After series of one-on-one meetings with fellow EU leaders, Mr Blair said he was “making progress” on Britain’s four “red line” issues: that the new treaty should not affect Britain’s ability to determine its own labour laws, foreign policy, domestic law on issues such as tax and benefits and criminal and jurisprudence legislation.

A Government spokesman said Britain now considered it was “sufficiently protected” over the charter of human, civil and social rights, even if the declaration became legally binding in any revised treaty

On justice and home affairs policy, efforts to whittle away at the national veto have also been resisted, said the spokesman, with Britain likely to be able to “opt in” to joint EU criminal law and judicial policy only when it wishes.

Very strange polling results in the Telegraph,

“an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots while an astonishing 59 per cent of English voters want Scotland to go it alone.”

68 percent of English voters and 58 per cent of Scottish voters support for the establishment of an English parliament with similar powers to the Scottish Parliament.

48 percent of English voters – also want complete independence for England, divorcing itself from Wales and Northern Ireland as well.

The reasons given for the support for an English parliament

60 per cent of English voters complained of higher levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland

The West Lothian Question, 62 percent of English and 46 per cent of Scots voters are concerned about the affects of Scottish devolution on the British Parliament. “Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said: “In England, people quite rightly resent Scottish Labour MPs bossing them about on English domestic legislation. England has as much right to self government as Scotland does.”

“In the sporting arena, 70 per cent of English people said they would support a Scottish team playing football or rugby against a nation other than England. But, when the question was put to Scots, only 48 per cent said they would back England with 34 per cent supporting their opponents, no matter which country it was.”

That last, points to what I see as strange about the results, if 48 percent of English want complete independence for England the final figures do not make sense because

“The poll showed that the English are more likely to think of themselves as British than the Scots are. Only 16 per cent of English people said they were “English, not British“, compared to 26 per cent of Scots who said they were “Scottish, not British.”

Like all polling much depends on who asks the questions, who they choose to ask, what choices are offered, and how the raw results are manipulated For instance what other constitutional arrangements were offered to the respondents. What is clear from this polling is that many people are now very concerned about the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom after Mr Blair and his colleagues have created the problems in the first place.

A further point about polling is how the results are interpreted; the headline could have been 84 percent of English people think of themselves as British instead of England wants its independence that would put a totally different spin on the results and indicate a different preference for a constitutional settlement.

Our Health Service in Hock for many Years to come and for future generations to pay off. Anne Palmer 26.8.2006.

The Health Service WAS ours. We paid for it through our taxes and it remains (for now) free at the point of service. We pay for it in the same way we pay for our politicians to allegedly work for us, and they, on our behalf keep the National Health Service free at the point of delivery.

I am writing this to open the public’s eyes at the way EU law forces Member States to reorganise their welfare services, looking also at the affects of free movement and competition practices on health care. It tends to result in national welfare institutions being replaced by private providers. The process is not being discussed by the public because it is not being debated openly by our MP’s. What comes under “Welfare reform” is not being led by welfare reform at all. The major cause is that EU law as it stands authorises a great deal more interference in welfare than has been thought about. Our National Heath Service that developed here in the UK after the Second World War may be gone forever (if we do not fight for it to remain) and there may never be a public discussion about this but it may disappear without anyone realising it

Welfare is perhaps the last bastion of nationalism, but it is one nationalism that the vast majority of people will most definitely want to keep, it poses however, a problem for the European Union, for how can the Union, that is dedicated to the removal of national borders allow our welfare state to remain as it is when other member state’s welfare systems are not all free at the point of delivery? Are WE the odd one out, yet again?

Even now, although people are concerned at how many hospitals are closing and nurses and doctors are being made redundant, have no idea WHY this is happening, and even less understand perhaps why I am putting the first point of blame on to our involvement in the European Union and my second point of blame to the present Labour Government.

What happens to our Welfare system brings the EU right into our homes because there are very few people that get through life without at least one spell in hospital. I have only touched on the subject lightly because in everything else to do with the EU, it will eventually require our hospitals to be “liberalised”, “opened up” magic words, “open to competition” taken over in the same way that most of our great industries have been taken over.

There are two choices, one, just stand back and let it happen, or two, fight for your health service as those before you fought to get it put there for us all to use free at the point of delivery.

I can remember the day our National Health Service was born. Although it was the Atlee Government that created the National Health Service (NHS) based on the Beverage Report in 1942 Aneurin Bevan carried out the actual introduction of the Service for the launch July 5^th 1948. I never met the man although I spent one whole afternoon with Jenny Lee, his wife, in my mid 20’s when taking part in a fashion show. (Organised by the Local Labour group) She was a remarkable dynamic lady.

Before the introduction of the NHS, we as a family used to pay hospital ‘fee’s’ of one (old) penny a week, but at least we were able to have hospital treatment as long as we were ‘in the hospital fund’ club.

The NHS covers four separate (once) publicly funded systems, General Practitioners, Accident and Emergency, long term health care and Dentistry. Since 1948 we have all had the use of them and perhaps taken them for granted far more than we should have done.

There has always been Private Health care for those that could pay for it or prefer the privacy provided by private care. It is usually paid for through private insurance. NHS services on the other hand are “free at the point of delivery” paid for by our taxes and I understand the budget for 2006-7 is £96 billion. It employs over 1 million people and is reputed to be the largest employer in Europe if not the world, depending on who is the teller! We, the people, by way of our taxes, employ them all.

Things seemed to roll along fine until 1997, but the urge to join the euro by Prime Minister Blair started the changes I am writing about here. My attention was drawn to The Times (In 2003), which reported that if (and we may not have that option of “if” one day) we join the Euro, the European Central Bank had warned Britain it might have to give up its National Health Service. Even the Bolton Evening News, May 2003 reported that, “Britain would be forced to scrap the NHS if we joined the euro, so warns the ECB, saying free health care could be slashed to just emergency services”.

Also, “The ECB recommends jettisoning the NHS in favour of private health care, saying Britain’s aging population will send NHS costs soaring, and euro-zone rules would not allow Gordon Brown to borrow necessary funds to foot the bill”. Does Britain have an aging population more so than any other country?

But hold on, this is a Labour Government we are talking about and a Labour Government to boot, that brought the NHS into being, it was their pride and joy, yet we now have a Labour government that wants to end our Sterling currency by joining the euro, has signed up to an EU constitution and knowingly by their actions now, are destroying our NHS system. How can I say that? Because it is privatising our NHS “by the back door”. I have read two quite separate papers that refer to what they are doing as “Enron by the Thames”, and, “an Enron accounting system”.

An informative booklet on the “Services Directive” (A race to the Bottom) by Brian Denny, explains how EU rules attack public services, jobs, pay, pensions and collective bargaining rights”. Plain speaking indeed. “Following the exclusion of healthcare from the Services Directive, the EU Commission immediately announced plans for a new separate directive by the end of 2006 to open up health services to free market competition. Not surprisingly, the ECJ ruling have helped this process along by using internal market arguments first mooted in the Services directive.” If the EU does not get their way in one matter, they will get their way in another.

“Page 5”, “EU Health Spokesman Margaritis Schinas said that the ECJ ruling on patient mobility, ‘clearly states that there is scope for community action to achieve public health objectives’. He went on to claim that patent mobility was covered under Art 95 of EU Treaties covering internal market rules.

As already pointed out above, the ECB report from May 2003 called on Euro zone members to reform health services and although we are not in the Euro, we still have to abide by the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). One way round the removal of the ability to “borrow” more money was to introduce Public Private Partnership (PPP) or, Private Financing Initiative (PFI) into the Health Sector and turning hospitals into Trusts. According to Brian Denny, these moves have already led to a cash crisis in the NHS and the loss of over 7000 jobs.

The EU also wants more power over healthcare, which does not surprise me at all. Alan Milburn once said though, “As long as there is a Labour Government, the NHS will be funded from general taxation and health care available according to need and not ability to pay”. I think he forgot to mention that the Health Service as we know it would be gone, that it would be slashed with hundreds of excellent nurses and Doctors abandoned, Hospitals closed, with not all medicines available to all.

Is this what all this is about? To come into line with the ECB? So that we can abandon sovereignty over our sterling currency and reserves or the authority to control our interest rates? Only the rich will be able to have peace of mind if they fall ill for they will be the only ones that will be able to afford to pay. The elderly, old and poor will no longer be cared for. Vote for Labour?

According to the World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3860 March 2006 (By Jack M Mintz and Michael Smart), “Incentives for Public Investment under Fiscal Rules” (page 10) “To produce health services, governments employ doctors and nurses and construct hospital buildings. The hospital buildings are obviously capitol inputs used in producing health services and should be amortized under capitol budgets and doctor and nurses salaries should be expensed. The health services, however, are arguably consumption goods to reduce pain and suffering even though an element of public capitol might be entailed if current health services improve the long-run productivity of workers (who later remit taxes to the government). Some judgment is needed to determine whether any health service expenditure should amortise under public accounts since a majority of health expenditures tend to be focussed at the end of a person’s life”.

(Page 12) “The Maastricht Treaty contains a provision requiring member states to avoid running “excessive” deficits, whether or not they have adopted the euro. A protocol to the treaty specifies in turn that members’ fiscal stance is to be judged by two criteria; whether the budget deficit is less than 3 percent of GDP, and whether the total government debt exceeds 60 percent of GDP. If the Council determines a deficit is excessive, there is a procedure to encourage its elimination. The Council may issue warnings and impose deposit requirements and, eventually, fines. The SGP corresponds to the provisions of the Maastricht excessive deficits procedure, but it clarifies the terms, introduces monitoring procedures, and it gives the Council greater teeth in the event of violations. Under the SGP, deficits may exceed the 3 percent level if the excess is “exceptional, temporary, and limited in size”. Some discretion is accorded to the Council in determining whether this provision should apply”

(Page 13)“The UK has also moved to accrual accounting for financial reporting. For budgetary purposes, the UK Government focuses on two main “flow” measures of the fiscal stance.

(i) adherence to the golden rule is measured by the current budget surplus, defined as difference between tax revenues and current public spending (including depreciation):

(ii) the government also reports public sector net borrowing (PSNB). Both measures are accrual-based concepts: the PSNB can be contrasted with the previous use of the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (PSNCR), which was essentially the cash deficit.

“ In particular, proceeds from privatisation and other asset sales are excluded from the PSNB, but not the PSNCR. Both the current budget surplus and the PSNB are cyclically adjusted before the fiscal rules are applied”.

“These rules impact on public investment spending. The UK for example is WELL WITHIN the 60 percent gross debt limit specified in the Maastricht Treaty (its own 40 per cent net debt limit is surely more binding). Net borrowing in the UK is currently about 1,8 percent of GDP, and substantially less on cyclically adjusted bases. While an increase in investment there is planned, it may be that the UK Government’s reliance on largely off-budget Public Finance Initiatives means that the Maastricht deficit limit is unlikely ever to be more binding than the golden rule policy” End of quotes.

Although this paper is mainly about the NHS, and the mess we are in through PFI/PPP, the latter two have been used in many areas, the London underground for one major venture. Recorded in Hansard for the 24^th July 2006, Col 1387W A question was asked about PFI Contracts. The answer given was, “There are currently over 500 projects that have been signed and are now in operation. Around a further 200 projects have reached financial close, but are yet to become operational. The combined capitol value of all signed projects is over £48 billion. Information on PFI projects that have reached financial close may be found from the ‘PFI Signed Projects List’ on the Treasury’s public website”.

“At the time of the Budget around 80 projects were at the preferred bidder stage and around 155 had yet to appoint a preferred bidder. The estimated capitol value of these projects is around £26 billion”. End of Quote.

I am looking at PFI as, ‘on the never, never’. If I ran up hire purchase debts into the hundred thousands, it would not just take me thirty years to pay off, but it seems as if I might expect my children and grandchildren to continue paying off my debts long after I have left this earth. From all the businesses that I have found, this Country will ‘be in hock’ if not bankrupt, and what for eh? So that we can either eventually join the euro, and/or stay in the European Union and be governed by it forever? How can one Government, a Labour Government at that, that is supposed to be all for the people, run up so much debt and what on earth for? Labour has taken something very special from which each and every one of us at some time in our lives, have been glad the NHS is there for us, yet is prepared to see it trashed just to remain in what is, without doubt, about turning into a federal, political state and a totalitarian state at that. Many MPs we now know, (and can prove) knew that from before we joined the European Community.

My poor father, a very strong true Labour man, must be spinning in his grave. Mind you, he would not recognise these men of Labour as the Labour’ he once so admired.

George Monbiot woke up to what was going on in this field on 27^th June 2002 when he wrote, “PPPs are a Public Fraud”. He began his article with “Poor visibility corrupts; invisibility corrupts absolutely.” He wrote, (please remember this was written in 2002), “ As the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) points out, the government allows public bodies to reclaim the VAT on privately funded projects, but not on publicly backed schemes, thereby favouring private finance by 17.5 percent. National health Service trusts have to pay the Treasury a 6 per cent “capitol charge” on the buildings they own. Private builders have no such obligation. The Government gives local authorities an annual grant of 11.5 percent of the value of the Public Finance Initiative scheme they commission, but there is no corresponding sweetener for publicly funded projects. Private financiers are permitted to use “discount rates” way out of line with inflation. This false accounting masks the appalling value for money offered by private finance. As the British Medical Journal (BMJ) report shows, 39 per cent of the price of PFI hospitals is incurred by the extra cost of borrowing. Governments have a better credit rating than corporations, so they can borrow more cheaply. As interest is levied across the 25 or 30 years of the project, small differences in rates contribute vastly to the cost.”

He asks, “So why is the Government forcing public bodies to fleece the taxpayer? In 1997, it claimed that the purpose of the PFI was to reduce government borrowing. But PFI does not reduce borrowing: instead it defers and extends it.” One of the headlines used was, “The policy has the potential to bankrupt the UK”, and I believe that to be true. End of quotes.

How on earth did we get into this mess? Under funding of the NHS to begin with? In the mid 1990’s, under the Conservative Government of John Major, a number of hospitals effectively opted out of central NHS to become Trusts. Can anyone else remember the waste of money on new logos? At around the same time we started to see or hear of hospitals and medical centres being built using PFI. Which as we already know involves the building of public buildings by private companies, which are then “rented back” to the NH Trust at a higher long-term price which is only to be expected because the firms have to make a profit to stay in business. Under the NHS, the taxpayer owns the hospitals and paid the salaries. Where is our compensation for losing that asset? We are expected to pay far more now under PFI.

This disastrous PPP/PFI adventure has almost gone off the scale, under New Labour. To me, we are beginning to see ‘rationing’, we are being kept fit, we have to lose weight (might we not be treated if we are overweight?) We have to stay healthier so we are discouraged every which way from smoking. (Will we be refused treatment if we DO still smoke?) Our children may not be allowed the “Gob-stoppers” we once used to stuff our mouths with because the “We are watching what you eat” patrol are on the lookout, what the children eat at meal times. (Animal farm was but a comic compared to today’s lot)

In the “Health Unions Briefing for MPs”. July 2006, it becomes obvious the Unions are concerned, for they “recognise that across England (Scotland etc are devolved) NHS organisations are being forced to make cuts which affect patient services. Trusts have been told by the Government that they have to pay off their debts by the end of the year and are having to cut jobs and services in order to meet this target”. “Nearly one third of all trusts are in debt. There have been a growing number of compulsory redundancies in trusts across England. Although these have, largely, been dealt with through freezing posts and natural waste there are a whole range of measures taking place such as closure of departments and severe cuts in education and training, which will have a huge impact on standards of care and services to patients, both in the short and long term.”

Although there is a great deal more to this subject, I will say ‘finally’ in looking to Hansard on the last day before recess in the House of Commons where there is a mixture of questions and comments from different MPs that reveal what is happening (or not happening) in their area re Health care and in the hospitals. It is not only enlightening, but also frightening. It may well bring anger in the revealing. The closing of wards, beds and hospitals could be prevented if we came out of the European Union now.

We could build and pay up front for the hospitals we need if we did not have to obey EU laws or pay our alleged “Share” of the EU budget that is wasted, wasted, wasted. We could do what we liked with our own money; we most certainly would not have to be held back by the Stability and Growth Pact. We would become a sovereign State once again and our own politicians would have to do the job we pay them for from the day they are elected. The Union is still attempting to become the all-powerful state it wants to be, (It is stealthily and undemocratically working toward that end now) it must become one without the United Kingdom of Great Britain for we will indeed be “Better off out”. Anne Palmer.

Notes: Others quoted in the paper above. Jack Mintz is the Deloitte and Touch LLP Professor of Taxation. J L Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto and President and CEO of the CD Howe Institute. Michael Smart is Associate Professor, Dept of Economics at the University of Toronto. The paper was prepared as part of the World Bank’s Latin American Regional studies program.

Last day before recess,

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060725/debtext/60725-1069.htm I urge you to read it.

Works noted and read, from Dr Mica Panic (Fellow, Selwyn College Cambridge and Vice Chairman, UN Committee for development Policy. George Monbiot is the author of Captive State: The corporate takeover of Britain. He is also honorary Professor at the Department of Politics in Keele.

Bevan Brittan LLP. Works of Sir Peter Gershon. Works of Professor Allyson Pollock in Chair of Health and Policy and Health Services Research at UCL and Director of R & D at UCL Hospitals NHS Trust. Work of Michael Burnett, Lecturer-EIPA Maastricht. Government Research Papers on PFI

COM(2004) 327 (30.4.2004)

I was wondering if the MSM would pick up on Charlie Falconer’s interview in the Telegraph last week-end. When he suggested that “The right position for the Lords is that it should amend legislation to give the Commons the opportunity to think again but… then it should give way.”

Simon Heffer has done so today again the Telegraph “We’re teetering on the brink of an elective dictatorship” I don’t know about teetering I would have thought that we already had and elected dictatorship.

Heffer ends his article with a plea to Labour MPs to stop this nonsense, and asks for a strait answer to a strait question: what is so wrong with our democracy that Labour wishes so ruthlessly to end it?

“In 1968, when the last serious attempt was made to reform the Lords, Labour and Tory backbenchers united to stop proposals that would have put the Lords under the control of the Commons’ whips. Parliament must think very carefully and urgently about mounting a similar mission to prevent Britain from sliding to dictatorship. So far, Labour backbenchers have been quiet about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. They must ask themselves: do they really want to hand to Mr Blair and his friends the power to make laws that have the status of despotic fiats? Would they be happy for a Conservative administration, if we ever have one again, to legislate in this way?

Would they be happy for the House of Lords to have an entirely ornamental function, whether or not its members are partially or wholly elected? Or do they trust a combination of their own loyalists and the Prime Minister himself to make laws that not only bypass the Lords, but can, if necessary, bypass the Commons, too?

I address this question to Labour backbenchers, because it will be they who have the power to stop such nonsense. The Lords wisely decided not to die in the last ditch in 1911: but they might as well die there now, in the cause not of partisan self-interest (as was the case 95 years ago), but of defending liberty and our constitution. Frankly, these plans are so absolutist that one could make a strong case that the Queen should abdicate rather than give her assent to either of them.

To obviate that horror she, Parliament and the British public must demand a straight answer to a straight and vital question: what is so wrong with our democracy that Labour wishes so ruthlessly to end it?”

Technorati Tags: House of Lords, british-constitution, british-democracy
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Alice Thomson in the Telegraph writes about the public funding of political parties and mentions perhaps one of the reasons that both Labour and the Conservative leaders are keen on the issue of public funding.  That of falling membership of the main parties “Instead of playing endless games of tennis with Lord Levy, Mr Blair should have spent more time working on his party’s declining membership. Not only do members pound the streets, but they give their £10 without mentioning a CBE.”

Technorati Tags: Tax, public funding of political parties, membership of political parties

Immunity From What?
I read a News Release on 23rd September, “Government to end Crown Immunity from Planning Controls”. The list was quite long so I will mention only that “the Crown” includes Government Departments, Her Majesty’s private estates, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and also part of the Palace of Westminster is Crown land too.

All this information is held on the Deputy Prime Minister’s web site where it says quite clearly, that this matter also involves the ‘devolved’ bodies and they too will proceed on a similar timetable to that in England. For him to have to admit there is a Country called “England” is a turn around indeed for the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Of course this takes in compulsory purchase, applying for planning permission and under the proposed changes, Crown bodies would have to pay planning fees to the planning authorities in the same way that private developers do at present. Her Majesty, to the best of my knowledge has always been open to gentle persuasion in adapting to change without draconian legislation, and because of that, I strongly believe that Crown immunity regarding Planning Controls, should stay. What does John Prescott want to turn the Palace of Westminster into, for goodness sake? Or what will happen if/when the European Union takes over control of planning regulations and compulsory purchase orders or perhaps ask your selves has it not done so already through these proposals which are to go ahead to bring us into line with the rest of the EU?

Speculation! Could there be a compulsory purchase order on Buckingham Palace? What if the EU decides it would make a good “Head Quarters” for them here in what used to be the United Kingdom? Vivid imagination?

Here is the quandary as I see it. All this comes about because of the European Union’s Directive on “Environmental Impact Assessment” in relation to Crown development. The question is, how can we allow an outside body of people to decide to remove immunity from our sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth II? How can Members of our Government whose sworn allegiance is to our Queen allow this to happen?

It is ironic that successive Governments have used Crown Immunity, or Parliamentary privilege to protect themselves and to exonerate themselves from any wrongdoing. Now if Crown immunity was lifted from ALL Crown properties perhaps it will strip the government of their historic defence and maybe we will get genuine open Government at last. Another question that comes to mind is, how many organisations in the EU have Immunity? No one in this Country can remove “immunity” from any EU organisation.
Friends of the Earth in Northern Ireland want to end Crown Immunity in Court and have asked the European Commission to take legal action on the issue of Water Services’ Crown Immunity. Ministers have said that the Crown Immunity will be removed in 2006 when Water Service is “Externalised”. But how many more essential services left in British hands are to be “externalised”?

There is no doubt that there is need for change and I am thinking especially when people are injured or killed when working on Crown property.

I read that, and I quote, “Crown Immunity can mean, freedom or exemption from legal proceedings. Examples include the immunity of the sovereign personally from all legal proceedings. And in brackets (see Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary privilege)”

Government Ministers now use the Royal Prerogative for and on behalf of the Crown, but it must never be used in an innovative way. In ‘today’s’ world though, we have a Prime Minister that has signed a document in which he is actually prepared to hand over that precious gift of ‘Royal Prerogative’ to the European Union. His intention was clear when he signed his name to the Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe. Should we remain in the EU, eventually there will be the transfer of Royal Prerogative to the Union allowing them to have “legal personality”, to “Speak for all Nation States with one voice” and in all matters.

An example of this happened in 2003 when, for the very first time the European Union made an international agreement based on both the second and the third pillar. It was an “arrest warrant” between the USA and the European Union as a whole. There was no debate in our Parliament on the Arrest Warrant and neither was it debated in the EU Parliament. For proof of that, I will quote MEP Hernández Mollar in the EU parliament, “Now that we are drafting the new Constitution for Europe, how could we justify to the citizens of Europe that agreements impinging directly on their human rights come into force without being reviewed by the European Parliament?” As these arrangements in this case appear to have been done in secrecy, it should come as a warning that all is not as open and transparent in the EU as it should be.

I read that, and I quote, “No state or international organisation may intervene in matters that fall within the domestic jurisdiction of another state. The concept of state sovereignty was outlined, among other things, in a declaration on Principles of International Law (Resolution 2625), proclaimed by General Assembly of the United Nations 1970”.

Other recent attacks on the Crown are in certain Private Members Bills, some put forward within weeks of swearing allegiance to Her Majesty in this present Parliament. The Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill. For the removal of existing nationality requirements. Yet we already have (I believe unlawfully) foreign nationals serving in our Police Force and as Magistrates- strictly against the Act of Settlement and Magna Carta.

Are these foreign nationals walking round with sub-machine guns? Protecting the Queen? Protecting our Prime Minister? In SOCA? Have they sworn TRUE allegiance to our Queen? Will it mean anything to them if they have?

There has been a Bill to separate the Head of State and Head of Church, but the Pope too is also Head of State and Head of Church, as is our Queen in the United Kingdom. Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath Bill, to amend Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 in order to establish that it is no longer an offence to express an opinion in favour of republicanism or advocating the abolition of the Monarchy; to amend the Act of Settlement to provide that persons in communion with the Roman Catholic Church are able to succeed to the Crown; to amend the law relating to the parliamentary oath. A further proposal for the alteration of the Parliamentary Oath.

We have already had a number of Terrorism Laws, each one removes some of the long standing rights that we have enjoyed over many years and yes, they are the Rights many have given their lives for, so that we need not be ruled by others, other than by our own politicians.

Since 1997 we have had the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and conspiracy) Act 1998.
The Terrorism Act 2000,
The Anti-Terrorism Act 2001.
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, where for the first time in British history the Home Secretary gave himself the power to remove the British citizenship of a person born here in the UK, providing in so doing, it does not make anyone “stateless”. (As stated in international law)
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003,
The Extradition Act 2003,
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Not exactly a terrorism Act, but it sure terrified ME.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005,
And the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
So many anti-Terrorism Acts yet we have never bothered to close even one the easiest borders in the EU to control, which of course is our own. This open door policy has encouraged suspected terrorists to live here and preach their evil messages of intolerance and hate to vulnerable and impressionable people, and to recruit them and train them for their cause.

Can we trust the police or Government to use terrorism laws wisely? Haven’t we seen 82 year old men manhandled and held under the Terrorism Act. We read of a 17 year old girl on her first protest march taken off, DNA taken and house searched. People stopped by police because they are wearing T-Shirts with words again the PM. And haven’t we seen an innocent young man shot dead because the police “THOUGHT” he was a terrorist?

The Blair Government is not a progressive forward looking, modernising Government, Mr Blair is destroying our Common Law Constitution so much, that he is taking us way back before 1215 and Magna Carta. And yes, we have to start fighting for those rights contained in Magna Carta and our Bill of Rights all over again. Another oppressive, intrusive piece of legislation which I place a long side of the terrorism legislation is my contribution in opposing ID Cards. Although I have forwarded objections to this bill, I will only quote one observation.

During the debates in the last Parliament, one well known Government Minister very generously explained in debate that Her Majesty would not need to have fingerprints, etc taken although other Members of the Royal Family would have to. This would mean that the next KING or Queen’s intimate details would be held on many Data Bases and could be flashed round the world with all the rest for anyone to read. I find the Ministers words demeaning, disrespectful, discourteous, and any other “disses” anyone can think of. Yet these Ministers speak of RESPECT!

Mr Blair delivered brilliantly, his speech at the recent Labour Conference but I have no idea which planet or country he was talking about because it certainly wasn’t this one. The Blair Government has succeeded in undermining the people’s trust not only in the Labour Government itself but almost accidentally, has lost the people’s trust in most politicians now. His tinkering of the electoral system, (once the envy of many countries) has left it wide open to abuse and fraud. Our Common Law Constitution has been thrown on to the bonfire of modernisation until only the ashes remain and now while we are in “a time of reflection” over the EU Constitution, the promise of a referendum on it broken, which gives the Commission time to activate many new Articles and Agencies contained in it, with his blessing. He is finishing the job Guy Fawkes started four hundred years ago.

Whether you agree or disagree with some of the private Members Bills or not, whether you agree with the removal of immunity from the Crown or not, I passionately believe that the European Union is NOT the body of people that should have a say in what our sovereign Queen Elizabeth II should or should not do and our Government should not be the monkey to jump through the hoop of their master’s command. Their sworn TRUE allegiance is to their Queen and Country. “The essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the Sovereign”. Our Common Law Constitution will rise again like the Phoenix out of the ashes of Blair’s ghastly legacy, for it is the people that are truly sovereign, they will indeed demand their true liberty and freedom back, and they will want and they will get, their country and the governing of it back in full.

Anne Palmer. October 2005..

I did not hear this speech at the Labour party conference, and have only read bits of it, but those are enough to chill the bones of any democratically minded person. Mr Blair told the conference the criminal justice system was two centuries out of date. ”We are trying to fight 21st century crime - anti-social behaviour, binge drinking, organised crime - with 19th century methods, as if we still lived in the time of Dickens,” he said. ”The whole of our system starts from the proposition that its duty is to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted. ”Don’t misunderstand me. That must be the duty of any criminal justice system. But surely our primary duty should be to allow law-abiding people to live in safety. It means a complete change of thinking.”

Promising to take on the wrong-doers, by extending the summary powers of police and local authorities Mr Blair sets in motion his idea of jackboot justice; the police will be given powers to by pass the courts and issue instant fines or remove driving licences just as a starter, thus we have the terrible twins Blair and Blair preparing the ground for the removal of our rights as citizens of this country, to be innocent until we are proven guilty in a court of law, the removal of any need for the police to actually prove a crime has been committed and the removal of one of the basic tenants in British law and the undermining of the British constitution. It was only a few days ago that The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said “modernisation” of the force should be carried forward by introducing “an escalator of powers” for the dispensing of instant justice. That is the point if we are not proven guilty then we are in fact innocent, how many mistakes have the police made in the past, unfortunately in some cases the police cannot rectify their mistakes ask “Jean Charles de Menezes”. It is a little bit late after the punishment has been summarily dispensed to apologise for the lack of evidence to uphold that punishment. It would also put those who have been instantly punished in the position of proving their innocent later in court, which is a compleate reversal of the police having to prove their case in a court of law.

This is just another step down the road of increasing the states powers against its citizens. Along with the right to silence, the removal of trial by juries, and the insistence that juries cannot ignore the law and find against the evidence. Be there no mistake Blair and his merry band of henchmen are all about making the state the first power in the land, by the removing the powers the people have to object to the laws of the state. We are on the road to a totalitarian form of government when the people have no choice and no rights against a state they no longer live in a democratic society.

If we look at some of those 19th century beliefs we can clearly see what Blair is about removing from our system.

Peelian Reform addresses the philosophy that Robert Peel provided to establish an ethical police force. In his principles, Peel states:

* Every police officer should be issued a badge number, to assure accountability for his actions.
* Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.

Sir Robert Peel’s Nine Principles:

Principle #1: The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

Principle #2: The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

Principle #3: Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

Principle #4: The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Principle #5: Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Principle #6: Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

Principle #7: Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of cummunity welfare and existence.”

Principle #8: Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

Principle #9: The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Anatole Kaletsky in the Times suggests that Blair has the opportunity enjoyed by no other British leader, at least since the Second World War. The question is how he can play the strong hand that fate has dealt him.

Simple really “Mr Blair can start by explaining why the EU constitution has failed. The voters of France and the Netherlands did not reject the principle of a constitution. What they voted against was the particular constitution offered by the EU’s governing elite. The reasons for this rejection are clear. The proposed constitution would have reinforced and then entrenched forever the worst features of the EU status quo: lack of democracy, excessive centralisation and economic dysfunction.”

Kaletsky says “These are the three great evils that Mr Blair must now try to overcome”

“Mr Blair’s challenge is to recognise such concepts and use them to redefine the “European project”. Instead of trying to create a homogenised euro-culture or single economic “model”, European countries should turn their inherent diversity to mutual advantage through economic competition and cultural exchange.

How could Mr Blair move Europe in this direction? By doing something unthinkable to Europe’s political classes, but blindingly obvious to voters: demanding the return of powers to nation governments from Brussels. In diplomatic jargon, he must start to unravel the acquis communautaire. The acquis is a convention that asserts that any responsibility transferred to Brussels can never be renationalised. It guarantees an irreversible accretion of power to the EU. Mr Blair should, as a matter of principle, announce his opposition to this anti-democratic juggernaut. He should show what he means in practice by proposing repatriation of specific policies, starting with issues such as regulations on working time and consumer protection, but aiming eventually for the biggest and most expensive policy — agriculture.

Even more important than disavowing the acquis, Mr Blair could emphasise the diversity of Europe by rejecting the concept of a single economic model to be followed by every EU country. The EU’s official economic policy (known as the Lisbon Agenda) is to create “the world’s most competitive economy by 2010”. This objective is not just embarrassingly unattainable, but deeply misguided. Europe is not a single economy. It is a single market; a community of democratic nations, whose citizens choose different economic and social priorities.”

In fact all Mr Blair has to do is to dismantle the EU and start again, I am quite sure that this will go down like the proverbial lead balloon in the halls of Brussels, and those who have spent the last fifty years taking the EU in exactly the opposite direction will welcome with open arms the destruction of the European dream.

Letters from the Telegraph on ID Cards

Sir - “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves” (William Pitt, 1783).

Rodney McGough, Harrogate, N Yorks

Sir - We are told that it is possible to track by satellite millions of cars and the distances they travel, and compute bills for each. It must be a small step to link ID cards to the satellite, to eliminate not only terrorism but also tax fraud.

David Brookman, Old Woodhouse, Leics

Sir - At an EU summit in Lisbon in April 2000, member states signed up to the “e-Europe Smart Cards Charter”. In October 2001 the EU Police Chiefs Task Force urged that “the EU should speed up the universal adoption of ID cards”.

We could have our movements and lifestyles tracked through the introduction of EU ID-cards, with the EU Galileo satellite system tracking motorists, via the EU Common Transport Policy. Yet Brussels makes unelected EU commissioners, members of its own police force Europol and other officials immune from criminal prosecution.

Mrs Val Cowell, Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancs

Sir - I am surprised the Government hasn’t proposed tattooing everyone with a number. More sophisticated would be an implanted chip such as my dog has -much cheaper than biometric ID cards.

Robert Roalfe, Wilmslow, Cheshire

Sir - We were denied a referendum to vote No to the new EU constitution. Perhaps Mr Blair could be persuaded to hold one for ID cards. He’d find out what people think before vast sums of our money are wasted on another crackpot scheme.

Trevor Jones, Corringham, Essex

This fantastic post from The England Project tells us everthing that is wrong with the Tory party, and shows how far they have to go before we can begin to trust them again.

Here is just one example of what I hate about politicians. Tory stated policy is not to oppose ID cards as a matter of principle, indeed they have stated that they actually support them in principle. What they do oppose is the current government’s ID card scheme and they will continue to do so unless it is changed so that it can be favourably judged against five distinct tests.

That is all on the record and no statement has been forthcoming from the Tory party to withdraw from this position.

Then we see the following release from the badly named web site conservatives.com. It takes the form of a pledge by David Davis, the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, that a future Tory government would abandon Labour’s controversial ID card scheme. The release is filled with what looks like anti-ID card rhetoric.

….Mr Davis warned that the scheme would “chip away at the basic liberties we would have come to hold dear, and which previous generations fought to protect”.

…an incoming Conservative administration would abandon the legislation and scrap the ID card scheme, Mr Davis stressed: “We will not be the party of such a move. The Home Secretary’s proposals represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state.

And the marvellous closing paragraph …”They are not just excessive, but also expensive. Not just illiberal, but also impractical. Not just unnecessary, but also unworkable. A vision rather like this was originally set out by a man called Blair who later changed his name to Orwell and wrote a book called 1984. It was supposed to be a warning. This government has used it as a text book.”

All fine and dandy and all designed to fool everyone into thinking that they are speaking out against ID cards as a matter of principle. But don’t be fooled, they are not.

There has not been a single statement withdrawing the Tory line of support in principle. All the above release from David Davis has said is that they will abandon the Labour scheme. There is not a single promise (would that be worth anything) or commitment to do anything other than this but, I suspect, most people (including the media) will swallow the line that the Tory party is an anti-ID card party hook, line and sinker.

And that’s what I hate about politicians; the politics. They made a statement of support for the principle because they were concerned that opposing ID cards would turn out to be a vote looser. In order to be able to fight for a position distinct from the Labour party they put up certain conditions to their support allowing them room for manoeuvre should their judgement about public support turn out to be false. Now that it looks like there is trouble ahead for the Labour scheme they come out fully against it using rhetoric designed to look like they are anti-ID card when it is nothing of the sort.

It’s all completely unprincipled. They are giving no lessons in anything other than political manoeuvring and they are darkening the very heart of what it means to be a true conservative (or true socialist or true anything for that matter).

No member of the public has learnt anything about what benefits there might be in a smaller state. No member of the public has witnessing a principled stand by an opposition party that is a real advocate of individual liberty. There has been no real progress in the debate and there have been no converts to the ideals of individual liberty due to anything the Tory party has done.

A conservative party would have made a proper fight of it and many, many people could have had that spark of liberty inside of them turned into a brighter flame.

I hate how these quislings have behaved.

So when the Euphiles keep telling us that the member states are in charge do they mean that they are in charge only so long as they understand that it’s all heading in the direction of more Europe, and the direction of deeper integration.

EU development commissioner, Louis Michel, said “The British Prime Minister has the upper hand, but to run a good presidency, it’s necessary that every-one else helps … We’ll help him, but on condition that it’s all heading in the direction of more Europe, and the direction of deeper (integration].”

Mr Blair’s conduct during the EU summit - his defence of the British rebate from the Union budget, his wider demand for budget reform and his call for EU leaders to heed the lesson of the French and Dutch No votes to the constitution - were seen by many federalists as evidence of a British plot to reduce Europe to a giant free trade zone.

He said that if the British presidency was only about “constructing, or cementing a Europe that is just a free market, then it is going to be difficult for him”.
Michel said Mr Blair’s idea of Europe was “manifestly that of an economic free trade zone, where, rather stupidly, countries still give in to internal competition” “As long as the British do not understand what the European model and the European project really are, we will have a certain number of problems.”

According to the Telegraph when the EU development commissioner, referring to last week’s budget row, defended EU agricultural subsidies, said the underlying cause of such squabbling was the EU’s inability to raise its own revenues is a call for a Union tax, collected by Brussels. Well obviously that is the intention in long run and the more problems there are agreeing the budget the more clarion will be the calls for an EU wide tax, the constitution is very clear about that intention.

EURSOC: So It Was A Treaty After All!: “So It Was A Treaty After All!

So It Was A Treaty After All!

By EURSOC One
03 June, 2005

As the dust settles after the massacre by the French and Dutch public’s ‘no’ vote, Europe’s desperate leaders and eurofanatics everywhere are scrambling to read the publics mind for a reason.

Anything will do as long as it doesn’t entertain the unthinkable that people actually don’t want Europe itself. It’s the treaty you see, not Europe.

So by pretending that it was one thing or another that upset voters, or merely their frustration on a domestic level, it can be revived, changed, manipulated and the show goes on.

The constitutional treaty was expressedly stuffed full of every possible clause and catch-alls imaginable so that everyone could claim that it represented their political bent. It was the total embodiment of Europe and legally designed to replace all previous treaties. It was proudly presented as a constitution for Europe.

If the French and Dutch had voted the way they were told then we would now be facing the full force of Europe’s leaders, puffed up in the knowledge that they had a mandate for a superstate called The United States of Europe, backed by its own constitution. Presumably President Chirac would be reiterating his earlier point that any country that voted no would have to leave the EU.

Now that the constitution is on death row, readers will note (as predicted by EURSOC) that it is now, conveniently, just a treaty again and even its architects are picking holes and pointing fingers at its faults.

The constitution was only ever a power grab, an attempt to legitimize the mad dream of EU utopia: Mad because anyone who knows Europe in its diversity and aspirations let alone its history will tell you that the one size fits all model is totally barmy.

Furthermore, contrary to what its proponents tell us nearly all European wars have been caused by the very same supranational fantasy of forcing Europeans to live under one roof.

What most Europeans want starts with democracy and freedom guaranteed at a national level, open government and their future firmly in their hands. What they want from Europe could be written on one piece of A4 paper and implemented without the Byzantine machinery of Brussels.

What Europeans don’t want is anybody’s particular vision of how they should live their lives (Mr Blair take note). Europeans want to run their own lives. Is that so bizarre? Grand visions will be strictly for the gallery and the press no one reads.

The European political class is about to embark on a process of setting out competing visions, more - or less - social protection, liberalism or not. All totally irrelevant as none of it will pass the people test and can only be implemented without democratic legitimacy.

Europe’s elite have been found out, the supranational model has no place in the modern world, citizens now inform themselves and make their own minds up: They want more say, not less.

It’s not time for reflection, as the great and good keep saying, it is time to stop the charade. This was a constitution for Europe, not a treaty, the people of France and Holland understood this and politely told them to stuff it.

Next time they may be less polite.

Eurealist :: Main Page: “View Article Who Wants the EU?
by Eurealist on May 14, 2005 08:35AM (BST)

Britain is seen as the hot house for Eusceptisism, we are expected to belive that we British Eusceptics are the only ones causing a nuisance, all the other peoples of the member states are happy to go along with the destruction of their countries independence, as our leaders forge a common European destiny.

However our leaders make absolutely sure that they are immune to the difficulties and problems caused by their designs for that nirvana of a new great world benign power “The United States of Europe”. In the Telegraph today we see that Mr Blair when he goes will retire on a pension that would have cost him £2.6 million, he of course has not had to contribute a penny to that nest egg.

The same is true all across the EU, the elite political class is ensuring even as they remove our rights to hold them to account for their actions, that they will not be affected by the financial fall out. They dismiss any opposition as either coming from the usual suspects who apparently have an interest in destroying the great plan or a mere populist propaganda.

In Germany the lower house of the government have now voted to approve the Constitution, just under 600 German MP`s have made a decision for over 80 million German people that their country will cease to exist in any meaningful way as an independent state.

But that is all right is it not because the German people voted them into office to make these decisions for them and of course the French politicians will now use this evidence of the will of the German people to make wavering Frenchmen feel isolated, so that they will also vote for the end of France. When that hurdle has been crossed it will be time for the Dutch to be pressured into accepting the Constitution and on it will go, until finally the British will fall under the same overwhelming power to vote for an end of Britian.

Full Post

Eurealist :: Electioneering for power at a local council: “Electioneering for power at a local council
by Eurealist at 09:09AM (BST) on April 25, 2005 | Permanent Link | Cosmos

I have been away for part of the week and then to busy to post much, as I have been relying on the main BBC news for information on the election, it has evident that the EU does not figure at all in the election debates. I did note on Sunday the article in the Telegraph “Europe is missing” a point taken up by William Rees-Mogg in the Times today.

How is it that at a time when we are being asked to elect a government, the biggest and most important issue to face every aspect of our lives, is pushed so far to the sidelines that no one is even prepared to debate the affects EU membership has on the policies of that government, this is a no go area, all of the main parties and the media, are for their own reasons refusing to enter into the debate. It is as the Telegraph says, only to be expected, given its marginal presence in the campaign and is perhaps the reason why an ICM poll shows that only 4 per cent of voters regard Europe as the most important issue in the election.

As Richard North at EU Referendum notes “Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the leader in The Sunday Telegraph today, rejoicing in the title ‘Europe is missing’, is that it was published at all.

In common with the political parties, the media itself has been at pains to avoid bringing the European Union into the cockpit of general election politics, yet it is precisely that phenomenon which the is remarked upon by the Telegraph.”

The Telegraph say “it would be a shame if European policy did not play a significant part in voters’ deliberations, as it is one of the areas where there is a pronounced difference between the two main parties. On the economy, for instance, Labour and the Tories quibble over whether the State should spend 42 or 40 per cent of the nation’s income. But on Europe, Mr Blair and Mr Howard offer quite different visions.”

Perhaps this is the point, conceivable it could be argued that the Conservative policy on the EU is intended not as a real alternative to Tony Blair’s Pro-EU and Pro-Constitutional stance, but is merely a sop to the Consevative core vote, in an attempt to attract voters back from UKIP. Thus it is not something the Conservatives want to make a big deal over, just in case they have to actually implement the policies of repatriating powers if elected. As any attempt at renegotiation is going to be rejected by the EU, failure will be that much more damaging to the party, if the Conservatives were elected on a clearly articulated policy, especially as Howard also says that he will not take Britian out of the EU if his negotiations fail. This part policy is looking less like promise to the people of this country to do something to repatriate powers from the EU and more like electioneering for power at a local council.

Michael Gove

Whatever the question, the answer is that these watchdogs are wrong

YOU CAN achieve anything in life, I was once told, if you always let someone else take the credit. True or not, it’s rarely been a principle close to Tony Blair’s heart. The man who asked for eye-catching initiatives on crime with which “I can personally be associated” is never going to win the award for Mr Diffident in the All-England Humility Championships.

But the Prime Minister has been happy to shuffle out of the limelight on one crucial question. The new European constitution. Just over a week ago the official question to be asked in the event of a UK referendum on the constitution was published without fanfare by the Government and approved by the Electoral Commission, the body designed to ensure fair play in all referendums and elections. The Government seemed only too happy to have the commission take responsibility for signing off on the question.

The reason why became clear just a few days later, when opinion polls showed that the approved question secured a response that was far more favourable to the EU constitution than any other test of public support. Half of a sample of more than 1,000 people was asked the government question: “Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty for establishing a Constitution for the European Union?” They split 39 per cent-39 per cent for and against. The other half of the sample was asked: “If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote for Britain to sign up to the EU Constitution or not?” Opinion in this case was 26 per cent in favour and 54 per cent against.

The Government thus seems to have achieved precisely what it wanted — a question on the ballot paper inviting the answer “yes” — by letting the Electoral Commission take the credit for approving that proposition.

It’s hardly surprising that ministers should be pleased with such a result. What is curious is the Electoral Commission’s role. Because the question produced breaks the rules on fairness on referendums. Which it drew up itself.

The Electoral Commission has noted that in the proposed question the constitution is not given its proper, suitably grandiose, title, “A Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”. The word “approve” is used which breaches the commission’s guidelines by granting the “yes” proposal a positive spin. And the question itself doesn’t make clear that the treaty which the UK is invited to approve doesn’t just apply to the distant EU but will affect Britain, indeed fundamentally change our own laws and constitution.

Yet even though the Electoral Commission’s own guidance has been breached by the Government, the commission itself has done nothing to uphold the rules. It has lent its authority, and therefore the mantle of objectivity, to a question that skews the debate overwhelmingly in one direction.

What makes the Electoral Commission’s role all the more worrying is that this isn’t the first occasion it has declined to police its own rules when the Government has been manipulating referendums. The commission’s first big test was the referendum on a North East assembly last November. From the beginning, voters should have been concerned. The Electoral Commission allowed Labour to press ahead with an all-postal ballot, even though its own work had revealed the potential for abuse in such a system.

And as the campaign went on, the commission signally failed to ensure that ministers stuck to the rules. On the eve of the vote, John Prescott tried to secure support for the “yes” side by announcing a “deal” with the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, which would give the new assembly additional powers. Not only did the “deal” apparently change the nature of what was being voted on after weeks of campaigning, it also involved Mr Prescott using his authority as a minister to influence a vote in which tight rules were supposed to limit the ability of Labour ministers to use the machinery of government.

It was a clear occasion where the Electoral Commission might have been expected to enforce its own rules, but no sanction was visited on Mr Prescott, the Government or the “yes” campaign. In the end, of course, the voters of the North East said “no”. But while that question was settled, others have been left hanging.

Who can we look to ensure fairness in future referendum campaigns? If the Electoral Commission won’t police government abuses in a limited referendum, and flunks the first test of its authority, can we really be confident that it will be robust on the much more contentious occasion of a nationwide EU referendum?

In any case, what guarantees do we have that government spending on a “yes” vote will be controlled? What monitoring of the EU’s own propaganda effort is going on? Given that the EU’s own accounts haven’t been properly audited for many years, how can we know that the sums it spends on persuasion are effectively policed?

And if the Electoral Commission approves a question which external testing demonstrates is skewed, how can we be certain it will be vigilant in ensuring that future material produced by the Government is balanced? The Electoral Commission is supposed to provide us with a guarantee of fair play in the most important arena of all — the battleground over who governs us. As a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate, I’m sure that the general election will proceed fairly. But in referendum contests where the Government has all the financial, and other, advantages of incumbency, the watchdog has never barked.

If the Electoral Commission would allow me, I have a question I’d like to ask well before any referendum. Do you think, after everything we’ve seen in the past seven years, and after the campaign tactics of the past seven days, that Mr Blair can be trusted to play fair in all future votes? Or do you think that it’s about time that our constitution was given stronger safeguards against the abuse of government power before we sign up to any other constitutions this Government likes the look of? I shan’t hold my breath for an answer.

Roger Knapman, leader of the UK Independence Party, is quoted in the Guardian as saying

“Mr Straw has already launched the government’s misinformation campaign, claiming that voting for an end to self-government is somehow patriotic. If the consequence of a No vote is an end to British membership of the EU, then isn’t Mr Blair proposing to ask the wrong question?”

The last sentence gives the Eusceptic the perfect rebut to the argument we are going to be faced with, that a No vote means we will have to leave the EU. Blair has set the question and it is not about leaving the EU, yet they are going to be campaigning as if it were. What he has done and intends to do in the campaign is to set one question and then try to make us believe it means something else. If Blair wishes to judge the feeling in the country about leaving the EU he should pose that question not the other one.

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle

Shyster lawyers and charlatans
Proof that this Parliament, apart from making bad law, doesn’t know the reason for repealing good law. I bet the traitor Blair knows though

Good work Anne, it’s a pity the Baroness Scotland couldn’t make a public apology, but hopefully by publishing this letter we can show this inept bunch of politicians up for what they are. Shyster lawyers and charlatans.

This is a copy of a letter from the Home Office dated 20.1.2005.

Dear Ms Palmer,

Thank you for your letters of 22nd November to Baroness Scotland about her answer to a recent parliamentary question from Lord Tebbit concerning treason legislation. This has been passed to the criminal Law Policy Unit of the home Office, which has responsibility for such legislation, and I have been asked to reply. I apologise for the delay in doing so.

As you rightly say, the answer given to Lord Tebbit’s question was incorrect because it sated that the Treason act 1795 was still in force when it was in fact repealed by the Crime and disorder Act 1998. Baroness Scotland has since written to Lord Tebbit correcting the mistake. A copy of her letter of 16 December (Which you will see has been placed in both the house Libraries) is enclosed for your information.

The Crime and disorder Act 1998 substituted a sentence of life imprisonment for the death penalty previous associated with offences of treason. You ask why, in the cases of the Treason acts of 1790, 1q795, 1817 and the Treason by women (Ireland) Act 1796, the whole Act was repealed; and why, in the case of the Treason Felony Act 1848, section 2 was repealed.

We know that the Treason act 1790 and the Treason by Women Act 1796 were repealed in their entirety because they did no more than provide for the death penalty for women convicted of treason; and that the repeals of the 1817 Act and section 2 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 were consequential to the repeal of the 1795 Act. However, I am afraid that, 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 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).

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 s