eurealist.co.uk

I was astounded last night, whilst watching the BBC`s light hearted political programme “This Week”, when Diane Abbott the left leaning Labour MP and BBC lovey slipped in a comment about the Conservatives, “many Tories hate the European Convention on Human Rights because it is foreign, and that many Tories are deeply authoritarianism and they resent the European Convention because of that” (authoritarianism). Needless to say this comment was not challenged by either the presenter Andrew Neil or the other team member ex Tory MP and erstwhile candidate for the conservative leadership, Michael Portillo.

As they were discussing David Cameron’s announcement that he would like to see a British Bill of Rights, which many might see as a beacon of hope for the British people, to start to reverse the authoritarian incursions on our rights being made by the Blair group, it speaks volumes for the BBC impartiality. It also indicates a total lack of understanding of the problems Blair is creating, Abbots attempt to smear the conservative party with oppression of the peoples rights is breath taking.

Henry Porter writing in the Independent today ”In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order, Tony Blair’s Government has quietly and systematically taken power from Parliament and the British people. The author charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the danger of trading freedom for security - and must have Churchill spinning in his grave”

“Last year - rather late in the day, I must admit - I started to notice trends in Blair’s legislation which seemed to attack individual rights and freedoms, to favour ministers (politicians appointed by the Prime Minister to run departments of government) over the scrutiny of Parliament, and to put in place all the necessary laws for total surveillance of society.

There was nothing else to do but to go back and read the Acts - at least 15 of them - and to write about them in my weekly column in The Observer”

“if rights have been eroded in the land once called “the Mother of Parliaments”, it can happen in any country where a government actively promotes the fear of terrorism and crime and uses it to persuade people that they must exchange their freedom for security.

Blair’s campaign against rights contained in the Rule of Law - that is, that ancient amalgam of common law, convention, and the opinion of experts, which makes up one half of the British constitution - is often well concealed. Many of the measures have been slipped through under legislation that appears to address problems the public is concerned about.”

Others have been slipped though under innocent looking legislation which itself was introduced after a media campaign, how often did we hear ministers talking about the drunkenness in society, when they decided they needed to do something about it we had the 2002 licensing act. An act which in no way addresses the concerns voiced previously by minister but does move the whole of the licensing regime into the civil sphere, which can be controlled by government ministers. It also gives the power of entry and search of any property with force if needed, without a search warrant being required to any policeman, it also undermines the English Common Law concept that we are all equal under the law, by allowing the police or local council officers to go on fishing expeditions, that is sending under age youngsters into a licensed premises with the intention of purchasing alcohol.

Not all Labour MP`s are as blinkered as Diane Abbott or the BBC; Bob Marshall-Andrews - a Labour MP says of Blair and Nu-Labour “Underneath, there is an unstable authoritarianism which has seeped into the [Labour] Party.”

A good article in the Times by Michael Portillo

Comment: Michael Portillo: The escape door’s open, but Blair stays on as EU hostage - Sunday Times - Times Online

The integrationists want a constitution, president and foreign minister because those are the attributes of a nation state. The treaty does not bring about a United States of Europe, but it seeks to accustom us to the terminology and institutions of a country called Europe. It lays the ground for further integration that will doubtless be proposed if the constitution is ratified.

There is no evidence that the British people want to travel towards constructing a country of Europe. The government recognises that. It denies that we are heading there. But why then have a constitution, president and foreign minister? The main reason to vote no is that the EU has proposed no way of making its institutions democratic. That a democratic deficit exists is common ground between integrationists and their opponents. Little is being done to address it. There is no proposal to elect the European commission (which provides appointments for those, like Peter Mandelson, who have failed in national democratic politics).

Our experiences with the European parliament are not encouraging. We vote not for candidates but for parties. Those elected are chosen by the parties, not the people. Voters have little sense of choosing between competing policies in Europe. Elections are held at the same time in every country, but they are really 25 national elections.

Those problems are not easily wished away. Europe lacks a Europe-wide political consciousness. We Europeans do not have the Americans’ sense of nationhood. We have not defined what political values we share. Yes, we are all broadly supportive of liberty and democracy, but a Frenchman and a Briton have fundamentally different views about the power of the state and the citizen’s defences against it.