you decide to read this debate, then I would suggest you also get hold of the actual Bill and have that by you, read this particular debate in which you will also need to look at the amendments put forward at the front of the debate, to complete understanding of the debate in question.

For those that do not have access to internet, or have no spare time to read all, I place here what I consider to be of great concern to all of us. For those that believe we have no Common Law Constitution left, most of it is listed in this debate.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/a/st060302/pm/60302s01.htm

Brief excerpts only

Column Number: 111, Mr Chope. Statutes have been struck down in the High Court in the past and the Government have tried to put the matter right in primary legislation, which is their privilege. But surely they should not be able to correct every error in the law by fiat, using an accelerated procedure that denies the power of Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account, to amend the proposals and to discuss them in full.

Amendment No. 35 would omit subsection (5), which is about binding the Crown. Why do the Government want to bind the Crown under this Bill? I hope that the Minister will answer that question. He will be aware of the articles suggesting that the monarchy could be abolished under these provisions and it might not be so easy to do so if the amendment removing subsection (5) were accepted.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also be helpful to have some information about what consultation has taken place with the Palace about this provision?

Mr. Chope: I do indeed agree that that would be very useful. The Minister may say that the proposal has been greeted with tremendous enthusiasm, but it may be otherwise. I would be very surprised if it had been greeted with enthusiasm by the Crown, but it is for the Minister to justify his position.

David Howarth. At Col 112. Let me start with amendment No. 45. In a way, it is consequential or additional to the amendment that seeks to remove part of clause 2. It seeks to remove clause 2(2)(a), which allows legislative functions to be conferred on other persons, and to replace it with its opposite: that no order under the Bill shall confer on any person the power to legislate. Why do the Government want a power to transfer legislative authority to any person? It is bad enough that they want a power to change primary legislation by statutory instrument. How much worse is it that legislative power might be transferred to another person who, as far as I can tell, will be able to make further legislative change without a statutory instrument or any parliamentary scrutiny at all? In many ways, that is the most dangerous part of the Bill.

We are considering the transfer of legislative power to people who are not even Ministers, so would not be capable of being questioned by the House about any use of the power granted to them under the clause. Who are those people? If the Minister will tell us, perhaps we can attempt to write something into the Bill that will accord with his wishes.

Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): While the hon. Gentleman was so ably explaining his concerns, it occurred to me that there is no provision concerning the nationality of such people. It is entirely possible that under this clause the Minister could transfer legislative powers to a foreign Government or Head of State, effectively transferring to some extent the sovereignty of our country. That is allowable within the provisions of the Bill. It might sound outlandish, but that is what it gives Ministers the power to do.

David Howarth: That is absolutely right. I was coming to precisely that point. Depending on the kind of nightmares that hon. Members might have, this provision would allow, presumably by changes to the Parliament Acts, the transfer of the sovereignty of Parliament to President Bush—

Mr. Harper: President Chirac.

David Howarth: Or President Chirac or, perhaps even worse from the point of view of the Conservative party, to the President of the European Commission. There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent that from happening. Because there is nothing in the Bill about what sort of legislative function is being referred to—

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): We often loosely talk about Henry VIII powers. That is precisely what this is. It is the power that Henry VIII took upon himself to issue any edict and for it to be termed a law passed by Parliament. It seems to me that we have regressed several centuries.

At Col 115. David Howarth: Yes, that is absolutely right. The danger is that we transfer the authority of Parliament to the Minister, and allow that latter, in effect, to transfer that authority to subordinate bodies, which ought to be subject to the courts. I am not talking about Parliament being subject to the courts, but subordinate bodies.

At Col 118. Mr Harper. “When we were discussing clause 1, I thought that it was the most worrying part of the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge that it is subsection (2), which would be removed by amendment No. 33. That provision effectively allows Ministers to confer powers on others to make legislation. At least transferring powers to Ministers and the Executive means that they are still accountable to the House of Commons. I would like the Minister to explain exactly what type of individuals or organisations he has in mind to delegate legislating powers to and the scope of such delegation”. “My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has sensibly set out our concerns about Ministers wanting to make substantial replacement of the common law with statute. Common law has served this country well. I see no great reason for codifying great swathes of it.

My final point is on amendment No. 35. The proposal to bind the Crown is of great concern. We know that in Parliament and in public discussions have started about the proper use of the royal prerogative. Those prerogative powers to make international treaties and to commit Her Majesty’s forces to war are incredibly important. Any changes to those powers should be decided by proper discussion in Parliament on the Floor of the House. They should not be changes that Ministers can make by order”.

At 119 Mr Heald. Why is it that the Government want to confer functions–including legislative functions—on other people? If one reads the explanatory notes, the answer is supposed to be in annex A. The notes say, in relation to clause 2, that annex A

“sets out a few examples of some of the ways in which it is anticipated that the order-making power may be used.”

Yet when one looks at annex A, on page 18 of the explanatory notes, there is nothing that talks about giving powers to people to legislate in the way that clause 2(2) mentions. Annex A refers to the Department for Trade and Industry having proposals to simplify legislation on employment, the construction industry, weights and measures, consumer rights and the energy industry. The annex says that the proposals will be implemented under Part 1 of the Bill. What power is it that the Minister is proposing to confer on another person about legislation relating to employment? Many of us would be worried if important issues on governance of trade unions or on employment rights were dealt with by anybody other than a Minister.

At 121. Mr. Heald: An important part of our liberty is being affected. The confiscation of property is also important. All of that is taking place against a background of the introduction of other measures that also limit our liberties. The new clauses refer to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which is an important Act that takes liberty away from the individual.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, in his shadow Home Office guise, has dealt with numerous Bills that curtail liberty. The Identity Cards Bill is on track and other proposals concerning terrorism have been put before the House. Now we are asking whether all that remains of habeas corpus can be thrown away—removed and abolished—by an order that may not be debated by the House of Commons. That is being done in the name of business, which is being told, “This is for you. We will take burdens off your back, and we’re going to do it with this Bill.” What business wants to abolish habeas corpus by order? None that I have come across has ever said that. I do not think that businesses would want property to be confiscated. Do they want an end to jury trial? I do not think so. Extradition? They may have concerns after the recent NatWest case, because bankers will be worried that their extradition position can be changed by order.

The Bill in either Pdf or HTM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/2006141.htm The Explanatory notes http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/en/06111x–.htm The Standing Committee notes http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmscleg.htm

Technorati Tags: british-democracy, constitution, dictators, due-process, english-laws

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill completed its committee stages in the Commons last Thursday and, despite a spirited counter-offensive by Opposition MPs, remains largely intact as one of the most pernicious measures to have come before a British parliament.

The Bill would empower any minister by order to make provisions amending, repealing or replacing any legislation, primary or secondary, for any purpose, and to reform the common law to implement Law Commission recommendations.

Why is such a measure needed? The Government says a “fast-track” method of repealing laws is essential for its war on red tape. Armed with such a weapon, it can scythe through the forests of regulations, many of them planted by the very same government, and relieve the £50 billion annual burden on hundreds of thousands of hard-pressed small businesses.

The essence of the Government’s position is this. “Trust us. We may be taking extraordinary powers that could, in the wrong hands, be misused. But we wouldn’t dream of doing any such thing. This is Britain, for goodness sake.”

Indeed, the continued promulgation of Bills such as these will irrevocably change the sort of country we are because we have been defined over the centuries by the possession of parliaments that would never have countenanced such a grotesque proposal.

Technorati Tags: english-legislation, labour-party, undemocratic

Yesterday I posted some of my initial thoughts on Tony Blairs defence to Blair`s own interpretation of the charges, that both he and Nu-Labour are authoritarian, are intent on savaging British liberties, locking up those who dissent and that they abhor parliamentary or other accountability.

Two newspapers have commented on Blairs original article in the Observer:

Notebook
By Sam Leith

The Prime Minister yesterday wrote an article seeking to defend his record on civil liberties. “On ID cards,” he wrote, “there is a host of arguments, irrespective of security, why their time has come”.
Wouldn’t you be a bit more reassured if he made those arguments, rather than simply alluding to them?

William Rees-Mogg Times Online

Who is David Laverick? He is the chairman of the Adjudication Panel for England of the Standards Board for England. “There’s glory for you, boyo,” as the Welsh windbag himself might say. In other words Mr Laverick is the chairman of the sub-committee of a quango appointed by the Member of Parliament for Hull East, Mr John Prescott. It is all utter foolishness. The people of London elected Ken Livingstone on two occasions to be their mayor. They may have been mistaken to do so; he has never had my vote. But that was their democratic decision. Mr Laverick, and his two colleagues on the panel, decided that Mr Livingstone should not be mayor for four weeks of his second term.

No one ever elected them to their high office. They are not a court. Their closest connection with democracy is that they were appointed by the Member for Hull East. May Heaven forgive the voters of Hull East. The panel was established by law — one of the many foolish laws passed by the Blair administration — but they were not enforcing the law, they were enforcing their own subjective discretion.

I would not call Mr Laverick a war criminal, a concentration camp guard or a scumbag, because I do not think he is any of these things. I would only call him a pompous donkey, who has no understanding of his limited importance in the scheme of things, or of the respect he owes to the democratic choice of the people of London. No doubt, if I were a local councillor, he would find that my criticisms were “unnecessarily offensive and insensitive” — as indeed I hope they are. Fortunately the press still enjoys free speech, even if the Mayor of London does not.

The issue is more than a matter of a show-off mayor or a silly sub-committee of an unelected quango abusing its inappropriate powers. It concerns the ancient issue of “due process of law” that underlies Magna Carta, the English common law and the Constitution of the United States. Without due process, there is no law. A merely subjective judgment, lacking judicial safeguards, by an unelected tribunal, does not constitute due process. It is no better than the process by which Robespierre sent aristos to the guillotine, though one must admit that Ken makes a comic aristo and a four-week suspension is a milder penalty..
The Prime Minister knows what the issue is. He is against due process as such. He has written a most extraordinary attack on the whole concept in yesterday’s Observer. The article is so incautious that he must have written it himself.

“In theory,” Tony Blair writes, “traditional court processes and attitudes to civil liberties could work. But the modern world is different from the world for which these court processes were designed.” This view that due process is obsolete explains the Prime Minister’s conduct; it explains the connection between extradition without safeguards, detention without trial, Asbos without criminal offences, subjective and discretionary judgments, police powers to arrest, and increasing ministerial powers. They are all characteristic of Blair legislation; they all avoid due process of law.
I wish I could think of an appropriately “offensive and insensitive” epithet to describe Tony Blair. Perhaps “antinomian” would do.

Yesterday I alluded to the fact that Blair`s defence had nothing to do with the traditional view of us in Britian that our government was obliged to be the protector of inexorable rights, and that in his view government had become the provider of rights, which is a Roman Law concept.

This is also the view of the EU as can be seen in its Carta of Fundamental Rights. Statewatch maintains a number of “Observatories” on civil liberties and justice and home affairs and on secrecy and freedom of information in the EU:

Here are the links to two of them;

Statewatch Observatory in defence of freedom and democracy - new laws and practices affecting civil liberties and rights in the EU, UK and US after 11 September

on ASBOS Statewatch says: Tthe key point remains that, as in all cases, they are civil orders.
This means that in the application process, for an ASBO, there is no jury and hearsay evidence is admissible. If breached, the individual has committed a criminal offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

Click here for further links.

Tony Blair answers his critics on his anti-libertarian policies in an article in the Observer,

His first line of defence is that these charges are crafted by parts of the right wing and now taken up by parts of the left that New Labour is authoritarian, in particular, that I am. We are intent on savaging British liberties, locking up those who dissent and we abhor parliamentary or other accountability.

By attributing these charges to the fringes of the political spectrum, the obvious conclusion we are directed to reach is that the charges are baseless because of their origin. But then is he factually correct do these charges emanate from the fringes, if that were that case he would simply dismiss them out of hand.

Blair then goes on to give the reasons The reason right wingers are keen on this is clear. New Labour has eschewed traditional forms of leftist statism. So the type of claim they used to make about the Attlee or Wilson governments they can’t plausibly make about us.

As the definition of stateism is the doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy. I would suggest that Blair’s government has not eschewed stateism, the traditional form of, perhaps, but this government is very keen on central control, much more than either the Attlee or Wilson governments would have deared to be. It is simply they are bringing central control into different areas.

Have we become indifferent to liberty? At one level, the charge is easy to debunk. But on another level, there is a serious debate about the nature of liberty in the modern world. I accept the good faith of our critics. I just believe them to be profoundly mistaken.

Later in the article Blair puts “a new case about liberty in the modern world. I am from the generation that I would characterise, crudely, as hard on behaviour, but soft on lifestyle, i.e. I support tough measures on crime but am totally pro gay rights. I believe in live and let live, except where your behaviour harms the freedom of others. A society with rules but without prejudices is how I might sum it up.”

That of course is from the leader of a party which banned Hunting, is about to ban smoking in pubs, etc. It would appear that Blair wishes to define what is and what is not liberty, and to allow only that liberty he wants. Blair is accepting that these laws do transgress basic liberties, but that does not matter because we are going to make a new case about liberty.

The point is about our rights to control our government and our rights. Blair does not fair so well on the liberty front, about Parliament Blair says “As for parliament, I have spent proportionately more time answering questions than any predecessor; given more statements; am the only PM ever to agree to appear before the select committee chairs; the only one to give monthly press conferences. And I gave a vote specifically on whether to go to war.”

Other than allowing parliament a vote on the war which was forced on him, the other evidence is all about things which do not impact on governments powers, he can spend all day answering question before he rushes of to a press conference, but that will not alter the fact that with his enabling acts and other Bills like the regulatory reform act, he is eroding the power of parliament to control his government.

Blair argues that for him this is not an issue of liberty but of modernity and The question is not one of individual liberty vs the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people.

Blair seem quite sanguine about the removal of our liberties, and seems to belive that he has the moral right to do so for the greater good.

He cites as his excuse for removing liberties;

Antisocial behaviour isn’t susceptible to normal court process. Modern organised crime is really ugly. That IRA terrorism is different in nature and scale from the new global Islamic terrorism.

But does not mention that it is the Human Rights Act, for which he claims, “for the first time, a citizen can challenge the power of the state solely on the basis of an infringement of human rights” that prevents the government from taking action against international terrorists and criminals because the act forces the government to offer the same rights to foreigners as it if they were nationals.

Finally Blair has a dig at the Conservatives and LibDem`s Their attitude to liberty does indicate, though, a refusal to understand the modern world. If the nature of the threat changes, so should our policies. That is not destroying our liberties, but protecting them.

So his argument boils down to the single idea that to protect our liberties v the state, you have to destroy them so that the state can take action against a lawless minority. This really means that we are all being deprived of our liberties because of the actions of a few.

The whole argument of course is also based not on English Common Law, but on Roman Law concepts, instead of the state being the protector of inexorable rights, it has become the provider of rights. It is clearly evident in everything Blair says, that he believes he has the authority to dispense with our traditional protections against the state, and replace them with rights he himself has defined.

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other — or at least no more accurate — definition of a despotism than this. Spooner

This is an interesting local story from Booker, one that I have not heard about until now, perhaps I should read the local paper more often! But it is the twist in the tail which makes it interesting nationally.

Christoper Booker`s Notebook

‘Prejudicial interest’ rules make mockery of democracy

Thanks to a diktat from John Prescott, thousands of elected councillors have been shocked to be instructed by council officials that they are no longer permitted to represent the views of the communities which elected them. The bizarre consequences of this extraordinary bid to undermine local democracy are highlighted by four recent examples from just one county, Shropshire.

When Aggie Caesar-Homden was last September elected to Oswestry borough council, to represent the residents of the village of West Felton, she found herself at the centre of a local planning row. The parish council was up in arms over a 50-foot-high Orange mobile phone mast which had suddenly appeared on the edge of the village, blocking the view to the Berwyn mountains.

The villagers’ objection was not to the mast in principle, but that its erection was in clear breach of planning rules. Of 10 procedures required by the rules for phone masts, nine had not been complied with. The mast was illegal. But when Councillor Caesar-Homden raised this on behalf of the parish council she was told by senior council officials that it was not her role to speak for her electors. Since she was now an Oswestry councillor, she must support her council.

There was no one angrier about this than the local MP, Owen Paterson, who had recently been involved in a similar row over a highly unpopular plan by North
Shropshire district council to close down municipal swimming pools in Ellesmere and Wem. Councillors from the two towns had been told by North Shropshire officials that they could not participate in debates on the issue, because the fact that they represented the views of their communities gave them a “prejudicial interest”. Only when Mr Paterson intervened was this ruling reversed.

In Telford, the council came up with a contentious plan to build on part of the local park. A councillor billed to chair a meeting on the issue was forced to pull out when officials told her that her participation would exclude her from attending any council debate on the issue. A letter on behalf of the council’s head of “Legal and Democratic Services” explained that a “councillor’s overriding duty is to the whole community, not just to the people in their ward or area”. Decision-making must be “undertaken impartially”, and councillors must not appear to be “improperly favouring any group or locality”.

In South Shropshire, council officials went even further. Following an incident when a protestor shouted abuse at a planning meeting, they produced new guidelines stating that members of the public are not permitted to speak to councillors, before, during or after meetings. Council leader Heather Kidd explained that, because members of the public had shown “disrespect to councillors”, the