I fear the EU , will I be criminalised?

Since writing my only novel in the mid 1990s I have been a vocal critic of the direction of what is now the EU. As soon as I discovered blogspot (now eight years old ...Happy Birthday Blogspot!) I have used it on various blogs to probe and uncover the direction of this non-democratic monstrosity. I have gone on so long and so obsessively that many might consider me xenophobic, which as I have pointed out in the posting below will potentially criminalise me under Article 61 of the new treaty, though I suspect this provision has already been slipped in somewhere else in the EU law-making process. What do I fear about the EU? Pretty well everything actually, the manner the Reform Treaty is being rammed through provides a splendid encapsulation of all that has gone wrong. Other areas are the non-taxability of the pensions of its officials, the fact that such pensions can be forfeited if ex-officials critices any aspect of the ghastly construct, the self-serving nature of its policies to the outside world driven perhaps by the means in which it gathers its 'own resources' and then blithely spends them as it wills supremely untroubled by the fact that year after year its auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts. The toothless European Parliament which makes a condition of its largesse to its totally non-productive members, total obedience to the goals of the Union, thus neutering even its supposed opponents such as the UKIP. Now the EU plans to make itself subservient to a secretive Politburo, the European Council, and President where not one National Leader has had the guts to publicly question the disgusting concept of a binding mandate to the IGC which effectively neuters 27 national parliaments for all time! Does the new 'Reform' Treaty remove the provisions under which its officials and ex-officials can totally avoid national taxation and therefore the consequences of policies? If not how can it possibly be called a reform? I fear the EU, my fears, I believe, are not xenophobic, they are borne out by the facts as I analyse them. But under Article 61 who will decide? Why is it needed? What will happen to freedom of thought and expression?

How can you police "fear'?

The draft Treaty has this clause "Article 61 1. The Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. 2. It shall ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity between Member States, which is fair towards third-country nationals. For the purpose of this Title, stateless persons shall be treated as third-country nationals. 3. The Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and through measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws. 4. The Union shall facilitate access to justice, in particular through the principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extrajudicial decisions in civil matters." xenophobia, in English anyway is defined as: " hatred or fear of foreighners or strangers or their politics or cultures". What measures is the EU to take to prevent or combat my fear if I suspect a strange looking character on my bus or train might be carrying a bomb? Am I being xenophobic if nothing blows up - on the other hand am I still to be considered guilty of this thought crime if the bus blows up after I get off and I then reveal my earlier fears? Does society really want 'Thought Police'?

Career first and Democracy can Die?

A quote from the Financial Times, linked here:

The threat of a backbench rebellion was raised after Ian Davidson, a Labour MP and long-time eurosceptic, wrote to the prime minister asking him to listen to his “own people rather than the European political and bureaucratic elites”. His letter followed a decision by pro-European unions to support a motion for a referendum at next month’s TUC Congress because the treaty threatened workers’ rights.

Mr Davidson claimed to have widespread private support, including ministers, but said the MPs had yet to speak out because “it is not a career enhancing move”. The link came from a well linked summary on the Reform Treaty in the US Jurist site, linked here, it is some small comfort that Europe's edging towards non-democratic tyranny is at least being followed by some with a knowledge of the concept of the fragility and importance of individual rights and the desperate need for the ballot box as a veto on the abuse of power. Euractiv has more on the MEP press release covered earlier, here. They believe political issues will now be raised!

Britain's economic abyss

After months of disputation with the UK Inland Revenue over money of mine they refused to return, some of which they sit upon to this day, I realised that the UK Treasury were in extremely dire straits after the past ten plus years of Brown's smoke and mirrors. The prison officers walkout yesterday reinforced this strong whiff of crisis. IF the independent pay review recommended a 2.5 per cent rise, then at this moment of crisis in Britain's prisons, giving them anything less is either the grossest incompetence or clear proof of a pending economic collapse. An Australian hedge fund went under yesterday and even the usually cheerful local SW news 'Spotlight' had a gloomy item on the looming house price bust. Not much of any of this in the morning press, but Camilla Cavendish in The Times has a good column, linked here, from which comes this quote: Which just goes to show, I suppose, that idiocy is no more a bar to promotion in the City than anywhere else. People who complimented themselves on their brilliance at inventing ever more complex financial instruments with which to spread risk had started to act as though risk had been abolished. The problem is that the actions of the US Federal Reserve and Britain's Treasury under Gordon Brown, effectively achieved just that- indicating they would always underpin the fantasy world which they themselves had created. Until some major casualties are allowed to reap the consequences of their profligacy the final crunch will just be that much worse.

Negotiation by Diktat

The three MEP representing the European Parliament in the non-negotiations underway in the so-called "Inter-Governmental Conference" or IGC on the unalterable mandate handed down from the non-democratic and secret European Council meeting of last June have issued the following obscure press release, linked here. Slightly more light is thrown on what they might be hinting at what they are trying not to reveal is provided by EUPolitix linked from here. The following is what they say they intend:

Brok the parliament’s former foreign affairs committee chair, in an article to be published in the next issue of the Parliament Magazine is adamant that the IGC’s mandate, reached by EU leaders in June, should not be compromised.

“For the European parliament, it is of the utmost importance that the mandate for the IGC is fulfilled as agreed,” says Brok.

“The parliament will not demand any politically motivated changes to be made, but we will also not accept any demands by member states to revise the given mandate.”

They then continued, apparently, with suggestions as to changes each would like to see being made or clarifications undertaken. Excellent, for if one substantial change is made from the mandate then the whole house of cards will, of course, come tumbling down. This Brok person, supposedly a close associate of Angela Merkel and part of the dreadfully federalist and overbearing EPP block in the parliament, to which Cameron's Tories still belong maintaining it as the largest block to our nations continuing cost, has been pretty high profile of late, so here are some Google results for the benefit of my own research and my treasured readers. Elmar Brok - EU Parliament Profile; EPP Press Release on his appointment to Reform Treaty Conference; Stop moaning or leave the EU, Brok tells Britain; Britain's EU opt outs humiliating.

Former Labour Home Secretary calls for a referendum

"The Government has a long way to go in providing a proper answer to the demands for a referendum on the new European Union treaty. And Foreign Office ministers still need to give a decisive answer to accusations that the treaty is not really any different to the EU Constitution that was rejected by the voters of France and Holland. What horrifies me is the growing demand from trade unions for a nationwide ballot... But most important is the need to take an entirely new look at what we want from Europe. We need a different sort of EU - not one built on someone's vision of the 1950s but a vision of what Europe should be like well into the 21st Century." David Blunkett attacking the Government in his 'Sun' column.

Foreign Office Lying - Oil and Fish

The web pages of the FCO on the EU include one on the subject of so-called EU myths, linked here, the final one of which states: Greedy EU chiefs will snatch Britain’s North Sea oil if Tony Blair signs up to the planned EU constitution, it was revealed last night. The draft proposal for the treaty has a secret clause demanding power over Europe’s energy supply.

The Sun, 29 May 2003

The proposed EU Reform Treaty states:

==================================

Difficulties in the supply of certain products (energy) 84) Article 100(1) shall be replaced by the following: "1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy." =================================== Solidarity in an energy crisis can only mean sharing the misery, in other words 'allocation' of supplies. If Britain at the time of crisis were 90 per cent self-sufficient in energy and the rest of the EU were some 90 per cent short of supplies, sharing the misery would put the UK at a shortage of maybe 89 per cent along with the rest of the Continent! That to me represents a loss of control of our North Sea oil and gas just as surely as we were illegally tricked out of our fisheries, which is now so long past that it can be brazenly stated as an EU resource very early in the draft Treaty, rather than tucked away on page 74 of 145 as may be viewed from here. The fisheries loss is repeatedly rammed home: Article 3 on Page 46: Article 3 1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas: (a) customs union; (b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market; (c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro; (d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy; (e) common commercial policy. 2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope. And on Page 53: Agriculture and fisheries 45) In the heading of Title II, the words "AND FISHERIES" shall be added. 46) Article 32(1) shall be amended as follows: (a) the word "fisheries" shall be inserted after "agriculture"; (b) the following sentence shall be added at the end of the paragraph: "References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term "agricultural", shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector." Christopher Booker has had the most to say on this topic down the years, 'Britain and Europe: The Culture of Deceit', linked here, is particularly apt, I quote: "Another revealing measure of how deeply the culture of deceit had now set in was the curious story of the common fisheries policy, and the Heath Government’s response to the crude ambush set up by the Six to ensure that, as part of their price of entry, the four applicant countries, Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway, would have to hand over to the Community their fishing waters, the richest in the world. ^{(all documents cited on the CFP are from PRO files in FO 30/656-9)}

On the very day the applications went in, June 30 1970, the Six hastily approved the principle that member-states should be given “equal access” to each other’s fishing waters, under Brussels control. The point was that, because this had now become part of the acquis communautaire, the body of existing Community law, the applicant countries would have to accept it as a fait accompli. Within a few years, as everyone knew, national fishing waters were due to be extended out under international law to 200 miles. Because the waters belonging to the four applicant states would then contain most of the fish in European waters, this would give the Six an astonishing prize.

In fact the Six knew their new fisheries policy was not even legal. Among the Foreign Office papers released in 2001 was an internal Council of Ministers document, dating from June1970, which shows how desperate the Brussels lawyers had been to find some article in the Treaty of Rome which could be used to authorise such a policy. There was none. The policy therefore had no legal justification, and other papers show that the Foreign Office knew this too.

But so determined was Mr Heath not to offend his prospective new partners that he decided not to challenge them. Britain would simply accept the illegal new fisheries policy, even though this would mean handing over one of her greatest renewable natural assets and would spell disaster for a large part of her fishing fleet.

Gradually the British fishermen got some idea that they were about to be sacrificed, and in the closing months of 1970 various MPs for fishing constituencies wrote to ministers asking what on earth was going on. They were fobbed off with evasive replies. Indeed, as the recently released papers show, civil servants eventually worked out a careful form of words, intended to reassure the fishermen that “proper account would be taken of their interests”. But behind the scenes, as a Scottish Office memo put it on November 9, ministers were being told how important it was not to get drawn into detailed explanations of just what problems might lie ahead for the fishermen because, “in the wider UK context, they must be regarded as expendable”.

The following year the White Paper promised that Britain would not sign an accession treaty until the Common Market’s fisheries policy was changed, Geoffrey Rippon repeated this promise to Parliament and to the Tory Party conference. But in November Mr Heath realised that time was running out. Unless he accepted the fishing policy as it stood, his plans for Britain’s entry in January 1973 would have to be abandoned. He instructed Rippon to give way, and when Rippon was questioned about this in the House of Commons on December 13, he answered with a straight lie. He claimed Britain had retained complete control over the waters round her coastline, knowing that this was simply not true. So barefaced was this deceit over fishing rights that successive governments and fisheries ministers would continue to obfuscate the truth of what had been done for the next three decades."

Thanks to some very detailed research in Denmark, which I linked from a posting on this blog last evening, doubts now also hang over Edward Heath's role as EU negotiator in 1961. Is it not now time for the Conservative Party to admit their role in this entire sorry history and put forward a new way ahead for Britain and its relations with Europe. This Reform Treaty which I have now fully read is so entirely unacceptable for any independent nation state that full debate can surely be no longer shrugged aside, especially with the FCO offering mostly untrue juvenile claptrap on its website to put against the repeated untruth's of Foreign Office Ministers, Miliband and Murphy?

Stoiber for President?

An worrying discussion of where Germany is today and where it may next be headed in the Trumpet, linked from here, it is by Ron Fraser and titled 'Germany on the rise, Merkel on the wain', and curiously dated October 2007, how time flies!

How the EU became self-financing or 'Sovereignty Lost'

An interesting background paper on the sixties, Edward Heath, and where we find ourselves, linked here:

Paper for the 9^th Biennial EUSA Conference

31 March – 2 April 2005

Austin, Texas

SOVEREIGN STATES AND SUPRANATIONAL MONEY

Own Resources, and the Creation of a Financial Platform for the EU

Ann-Christina L. Knudsen, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of European Studies

Aarhus University, Denmark

euroalk@hum.au.dk

The Conservative Party and the EU

David Cameron has finally come out and spoken on the EU, astutely he has chosen the Sun newspaper as his forum, read it from here. I have never supported David Cameron as leader of the main opposition party and have been critical from well before his election. The following comments are, however, intended to be constructive as with the present political situation it now appears certain that he will be the only creditable alternative at the next General Election. 'Dave' has sold himself as a moderniser, and in modern politics it has recently been true that outright lying, disingenuosity, deviousness, deceit, hiding your past, never admitting mistakes and putting self at the forefront of your own political objectives have all become standard practice under the catch-all heading of 'spin'. David Cameron, if he is ever to be Prime Minister must now rid himself of such associations. In re-inventing himself he must do what he has stated was his first objective upon election, namely restoring the credibility and reputation of the Conservative Party which he has so far only further sullied. To accomplish such a feat he must return to the lies of Edward Heath, identify those accomplices to such lies still powerful within his party and establish an honest and clear position regarding Britain's future in the EU which now affects EVERY area of national policy. Mr Cameron must re-manufacture 'modern' to mean 'honest', to do that will require nailing some longstanding buried skeletons. Ironis that Toby Helm today mentions fear of a Labour split possibly forcing a referendum. A split there must be in both parties, for the EU elephant may no longer be ignored.

Labour revolt strengthens

The Telegraph this morning has the encouraging news that up to 120 Labour MPs may now be backing the EU Reform Treaty rebellion, read the report by Toby Helm, from here. The Daily Mail also gives the subject some coverage. David Cameron has reportedly also had something to say on the matter in this morning's Sun. I will be commenting on that hypocrisy following his Shadow Justice Minister, Nick Herbert's, shameful pretence over the weekend, on TV, that a British Bill of Rights could somehow negate the EU's 2004 ruling on the free movement of the EU's cowed,watched and registered citizenry.

Greek view of EU Reform Treaty

The following is from a statement issued by the Greek Embassy in the US, linked here. GREECE SUPPORTS EU REFORM TREATY Addressing the Greek Parliament's Foreign and European Affairs Committee on July 5, Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis discussed the new European Union Reform Treaty which was decided at the EU summit meeting of June 21-22. Greece, she said, had played a leading role in gathering a group of EU countries which gave the German presidency the ability to construct a difficult but acceptable compromise. The result, Ms. Bakoyannis said, was a new treaty which preserves the essence of the abandoned constitutional treaty. It may not have incorporated the charter of fundamental rights, but it ensured the binding power of its provisions. The title of “EU foreign minister” may have been lost, but the powers remain. Similarly, the reform treaty preserved the Constitution's proposed provisions for coordinated action on issues such as those affecting island regions and tourism and affirmed Europe's ground-breaking decisions on climate change while ensuring the cooperation of member-states on energy issues. The foreign minister spoke also of Greece at the core of countries which favor “enhanced and unconditional cooperation” to achieve further political convergence within the EU. And she also referred favorably to the Reform Treaty's provision for a more potent role for national parliaments.

Sunday Times editorial finally calls for a Referendum

The item may be read from here, it carries the heading: 'Let the people speak' About time too, now let us hope the broadcast media follow suit with some proper documentaries revealing the detail of this dreadful EU Reform Treaty, and possibly a few more Labour MPs doing their duty and stopping the whole thing where it should be halted, on the floor of the House of Commons! Meantime the Sunday Telegraph has seen the new EU budget, read from here how millions of Britain's contributions will be spent in areas where Brown claims we have 'effective' opt outs.

The pledge and promise of Gordon Brown

The following came from the present Prime Minister of our Westminster Parliament, the sole Parliament England is presently allowed, soon to be neutered by this same man in breach of his party's firm manifesto commitment to a referendum: ‘As a Member of Parliament elected by a Scottish Constituency, I hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all my actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.' Read the entire article on 'Englishness' by Michael Knowles, linked from here.

Contact the democracy destroying Labour Party direct

The Labour Party, in breach of their manifesto promise, is allowing their Government to sell out our sovereignty and bind all future parliaments to work primarily in the best interests of the non-democratic EU, an even worse loss of liberty than in the original EU Constitutional Treaty. Give that party your views directly from this link. Perhaps the Treaty can then be halted in the proper place: OUR Westminster Parliament.

Freedom of movement in the EU

As pointed out earlier, here, the medias and oppositions attack on the Human Rights legislation when criticising the decision to allow the killer of Headmaster Philip Lawrence to remain in Britain after his release was entirely misplaced. The 'culprit' in this case is the EU's freedom of movement rules, one of the more popular elements of the EU but only made possible by the Big Brother transnational daatabase of the Schengen Agreement. The latest rules were issue in 2004 and may be read in full from here, I quote what seem to me the most relevant portion in this case: (23) Expulsion of Union citizens and their family members on grounds of public policy or public security is a measure that can seriously harm persons who, having availed themselves of the rights and freedoms conferred on them by the Treaty, have become genuinely integrated into the host Member State. The scope for such measures should therefore be limited in accordance with the principle of proportionality to take account of the degree of integration of the persons concerned, the length of their residence in the host Member State, their age, state of health, family and economic situation and the links with their country of origin. 1 OJ 56, 4.4.1964, p. 850. Directive as last amended by Directive 75/35/EEC (OJ 14, 20.1.1975, p. 14). 30.4.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 158/ _______________________________________________________________________________ 85 (24) Accordingly, the greater the degree of integration of Union citizens and their family members in the host Member State, the greater the degree of protection against expulsion should be. Only in exceptional circumstances, where there are imperative grounds of public security, should an expulsion measure be taken against Union citizens who have resided for many years in the territory of the host Member State, in particular when they were born and have resided there throughout their life. In addition, such exceptional circumstances should also apply to an expulsion measure taken against minors, in order to protect their links with their family, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, of 20 November 1989. How is it possible that Government ministers (Home Office and Justice) and the media can be so ill informed on the rules by which we are governed? Gross incompetence the only answer.

Supreme ignorance from Jim Murphy - Europe Minister

I heard Murphy last evening on Channel 4 evening news blathering that the EU Reform Treaty was specific to Britain, that we had our own version and all the others France, Germany, Spain etc., their own. Can this really now be the Government's sole defence for not providing a referendum? I now see this is a line he had earlier fed to the BBC Radio 4 'World at One' programme, the transcript can clearly not be believed by our own diplomats in Oslo who have issued it as a press release, linked here. I will merely quote the extraordinary final paragraph where he actually stated the following: JIM MURPHY: The list goes on of course, Martha, because what happened is that the UK has signed up to a specific unique UK version of the treaty, not only the issue of the protocol that we've spoken about already but the automatic opt-out on new proposals on our criminal justice system, justice and home affairs. So we have decided that we would wish to have a UK-specific version of the new treaty. Other countries of course, and France, Germany, Ireland, will do their own thing in their own way but we're in the business of looking after the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom's interest, but co-operating with Europe when it makes sense to do so and on things like security, the environment, economic liberalisation, of course it does and will continue to do so.

No extradition from Manchester to Exeter!

The furore and muddled thinking in government and the media following the outcry from the widow of murdered headmaster Philip Lawrence over his killer being allowed to stay in England at the end of his sentence is predictable and insulting. Cue the sound of many chickens coming home to roost. It is not a matter of human rights it is a matter of EU law as the killer's solicitor amply explained on Channel 4 news last evening but the waffling immigration lawyer Iain MacDonald QC on Radio 4 Today this morning at 0709 was at a loss to make coherent, denying a connection with freedom of movement. Home Office Minister Tony McNulty was similarly all at sea yesterday saying his department would dispute the ruling. The interview with the distraught widow in the prime interview spot on that same programme at 0810 - was equally a disgrace. Listen to both from the programmes 'Listen Again' facility linked here. (The interviewer of Jack Straw presently underway as I finish this post is making a better job at grasping the essence, Jack Straw is floundering and obfuscating). Ministers and lawyers know perfectly well why extradition is now impossible. Milan and London are in the same monstrous non-democratic jurisdiction with the present farce of the human rights charter and human rights legislation being paid lip service while the power grab, promoted by all three political parties in England and the broadcast media promoting the conspiracy as it enters its final stages. When that is complete see how long our freedom of movement and other rights are removed - without the power to periodically remove our rulers human rights are a meaningless concept. Our country has been sold out just as our parliament stands at risk this Autumn. There is no longer a UK therefore to suggest extraditing a convicted member of the duped masses on the basis he carries the passport of one ex-nation-state rather than another is complete farce. Confusion reigns in the printed media as well, read the Daily Mail from here or worse the Telegraph's Home Affairs Editor from here. Good news for once, the Daily Telegraph petition for a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty, has today passed the fifty thousand mark, read from here. Readers of this blog I feel sure have already signed up if they are going to...... but how about your friends and family?

FCO lying continues

The Times this morning carries an article offering final proof that the EU Reform Treaty is the Constitutional Treaty in different packaging as confirmed by senior EU figures responsible for the original Constitutional Treaty, link here. The Telegraph meanwhile carries a report of German interference in the British proposed ratification procedures, read from here. Meantime the Foreign Office returns to its oft repeated selective quote from the mandate that opposition politicians should by now have totally nailed and repudiated, as follows, I quote: A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman said: “Let’s be clear, the Reform Treaty is not the Constitutional Treaty – in form or content. The mandate says so in terms, ‘The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them by a single text called Constitution, is abandoned’. In fact of course the entire paragraph reads as follows: Quote I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 1. The IGC is asked to draw up a Treaty (hereinafter called "Reform Treaty") amending the existing Treaties with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the enlarged Union, as well as the coherence of its external action. The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them by a single text called "Constitution", is abandoned. The Reform Treaty will introduce into the existing Treaties, which remain in force, the innovations resulting from the 2004 IGC, as set out below in a detailed fashion. Unquote As repeatedly pointed out starting from here in mid-July that means the terms of the old constitution will mainly be retained.

Foreign Office lies must be exposed

The clear lies which continue to be repeated by Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office must be exposed and those responsible brought to account. The pattern of the lying, its continuation over several months, its repetition by two different Secretaries of State and two different Ministers for Europe and apparently supported by various of their officials must bring the whole department into complete contempt by the diplomats and Foreign Ministries of other countries thus despoiling the reputation of the entire British nation which the Department supposedly exists to enhance. Worse still is the fact that the lies in the main have been made to various committees of Parliament, the elected representatives of the British people, to whom all government departments should be held accountable. When Parliament once again convenes the lies that have been put about by the Foreign Office over the "negotiations" for the terms of the EU Reform Treaty should be at the forefront of its concerns. So how can I be so certain that these Ministers of the Crown have been lying, clearly aided and abetted by the present Prime Minister and his immediate predecessor. Let's look at the facts, on the record, as confirmed both by Hansard and more importantly by the Foreign Office's very own document on the Reform Treaty CM7174, priced at nine pounds but more cheaply and conveniently available in pdf format from this link. Note the final paragraph which has already been highlighted by this blog here, which is the negotiating authority to Britain's representatives to the Intergovernmental Conference which is supposedly negotiating the final terms of the Treaty, it simply states: "These remain our guiding principles for the IGC, which needs to follow precisely the terms of the Mandate agreed at the June European Council." In other words the mandate which then follows must be followed in every last detail (which fact has been repeatedly stressed by national leaders across the EU). Yet the Government's position throughout the run up to the parliamentary summer recess was that no negotiations had yet taken place. The British Government is therefore asking our MPs and therefore the electorate to believe that the detailed drafting changes and major losses of veto to QMV and consequently sovereignty were all put together by the national leaders at the two day European Council meeting where Britain was represented by a PM since resigned from Parliament and national affairs and a Foreign Secretary incapable of even running DEFRA. Yet even the document that proposes such a preposterous notion proves this is not the case. Scroll to the top of Page 9 of the pdf document, where the first paragraph begins as follows: "The Government therefore secured an important safeguard in negotiations" So negotiations did take place, they were on behalf of the Government and not attained solely by Blair at the Council meeting as is perfectly obvious from reading the whole document linked above and the full exchanges of the ministers to the various parliamentary committees, highlights of which are linked and quoted below. These evasions and disinformation were repeated on the floor of the House of Commons as I will show over the coming days. What should the public and/or their MP now do when the leaders of the two opposition parties who silence on this grave matter seems to make them guilty by collusion in this disgraceful conspiracy which has as its aim the destruction of our system of independent parliamentary democracy. (In fact there is evidence that some of those negotiations were put into effect before the EU Council even took place, presumably by a COREPER ruling which must have been sanctioned by the Foreign Office, see my report on EU legality from here and here, which latter was forwarded to an MP, an MEP and the then Labour Party MP, then leader of the influential Commons Home Affairs Committee whose powers had been thus trashed.) Herewith a few of the lies from Parliamentary Hansard reports... Mrs Beckett at the European Affairs Committee 07/06/07, linked from here Chairman......

What they really mean is they see negotiations going on in secret, behind a Chinese wall, denying them any access to the process.

Margaret Beckett: They are not.

------------------

Margaret Beckett: You say it is on the table. Actually, as far as I know, it is not on the table. We do not know what is on the table at present.

Mr Cash: It is a joke. You do not even know as Foreign Secretary what is going on.

Q17 Chairman: Please show some discipline.

Margaret Beckett: May I say in response to that it is not that I do not know what is going on. It is because nothing is going on.

------------------ Mr Cash........

. I would just like to invite you to give some indication as to how it is that you are not in possession of the sort of information that we would have assumed the Foreign Secretary of this country would be in possession of in all other previous negotiations at a similar stage in the run up to a proposed treaty.

Margaret Beckett: You say to me, "We know that there are party to party negotiations." There are not. There have not been. There has been a process whereby Member States were occasionally invited to give some views. There have not been negotiations.

Q23 Mr Cash: You do not know what is going on.

Margaret Beckett: There is nothing going on.

-------------------------

Mrs Beckett at the Foreign Affairs Committee 19/06/07 linked here

NOTE that this minutes have not yet been approved by the Committee.

Q170 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I just made the point that negotiations have been taking place, but clearly not with you.

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but I do not accept the characterisation that they are negotiations. ------------------------ For a report on the new Europe Minister, Jim Murphy's equally disgraceful performance read the posting on that subject from Open Europe blog, linked here.

EU sugar trade blackmail

The following comes from the Mauritius Times linked here:

The ACP countries which are signatories to the existing EU-ACP Sugar Protocol (SP) are being asked to renounce the current guarantees of the Sugar Protocol -- market access for agreed quantities for an indefinite duration, annually negotiated guaranteed prices and a special legal status.

In return, what they are being offered is enhanced market access opportunities -- but without country quotas, for a short-lived period, at unspecified lower non-guaranteed prices, and at a lower return per tonne.

After an assessment of the EU offer at the ACP Special Ministerial Conference on sugar in Fiji and at the ACP Ministerial Council comprising the 79 ACP States in May 2007, the ACP responded to the Commission to state that the EU offer "is tantamount to a unilateral renunciation of the Sugar Protocol and as such it is totally unacceptable."

In reply, the Commission has threatened a �unilateral denunciation of the Sugar Protocol� should the SP countries not agree �on jointly renouncing the Protocol and integrating sugar into Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). The triumphalistic EU, fresh from its scheming to rob Europeans of their democracies, now returns to another of its preferred policies of grinding the faces of the poor into the dirt. We blogged on the outrageous trade practices over sugar subsidies on Ironies way back in in April 2004 here, May 2004 here and here and again that same August linked here when we reported and linked that these practices had been declared illegal by the WTO, what would that matter to an organisation such as the noxious EU, ways around legality or freely expressed democratic opposition will always be found as witness the EU Reform Treaty. Now it appears that the poor former colonies of Britain, France and Portugal are being picked out for particular vilification.

Open Europe Treaty Guide

Open Europe, linked here, has published a comparative guide to the EU Reform Treaty and the earlier Constitutional Treaty, download from here, which conclusively confirms they are all but one and the same and makes a complete mockery of the integrity of any Government minister who continues to argue to the contrary. Dishonest liars is the best description for such men who include ex-PM Tony Blair, the present Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the Foreign Minister David Miliband and the Europe (EU) Minister Jim Murphy. The fact that they are making such a clearly false assertion is even more despicable when it is clear their motives are to wriggle out of a promise given by each of them and all their elected MPs to hold a referendum on such a document. The shame these men are bringing on the UK legislative procedures is so great that the consequences are beyond even my ability to predict. The complicity of the broadcast media and much of the press is almost equally shameful. Later this weekend I plan to bring together the conflicting statements that when read together prove conclusively the depth of the anti-democratic conspiracy presently underway at the heart of government.

You are about to lose your democracy - YES YOU!

What the 27 leaders of the EU's supposed democracies have agreed for their Parliaments' future role in governance: Title II – Provisions on democratic principles 7) Insertion of a new Article on the role of national parliaments in the Union reading as follows: “National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union: a) through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft European legislative acts forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union; b) by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; c) by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article [III-260], and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust’s activities in accordance with Articles [III-276 and III-273]; d) by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article [IV-443 and IV-444]: e) by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article [49]; f) by taking part in the interparliamentary cooperation between national parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union." Was it for this that our forefathers sacrificed so much? Where have the rights and freedoms of centuries of struggle been assigned - to the all powerful and totally new European Council of the 27 self-serving National Leaders that's where! Those same leaders who have ordered the IGC document enact their mandate without change! Look at the deceit and underhand double dealing involved in ramming this treaty through and ask yourselves, especially in France and Holland where the peoples stated will is being ruthlessly ignored, due you really want people such as these having total control over every detail of your life? Ah you might say, but we have the Charter of Fundamental Rights, then answer this, who gave it to you? And then consider - MIGHT THEY THEN NOT ALSO BE ABLE TAKE IT AWAY - can you really rely upon individuals the likes of these for freedom, justice and the safety and well-being of your own families? Of course they will, when their own control is threatened, the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have less value than toilet paper. History should teach us that! Wake up, time is getting ever shorter, they plan to sign this in October.

ECB Independence

There are growing signs of powerful opposition to the EU Reform Treaty provisions changing the status of the ECB. And in the process thereby destroying the Central Bank's independence. Hardly a sensible move at a time of growing financial uncertainty. One example of such serious thought amongst federalists is linked here, I quote only the conclusion:

Conclusion

Of course lowering the degree of independence of the ECB is a serious risk as it could lead to a less credible monetary policy. Moreover, if political pressure was to be allowed, smaller countries might end up with an EU monetary policy more synchronized with the cycle of the biggest EU economies instead of a neutral pro-EU development one. In the worst scenario the ECB could be even pushed to follow the political or electoral cycles of the biggest EU countries.

This is extremely encouraging for we few remaining supporters of democracy in Europe. If powerful figures led by Trichet can force through a change in the terms of the 'mandate' then surely the anti-democratic elements of the Treaty can also be removed, opening the floodgates to decimation and sending the whole thing back to the Commission for yet another re-think and this time we hope an opportunity to give the citizens the essential element to avoid a tyranny, namely democratic control. The Swiss model is ideal if combined with electronic voting for mass referendums on all substantial matters, as I have been arguing for years both here and on this blogs forerunner.

Financial Crisis - Read Voltaire from 1769

"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one part of the citizens to give to the other.

It is demanded, if it be possible radically to ruin a kingdom of which the soil in general is fertile. We answer that the thing is not practicable, since from the war of 1689 till the end of 1769, in which we write, everything has continually been done which could ruin France and leave it without resource, and yet it never could be brought about. It is a sound body which has had a fever of eighty years with relapses, and which has been in the hands of quacks, but which will survive."

Conservative policy on the EU

Last Sunday I drew attention to the statement by John Redwood on "disapplying" EU rules, read here. I queried this strange idea on Mr Redwood's blog and he has now posted this "clarification" as follows:

According to the Sunday Telegraph today:

“As a “last resort”, the document says, Britain should legislate at home to “disapply EU regulation unilaterally where we think its is against our national interest”. Such a course of action would set up the biggest conflict between Britain and Brussels since the UK joined the Common Market in 1973.”

Inevitably also huge fines which surely we would be obligated to pay under the various treaties? Is it therefore envisaged that the fines would gather enough outrage that the 1972 act could be scrapped completely?

Reply:

The idea would be as a final resort if we were unable to negotiate a sensible outcome to use UK Parliamentary sovereignty to define the law in areas of national concern in such a way that EU law and EU Court actions were disapplied.

Well this seems to be another example of Conservative Party deliberate confusion as it is obvious that the essence of my query has been ignored. In the very unlikely event of this idea being adopted as party policy, like "in Europe, but not run by Europe"' the idea is totally impractical. The EU would cease to exist if every country were free to "disapply" pieces of the rule book it did not particularly like. I must say I am disappointed to see such a sloppy concept coming from one of that doomed party's better thinkers. The timing of his heightened activities and wrath of Polly Toynbee, however, are much more to my liking! BUT Why oh why are such distractions being thrown up by this supposed eu-sceptic and his party, when the 27 nations of Europe are staring into a non-democratic abyss, on which much more on the posting that follows!

Barth the butcher of Oradour dies. EU impact - NIL

The BBC has the report here, note particularly the last sentence which I quote: His death has gone largely unnoticed in Germany I have blogged previously on the horror of Oradour-sur-Glane. That post written in the opening days of this pivotal year may be read from here. When Heinz Barth died this week most of Europe was on vacation oblivious to the work of their national governments to neuter their parliamentary democracies through the underhand method of a fake IGC, even now supposedly fine tuning the detail of a mandate which Britain's own Foreign Office confirms has already been precisely agreed (see my posting immediately below). Precisely agreed, furthermore, in negotiations which Britain's former Foreign Office Secretary of State, Margaret Becket, lied to a Parliamentary Select Committee mere days before the trap was sprung, by stating again and again that such were not even taking place. Maybe not by Foreign Office staff, but by Tony Blair's henchmen in their place. What are the mandarins of the FCO doing about that disgraceful state of affairs. Is Queen Elizabeth II really going to extend plenipotentiary powers to her Scottish Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary, eldest son of one of the most influential marxist immigrants to this country in the last century, in total breach of the commitment to a referendum of the people on which basis they were elected, to sign an agreement which destroys for all time the powers not just of Britain's parliament but the only Parliament England now possesses? The United Kingdom was brought into being by the merging of the Scottish and English thrones, or more correctly their then democracies as protected by their sovereigns. The Queen rules over the UK but Scotland has its own Parliament. As Queen of England I would argue she cannot constitutionally authorise either the present Prime Minister or his Foreign Secretary, neither of whom were present at the negotiations leading to the EU Reform Treaty, to sign that document, especially as the Queen's own Foreign and Commonwealth Office had no involvement for such negotiations, nor are therefore able to offer continuity or proper advice to the new Foreign Secretary, nor even therefore to their English sovereign! This whole thing stinks to high heaven for all of Europe. The Queen of the Netherlands seems to me to have her own dilemma. One thing is certain namely that Heinz Barth died when all his gruesome ideals and presumed beliefs were finally in the process of being achieved.

"Precisely"

The last sentence of the British Government's White Paper on negotiating terms for the IGC on the EU Reform Treaty, to be found on page seven of this link, states the following: These remain our guiding principles for the IGC, which needs to follow precisely the terms of the Mandate agreed at the June European Council. As this blog predicted for months the IGC is a complete farce and the mandate from the unconstitutional Europaen Council of the 27 leaders will be what governs the terms of the Treaty. We have been linking to the mandate for a month from various posts but it may be read again at the end of the government's White Paper, linked above, in fact in Annexe B on page 21 of the pdf document. Its inclusion should make clear that no changes will be tolerated, so the remainder of the White Paper is pure tosh. Why do so many opponents of the treaty continue to give the europhiles comfort by believing that anything might change?

The lies our diplomats relay

It was once said that a diplomat is someone sent abroad to lie for their country. This seems never to have been truer than in the British Embassy in Oslo, which has put out the following statement, linked from here: MURPHY COMMENTS ON EU TREATY (12/08/07)

Jim Murphy, FCO Minister on Europe said:

'The idea of a constitution has been abandoned - EU leaders were crystal clear on this in June. The Reform Treaty is different in form and substance. In justice and home affairs, we have an opt-in: we only take part in an EU home affairs measure when it's in our national interest. Having the opt-in protects our national judicial processes.

'The UK has never held a referenda on amending treaties such as Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. The only national referendum ever held on any issue in the UK was in 1975 - and that was about membership of the EEC. It is right, however, that Parliament debates the Treaty and decides on ratification - just as it did for the Single European Act under Margaret Thatcher, The Maastricht treaty under John Major, and Nice and Amsterdam under Tony Blair.'

Brown's treachery

Good argument and plain common sense from Simon Jenkins in today's Sunday Times on the 'corrupt' EU Reform Treaty. Read it all here or get the flavour from this snippet: The new constitution/treaty extends EU discipline into new areas of human rights, transport, law enforcement and social regulation. It creates a continent-wide “legal space” and another covering defence and foreign policy, albeit in embryo. It specifically enables future ministerial councils to extend Brussels’ power and to alter veto rights without a need for new treaties. This centralist “power creep” can thus be rendered virtually self-validating.

John Redwood proposes 'disapplying' EU Laws

The following is from this morning's Sunday Telegraph, linked here. At first glance it has all the appearances of an electoral gimmick, for it would put the UK in breach of several separate treaty obligations and subject the country to huge fines.

The track record of the present government in meekly coughing up millions of euros fine (does anyone know the final amount and why is it being obscured?) on DEFRA for late payments of the EU farming subsidies , to meet which they neglected other important responsibilities of DEFRA, such as flood defences and possibly it now appears basic maintenance at Pirbright.

I will be putting this point about the fines to Mr Redwood on his blog and will report back here when this idea has been further explained or developed. I quote the portion of that article here:

In a section that seems certain to inflame internal Tory rows on Europe, Mr Redwood argues that Britain's opt-out from the European Social Chapter, which was removed by Labour within days of taking of office in 1997, should be restored. Britain should go further in negotiating more opt-outs, the policy group says, including large numbers of employment and social policy rules.

As a "last resort", the document says, Britain should legislate at home to "disapply EU regulation unilaterally where we think its is against our national interest". Such a course of action would set up the biggest conflict between Britain and Brussels since the UK joined the Common Market in 1973.

Trichet attacks Reform Treaty changes

ECB chief sees the political independence of his central bank at risk, which it most certainly is, meaning the Euro will be doomed to instability as this blog has always predicted. Read the report from Msnbc from here.

Treasures from the Threads - Number Six

This one is from a debate on the West Lothian question and some resulting English resentments posted on the Conservative Home blog, it comes from one 'Alfred the OK': Quote

Mark - it's a bit long coming, but we thank you all the same for making the point...... Afterall, it's only 9 years too late! Honestly, I have real difficulty in wondering how any self proclaimed democrat could have supported the camel of a solution on devolution in the first place. And also am incredulous that the Tories, in their role as Her Majesty's Opposition would be so uber meek in their opposition to it down the years.

Meanwhile, English cancer patients have been left to die for the want of cancer drugs freely available to all in Scotland. Meanwhile, English students are having to divvy up top ups - and then a top up on the top ups - while everyone else goes to Uni' Scot free. Meanwhile old people in England are means tested for services freely available to their contemporaries in Scotland. Meanwhile English OAPs are forced into flogging off their homes to finance their residential dotage - state sponsored obviously in Scotland. Meanwhile English kids get a turkey-twizzling 45p spent on their school meals - but in Scotland they have almost £1 per head spent on them. Meanwhile, the British lessons continue apace in English schools - but obviously not in Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish schools - they'll be too busy learning about their own national identities....

Meanwhile, the cash cow that is England is fleeced, porked and goosed out of the train load of cash to provide the spending largesse in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland - and all the great and the good of the Westminster gravy boat think nothing of it.

The bum scratching and the blue sky ruminating on the English problem is finished, over for ever. The great devolution experiment, the gammy leg of Tony Blair's legend-in-his-own-mind legacy is tottering in terminal decline and good riddance to bad rubbish. Without the biggest partner it was never going to work. We should have been the corner stone of it right from the off.... but we weren't - and now the resentment has built, the frustrations have grown and who knows where it will all end?

We too should have had our own Executive, to have our own First Minister, to act in our own interests - and be directly answerable to us - and if we do not like him we kick him out at the ballot box....

It's called democracy - and how ironic that this country of England, the founder and originator of the modern democratic model - much admired and copied throughout the world - and the producer of the world's first document setting out the rights of the individual (Magna Carta) is now wallowing in a sea of injustice and non representation that would put a banana republic to shame. How ironic it is that England is now less democratic that it was 1,200 years ago....

Nearly ten years of mendacity by a flawed English hating executive, nearly ten years of a no show Tory Opposition that has let them get away with it. Nearly ten years of English lives being sacrificed on an altar of political expediency while 'Call Me Dave' courts a non existent Scottish vote by slagging off 50 million people with his 'sour little Englanders' speech. Nearly ten years of being ignored by every single English MP (apart from a couple of noble exceptions)....

But what you have ask yourself Mark is - if the Yorkshire floods had happened with an English First Minister in power would it have taken him 10 days to visit and to pledge money to the disaster fund - and would it have been more than the 14 million that Gordon Brown offered?

Mark, do you feel the frusrations? Well, do you?

Posted by: Alfred the OK | August 07, 2007 at 16:11

Unquote I wish I could have put it so well!!

Hague's latest referendum demand

A well argued and straightforward demand for a referendum in this morning's Times by the effectively Deputy Conservative Party Leader, William Hague, linked here, who has finally challenged the Government on the 'concept of the constitution is abandoned' sentence with the immediately following one that says the terms of the constitution will still be applied, I quote: Mr Brown’s second argument against a referendum is to quote a line in the treaty agreement that says the “constitutional concept . . . is abandoned”. But the next line says that everything in the original constitution would be kept, unless stated otherwise – and according to a study by the think-tank Open Europe, only 10 out of 250 proposals in the constitution have been changed. This blog has been emphasising that fact since mid-July, read here meanwhile minister after minister, even the Prime Minister in Parliament has been allowed to get away with quoting just that first sentence....Why? What the MANDATE actually says is the following: Quote I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 1. The IGC is asked to draw up a Treaty (hereinafter called "Reform Treaty") amending the existing Treaties with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the enlarged Union, as well as the coherence of its external action. The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them by a single text called "Constitution", is abandoned. The Reform Treaty will introduce into the existing Treaties, which remain in force, the innovations resulting from the 2004 IGC, as set out below in a detailed fashion. Unquote As we pointed out and linked in July, the paper on the outcome of the 2004 IGC was titled "Provisional consolidated version of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" linked here So what kind of amateur opposition are the Conservatives running and where is the outrage that should be being expressed by their leader over the potential loss of our democracy by skulduggery? Promising 'bare-knuckled fights' with Brown over the NHS (where no effective policy differences can be discerned) and now this morning we are informed by a column in the Telegraph, here: "he has also been pointing the finger far more aggressively at Mr Brown than he ever did at Mr Blair. "Farmers would "have every right to be angry" if it turned out that the body responsible for stopping foot and mouth had ended up causing an outbreak, he (call me 'Dave') said." Pathetic, truly pathetic especially when those same farmers can perfectly well read of the failures at Pirbright as detailed elsewhere in the same paper, read here, of which facts even his own MPs have known for months . Why is 'Dave' silent still on this and all the other failures at Defra following the huge EU fine as pointed out again on this blog months ago, but on which topic 'Dave' has been silent. Cameron should step down immediately then at least William Hague's attacks will carry more weight as temporary party leader pending another party election.

Britain's Commonwealth conflict

The Home Page of the Commonwealth Secretariat has as one of its top news stories a report on EU trade pressure on Pacific States, read it from here. The conflict for Britain is here made obvious. The Trade Commissioner of the subsidy addicted and presently entirely loathsome European Union is British passport holder one Peter Mandelson, close associate of, and past political fixer for, one Tony Blair. Tony Blair at the Brussels summit of EU leaders on 21/22 June of this year, sold out his country, its parliament and the democracy of its people by agreeing to the so-called EU Reform Treaty. Britain's membership of the EU is not compatible with the stated objectives of the Commonwealth, the intention of present Prime Minister Gordon Brown to force through Parliament the enabling legislation to put the so-called EU Reform Treaty into effect will certainly destroy any claim Britain might have to be an "independent sovereign state, ....... responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace." Britain in my view already, but certainly after the ratification of the EU Reform Treaty, will cease to be an independent sovereign state and neither will it be a democracy, although the latter factor might not immediately make it ineligible for continued Commonwealth membership. In the best interests of the British people who are about to have their democracy stolen, in clear breach of a government election commitment given to hold a referendum on such legislation, I call upon people across the Commonwealth to demand that their Governments seek to expel Britain from the Commonwealth. The world has no need for the type of EU now being created, by broken pledges to the peoples of Europe, deceit and the brazen disregard of the stated wills of the peoples of France and the Netherlands in earlier referendums. The emergence of a non-democratic pan-European authoritarian regime should be a matter for fear and concern across the world, it seems to me a matter ideally suited for the Commonwealth's defining principles. I am forwarding a copy of this post to the office of the Commonwealth's Secretariat.

Can Britain remain within the Commonwealth?

The Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, 1971

Issued at the Heads of Government Meeting in Singapore on 22 January 1971

1. The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace.

IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT BRITAIN EVEN TODAY MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT....AFTER THE EU REFORM TREATY IT MOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT.

Christopher Booker at his very best

All should take the time to read the Booker column, here, in today's Sunday Telegraph. The concluding paragraph on the section explaining new dictatorial ruling body for Britain and the other EU ex-nations is this: What all this amounts to is that the European Union finally wishes to set itself up as the supreme government of Britain and 26 other countries, with unlimited powers over every aspect of our lives: a government we cannot dismiss and which is unaccountable. It is nothing less than a complete coup d'etat. And Gordon Brown wishes to see this imposed on us without allowing us a referendum, in direct breach of a promise on which he was elected, and now on the basis of the transparent lie that it has no bearing on our constitutional rights. It should be enough to blow the minds of everyone in Britain. The whole item needs to be read as does the report on the farce of the regional authorities which follows.

Ireland to oppose EU Prosecutor

Incompatibility with Common Law is the reason, which of course comes from England and the British rejection??????? Read the report from here.

Language Difficulties

Various EU documents and web-sites commenting on the EU seem to have suddenly become averse to English. All EU sourced pages from the Portuguese Presidency seem to be only available in French and occasionally German. This blog found a link to the supposed binding 'Mandate' back in July. As the plan is clearly to try and keep Britain's population in ignorance of what is underway to destroy their parliament and their own democratic and sovereign rights, this is completely outrageous. The mandate may be read in English in its full seventeen pages in the Annexe to the pdf file linked from here. Readers unable to download that pdf file may e-mail me on martin dot cole AT gmail dot com and I will reply with the text of the mandate attached.

Further confirmation that the EU Constitution is re-born and of mounting US interest

The following is the conclusion of yesterday's 'Walker's World' issued by UPI and linked here In an editorial, the Times of London argued that "in terms of the sovereign powers transferred to Brussels, of expanded roles for the European Court of Justice and the European Parliament, of the potentially intrusive and legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, and of expanded majority voting in the EU Council, the 'reform treaty' is indeed the old constitution revisited." European constitutional scholars agree. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Professor Roland Vaubel of the University of Mannheim concluded last week, "The Reform Treaty is nothing but the old draft in a new guise to avoid another round of referendums. And as a result, the EU's democratic deficit is not narrowing but widening." In such a context, it will not be easy for Britain's new prime minister to avoid a referendum, and the row looks likely to overshadow British political life and the climate in which Brown hopes to secure his own mandate with a new general election. If there is one ray of light for Brown in this grim picture, it comes from France, where new President Nicolas Sarkozy is also keen to avoid another referendum and have the Treaty ratified by a vote in Parliament. But under French law, France will first have to amend its own national Constitution to do so, and that requires a majority vote of both the National Assembly, where Sarkozy holds a comfortable majority, and the Senate, where he does not. The Socialist opposition, with support from other parties, can block such a constitutional change almost indefinitely, and given their antipathy to Sarkozy, that looks very likely indeed.

Trans-national socialism equals Fascism

William Hague in an interview on the BBC Radio 4 programme 'Today' did a reasonable job in highlighting many of the dangers in the new EU Reform Treaty but was somewhat mild in his reaction to the Government's present refusal to grant the referendum it had promised. Looking at the Treaty and the subterfuge involved in the methods chosen to ram it through can hardly give Europe's citizens any confidence in the integrity or decency of their elected leaders when acting in concert in the European Council. Concern grows considering that it is this body that is to now be given massive new powers, apparently the ultimate authority of sovereignty which once belonged to national citizens and lay in their ability to elect or remove their rulers from office. That power, known as democracy, is to be abolished. Looking at other actions rather than weasly words this nascent non-democratic world power has also in the last month seen two of its larger members order two massive aircraft carriers each. It therefore appears that this new super-state now plans to give itself the power to project the use of force well beyond its borders with four carrier battle forces. Why? Where has this been publicly discussed? Surely an EU trading equitably in the world to reduce third-world poverty much of it caused by its very own policies would have no need of such carrier groups. As its members belong to NATO national defence is surely no answer. Would Britain and France with present budget constraints have proceeded with the ordering of these four 65,000 ton ships in a non-EU context and without real parliamentary debate? One word in the present situation seems the most apposite, but it is one word that nowhere gets mentioned - that word is of course - Fascism. It is defined by Collins as follows: 1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism: any right-wing national ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism. 2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency etc., that may be characterised as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian etc. Imagine the EU if the Reform Treaty is ratified by the 27 national parliaments that have then each made themselves subservient to the European Council and that council has suspended the Charter of Fundamental Rights for whatever contrived reason, threat of terrorist attack would seem the most likely at present. In such a situation would not the entire Continent then be under the authoritarian control of whomever dominated the then Council. Is the above not a more likely scenario than the present situation where 27 supposedly independent national leaders have ordered their representatives to pass a document without alteration in a legally appointed IGC and then committed themselves to pass it through their own legislatures, similarly without change or the opportunity to give their citizens a vote before condemning them all to non-democratic rule? Has this been achieved without any coercion whatsoever? Will fascism or something very likely it not be the almost certain end result of such a process?