Friday, November 30, 2007

Government spending - Rock soon to be 5th largest item!

View the details from this link and then consider what items are now less than the thirty billion for Northern Rock, they are: Housing and Environment 22billion Industry, agriculture, employment and training 21 billion Transport 20 billion Personal social services 26 billion Items Northern Rock will likely soon exceed: Public Order and safety 33 billion Debt interest 31 billion Defence 32 billion

Unwise rush to sign the Lisbon Treaty

United Press reports on growing concerns across the Continent, linked here. The crucial question is why the rush to sign as ratifiation depends on Parliementary approvals? The only answer can be that the EU cannot contemplate proper parliamentary scrutiny which might inevitably lead to amendments. But in view of the confusion and lack of clarity, surely amendments which might clarify matters are exactly what is required. If the signatures to the Treaty on 13th December do not bind Parliaments why have the signing ceremony first. Two weeks today democracy across the EU will be DEAD!

Plenipotentiary Powers - Number 2 - The Peril

To summarise my first posting on this topic, last Tuesday, linked here, perogative powers seem to have become frequently used instruments enabling the executive arm of government to bypass parliament. This was explained in great detail by Tony Benn and William Hague to a Commons Committee in April 2003, which for convenience, I link again from here. The danger I envisage from this completely confusing legislative situation is that foreigners could argue that under UK law Treaties, such as the EU Reform Treaty to be signed in Lisbon in less than two weeks time, are fully entered into by the United Kingdom once signed by plenipotentiaries properly documented by HM the Queen. If Parliament or the people subsequently rejected the Lisbon Treaty what could the UK then do if our EU partners argued such a case and decided that such a rejection must be handled as a notice of withdrawal under the onerous condiotions of the Lisbon Treaty itself as contained in Article 35 of the Treaty on the European Union. Britain would effectively be bankrupted and stripped of the few remaining material assets the nation still possesses after over thirty-five years of ever-growing and ever more corrupt misrule from Brussels and Westminster. I will be preparing some e-mails for various leading political figures trying to obtain answers to these pressing questions and will post them on this blog together with the replies received if so authorised by their senders.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Inquiries must begin at Number 10

The registration details for the Labour Party on the web site of the Electoral Commission, linked here, show the only registered official above Graham Watt (still registered as Treasurer as of this morning are as follws: Party officers: Leader: The Rt Hon Gordon Brown Nominating Officer: Roy Kennedy Treasurer: Mr Peter Watt The function of the Nomination Officer is only relevant for registration of candidates therefore any enquiries to be made by the Electoral Commission, the CPS or the police have to be directed at the next relevant senior official one Gordon Brown at Number 10 Downing Street. Graham Watt having resigned admitting criminal guilt over the contributions claiming ignorance as an excuse is unlikely to be able to explain why an ignorant "Treasurer" had been appointed by the Party and been allowed to continue in post. One question for the Commission is why the Labour Party is presently allowed to function as the country's Governing Party in breech of the Law with no official Treasurer?????

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Who is the Labour Party Treasurer?

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, linked here, requires that Party Treasurers be registered in Section 31 (2) subsection (d) requires changes of Treasurers to be notified stating:

(d) the name of the treasurer of any accounting unit of the party or of any officer of such a unit registered for the purposes of section 27(3)

The Registered Treasurer of the Labour Party is still listed as Mr Peter Watt, linked here, who supposedly resigned as General Secretary of the party as a result of the donations scandal still unfolding.

Harriet Harman, MP, Deputy Party Leader, Leader of the House of Commons, Chair of the Labour Party, Minister for Women is supposedly married to the Labour Party Chairman although he is not Mr Harman..... he is ........ Oh who cares!

As far as the Electoral Commission is concerned it is still Peter Hall!!!!

DANGER - Democracy cannot be "Either/Or"

Article 8a subsection2 of the 'Treaty on European Union' post Lisbon will state: "Citizens are directly represented at Union Level in the European Parliament. Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens." What is the effect of this in Britain and what indeed is the intent? The first statement can of course be absolutely discounted as complete and utter nonsense as the European Parliament will continue to have absolutely no power whatsoever to propose or frame legislation and as in the past will merely serve as a sop to democratic principles while gathering funds mainly for the political parties whose leaders will be running everything in secret within the European Council. This sentence neatly illustrates one of the prime deceptions of the EU Reform Treaty, the confusing mix of Council and the European Council. The Council will, mainly when framing legislation, be somewhat open to public scrutiny and accountability. The real power, the European Council will be entirely closed, subject to QMV with even its procedures inner workings and records of debate and decision forever closed to either parliaments or to the public. If confronted by this horrendous truth, the EU's presently totally devious leadership elite will be able to reply, "the Council when legislating is entirely open to scrutiny" relying on the cowed and/or lazy media to avoid pointed follow-up.

Forbes covers the growing threat

Unlike the UK media, as ever fully involved in obscuring the threat to our Parliament and democracy, Forbes in the US has an item on the warnings of the EU Scrutiny Committee which may be read from here.

Buying New Labour

The BBC Radio 4 news bulletin at 0800 this morning reported the original donor to Harriet Harman cannot recall the money (it was apparently paid by his secretary) as he had supported Hilary Benn for the Deputy leadership. The BBC reported that: THE MONEY FOR THE DEPUTY LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN OF THE WIFE OF THE PARTY TREASURER ARRIVED TWO WEEKS AFTER SHE HAD WON. Make of that what you wish, for me it can mean only one thing, the donor was in the business of buying influence in the governing party..... having backed the wrong horse he immediately tried to make the best of matters hoping the funds would not be returned either because of their illegality or their late arrival. It speaks volumes on the morals of the couple concerned but far more worryingly the manner in which Labour has been governing Britain.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

EU Diplomatic Service to be formed in secret

The full report is on EU Observer, linked here. The following quote is particularly typical of the EU: Guenter Burghardt, a former EU ambassador to the US, warned that "we have to make sure that there are no discussions taking place in the open air" before the UK parliament has ratified the reform treaty and Ireland has held its treaty referendum early next summer, with both London and Dublin sensitive about foreign policy issues.

EU Scrutiny Committee demands a debate

The Press Release on the latest report is linked from here, the following being a direct quote: Chairman of the Committee, Michael Connarty says, "Although the Government has secured the right to ‘opt-in’ in respect of justice and home affairs (JHA) matters it is clear that if the government opt in on any measure ultimate jurisdiction will transfer from the UK courts. There are also new and unquantifiable risks which may be incurred by future decisions by the UK not to opt in. These matters should be debated on the Floor of the House before the Treaty is signed."

Plenipotentiary powers from the Royal Perogative

The Lisbon Treaty will presumably be signed on 13th December by Gordon Brown and David Miliband under plenipotentiary (absolute) powers granted by the Queen. It appears from evidence by Tony Benn to the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee on 10th April 2003 that such authority may be granted in writing as a copy of such authority granted to David Davis was provided on that occasion to the Committee, link here. Reading all the evidence from Tony Benn and William Hague from that link it is clear the lines of authority by which Britain might become committed to the terms of the Treaty are far from clear, and the ability of even the Privy Council to prevent the signing is uncertain. The withdrawal of several players with strong legal backgrounds from the process is becoming clear. Tony Blair resigned from all responsibility with indecent haste almost the moment that he had finished agreeing to whatever it was he did agree in secret at the June European European Council meeting. The evidence recently provided to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee about the lack of minutes or records of such meetings, linked here, is well worth quickly perusing. The former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith and one time Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer went at the same time leaving the Baroness Scotland, biography here, with no background in constitutional law and the hapless Jack Straw in their positions. David Miliband in giving evidence to the EU Scrutiny Committee on 18th October, 2007, linked here, seemed to be aware of the potentiqal problems of any UK citizen drafting wording which binds parliament contrary to the 1688 Bill of Rights..... I quote from the Uncorrected record: avid Miliband: The Presidency summed it up at the end of the session yesterday morning; they have not given me a timeline, but it is a commitment, it was in the Presidency Conclusions, and we will get a watertight legal change to the Treaty.

Q168 Mr Hands: I am just surprised that you do not have a word in mind. You mentioned just a moment ago "shall be able" and I have heard other people use the word "may". What is the French word that we are talking about here?

David Miliband: I do not know, what is the French word we are talking about?

Mr Cash: Contribuer.

Mr Clappison: Devoir.

Q169 Mr Hands: Chairman, I do want to come in on this point because I am surprised that you are not able to tell us what the UK suggestion is as to what the translation would be.

David Miliband: What I would say to you is that the first priority was to get agreement that the text had to be changed. The second priority was to make sure there was agreement that the change should ensure, absolutely beyond doubt there, were no obligations on the parliaments. Last week at the FAC I gave a non-lawyer's explanation which is that "shall" could be "shall be able to", but we will wait and see what they suggest. We are absolutely clear that there will be no room for doubt about the ---

Q170 Mr Hands: Should we not be making the suggestion rather than waiting for them to?

David Miliband: Fire away, make a suggestion.

Q171 Chairman: Should you not be making the suggestion?

David Miliband: I made the suggestion last week. I said last week that what we want to encapsulate is the idea that parliaments "shall be able to" make a contribution, but I am not a lawyer so I am not going to say that is the right way of doing it, I want to make sure ---

Q172 Angus Robertson: But you are the Foreign Secretary, what wording was proposed by the UK?

David Miliband: We have not proposed the wording yet. We have got agreement ---

Q173 Mr Hands: Could we ask you to propose "shall be able"?

David Miliband: Only if we think "shall be able" is the most watertight version. If there is a better version then we will put in a better version, and I am waiting for legal advice to make sure that we have got the best possible version of it.

Q174 Mr Steen: Can I give you some legal advice that the word "may" might be right.

Note here that the English language version dated after the 6th November redraft retained the word 'shall' as I reported yesterday, linked here.

I will return to this topic over the coming days.

Financial Crisis

The International Herald Tribune, linked here, reports : Citigroup announced last night that it was selling a $7.5 billion stake to a Middle Eastern sovereign fund in the latest bid to shore up its precariously low capital base.

Graft - is this the iceberg's tip?

I previously kept my comment on the most recent revelations of the latest donations scandal to hit the Labour Party to my blog Strasbourg Cesspit, linked here, but latest details seem to require comment here. The Daily Telegraph, while covering the resignation of the General Secretary of the Labour Party, a fresh faced individual with all the markings of a youthful sacrificial lamb (are not Party Treasurers liable under the law for the veracity of their donations declaration to the Electoral Commission?), also covers business ventures that followed the transfer of funds, linked here. It appears planning permission for a business park near the A1(M) was approved after having been earlier rejected. In the image illustration attached to the article comes the apparent real guts of the issue, over the picture of this site is the statement: "Developers hope to attract civil service jobs from Whitehall departments.." After ten years of Blair's New Labour and the now clear character of Gordon Brown and his inept cabinet, can any believe that such hopes were merely fanciful?

Monday, November 26, 2007

Lisbon Treaty seeks to bind Britain's Parliament

On page 15 of the pdf Lisbon Treaty as provided by Mr Peadar ó Broin of the IEA, linked here, the Article 8c on the role of National Parliaments opens as follows: "National Parliaments SHALL contribute actively to the good functioning of the union:" It then continues with several subsections listing such obligations including (c) on freedom, security and justice where it cross references to Article 64 of the 'Functioning of the Union' which further references to Article 226 and 228 detailing the imposition of fines for non-compliance.

Boston Globe highlights US security concerns over EU Treaty

The article detailing the fully justified concerns is linked from here. The following short extract details one of the points put forward:

Sally McNamara, a European specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the EU has often been "anti-American" in recent years, more quick than many of its members to take exception to US government policies on a range of matters. She warned that a stronger EU might punish the United States in future disputes by restricting cooperation in counterterrorism efforts.

The reform treaty would give the EU greater authority over a range of security issues including immigration, asylum, freezing the assets of suspected terrorists, criminal defendant rights, defining terrorism-related offenses, and making rules for the "collection, storage, processing, analysis, and exchange of relevant information" for law-enforcement purposes.

Welcome to the world of $100 Oil and 'EU' be warned!

After WWII the international oil trade was a function of the Foreign Policies of the USA and Great Britain. The enablers were the world's largest oil companies known in the business as the seven sisters, five American, one British and one Anglo-Dutch. The majority of productive capacity, as today, lay around the Persian/Arabian Gulf and also as today the producing countries desired ever more revenue. This was provided by boosting production while maintaining the price at a few cents above one dollar per barrel. By the early sixties the Sisters were committed to loading an extra six per cent of oil each year. My job at that time, working for one such company was to ensure that this six per cent target was met, which eventually could only be achieved by loading every tanker available with every last drop of oil possible by the end of December for the Arab States and during March, the Iranian year-end, for that country's exports. Each year it became more of a race to empty all the ships during January and February to allow for their return to the Gulf to achieve the Iranian target. This policy achieved falling real oil prices in Europe and the Far East as volumes increased and tanker size grew the economies of scale produced worldwide falling energy prices and sustained economic growth. In the three years I spent in this fascinating task my employer's oil refineries in Europe grew from two to five and at the close we were renting every barrel of third party oil processing capacity we could find. The nineteen-sixties generation of self-serving short-sighted European politicians, while authorising their officials to pass long hours debating butter mountains and wine lakes, concerned themselves with means to siphon part of this growing wealth back to their political parties for their own eventual benefit, while venally claiming credit for the economic gains created as being a function of their non-democratic, non-productive cabal. A side effect of the oil glut annually oozing through the Straits of Hormuz was the difficulty of new production under the control of smaller oil companies, mostly in North Africa, to find a market thus increasing the downward pressure on consumer prices. The company breaking ranks on the stable price front was called Occidental which conceded a price rise to Colonel Ghaddaffi in Libya. The founder of that company was a man called Armand Hammer who profited from strong business links within Soviet Russia. On 13th December2007, in just two and a half weeks time, the present incompetent crop of Europe's leaders will meet in Lisbon to sign a Treaty that will pass nearly all significant decision making power across almost the entire European peninsula and offshore islands to a secretive cabal of the leaders of the largest (best financed) political party from each former nation state as per the document that is linked from the posting immediately beneath this. Read it please! These same leaders have allowed the price of oil to rise to the unimagined heights of around one hundred dollars a barrel while placing their swing gas supplies under the ultimate control of a newly assertive Russia. Mostly uninvolved in Iraq as the dispute might have had some connection with the oil that runs their economies and keeps their citizens warm, and similarly largely sitting on their hands in Afghanistan as the Americans, British, Canadians and a few others take the casualties - these are the leaders who will steal your democracy and have already fashioned a so-called European Council through which all can be controlled outside the scutiny and/or control of the people and Parliaments of Europe. 'EU' are welcome to this new Europe! For a further view of what will be lost in just two weeks time, buy the first rate book 'Europe- A History' by Norman Davies on sale now in paperback at the remarkably reasonable price of one penny less than seventeen pounds.. At least read the Introduction before 13th December to get a flavour of what is about to be lost - then harry your MP.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Latest Treaty Consolidated Text in English

In spite of Britain's despicable government trying to keep the text of the treaty they are due to sign in Lisbon on 13th December completely secret from the people and their Parliament the latest and first consolidated version is now available from Ireland courtesy of a Mr Peadar ó Broin of the Institute of European Affairs linked here. The direct link to the pdf document is available by clicking on "Consolidated Treaties Draft" . Please ensure that any use is referenced back to the Irish IEA and Mr Peadar ó Broin to whom the English speaking people of the entire EU owe a huge debt of gratitude. This blog will of course be commenting further when the document has been properly considered.

Housing Crisis

There is an interesting piece in the Sunday Times, linked here, titled "Sub-prime 'time bomb' is set to explode in Britain". It points out some pretty scary realities but seems to miss the most obvious likely end-result. If those on so-called sub-prime mortgages now set to rise from 6.58 per cent to 9.5 per cent are those with the worst credit records, then by definition these will be the householders most likely to cease making repayments or walking away from their debt leaving the problem of falling property values with the lenders. Even if they have sufficient remaining personal equity to wish to sell their property, to whom are these sub-prime borrowers, or their lenders, going to sell? Compounding their difficulties will be the need for all to now first buy their EU required Home Information Packs for yet more up-front cash from December!

Saturday, November 24, 2007

House price reality

An article in The Guardian covering the fright of potential bidders for Northern Rock on seeing the detail of the accounts provides some interesting details on the real potential disaster now staring Gordon Brown and his already shaky government in the face. Some figures from the article, linked here: Three years ago, the value of mortgages where the loan-to-value ratio was 90% or more was £2.7bn. It had only 158 mortgages, worth £13m, where the loan exceeded the value of the property. By September this year, the value of mortgages with a loan-to-value ratio in excess of 90% had soared to £16bn. Almost 2,500 mortgages, with a value of £263m, were in excess of the value of the property...... An analysis of the arrears history points to a sharp increase both in terms of the number and value of mortgages in arrears. At the end of 2003, about 2,500 customers were more than a month behind on mortgage payments. The capital value of the mortgages in arrears was £168.8m. By the end of September this year, more than 10,000 accounts were in arrears. The capital value of the underlying mortgages had reached almost £1.2bn. Alistair Darling, the chancellor, may believe the £23bn loan to Northern Rock is secured against high-quality assets such as mortgages. But it is unclear whether the bank has sufficient of those assets to cover the loan in full. The £53bn of securitised mortgages does not represent the full mortgage book, but it is unclear how many other companies have other claims over the rest of the book.

Big Brother HAS arrived!

The following came as an almost casual afterthought in an article on a separate subject in this morning's The Times, linked here: "The Conservatives also demanded the immediate suspension of a new government electronic database that holds the personal details of every child in England. The £224 million ContactPoint register, which is due to be launched in April, lists the names, addresses, schools, GPs and, where applicable, social worker of the children. Where parents or children give consent, it could also include more sensitive information about whether children have used sexual or mental health services or had treatment for substance abuse...... ContactPoint will be password-protected, but the password will be available to around 330,000 vetted users." Two items immediately come to mind: Firstly; how can any system with 330,000 users possibly ever be secure? Secondly; why should 330,000 people be allowed such all encompassing intimate personal details on CHILDREN? Even this old cynic is horrified!!

Friday, November 23, 2007

NO Treaty text for Parliament before signature

Again this blog has been proved correct in predicting the worse in so far as the EU Reform Treaty is concerned. On November 20 the following exchange took place in the House of Lords as confirmed by Hansard, linked here: Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty’s Government:

    When a printed version of the European Union reform treaty, signed in Lisbon, will be available to Parliament. [HL81]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: All intergovernmental conference papers, including draft versions of the EU reform treaty, have been placed in the Library of the 20 Nov 2007 : Column WA61 House. The latest text, which has been prepared for discussion in the Jurists-Linguists technical translation group from 12 to 16 November, was circulated to Parliament on 31 October. We will continue to forward any further draft texts to Parliament as soon as we receive them.

We expect to lay the final EU reform treaty before Parliament shortly after formal signature by Heads of State and Government at the 13 December meeting.

Both Browns get Both Barrels

Five former defence chiefs turned on G & D Brown in the House of Lords last evening, read the report in The Times, here and Comment from the same newspaper here. Before Des Brown had a chance to defend himself and his puppeteer at 0810 on the Radio 4 Today programme, Lord Woolf, just before the hour, (Listen Again linked here) had laid about the Government regarding the totally chaotic justice system (if it can now be graced with the latter word). This bodes well for a thought through reaction to the greatest threat facing the nation on 13th December, when Brown again plans to be out of the country, this time to ditch it permanently, further more thought-through comment on that topic later!

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Britain's Governmental Crisis Deepens

The opposition Conservative Party has demanded the Chancellor returns to the Commons following discrepancies in his account of the missing 25 million personal tax records, read the report from The Times, linked here.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Brown is clearly to blame

The mainstream media are directing their attacks towards the Chancellor this morning. As Hansard has belatedly now been put on the web I can quote some of the early paragraphs of Darling's statement about the 25 million lost personal tax records as follows: In March, it appears that a junior official in HMRC provided the National Audit Office with a full copy of HMRC’s data in relation to the payment of child benefit. In doing so, the strict rules governing HMRC standing procedures were clearly not followed. Those procedures relate to the security of and access to data as well as their transit to ensure that they are properly protected. That information should not have been handed over by HMRC in the way that it was. However, I understand that in this case the NAO subsequently returned all the information that it received in March to HMRC after auditing it. It now appears that, following a further request from the NAO in October for information from the child benefit database, again at a junior level and again contrary to all HMRC standing procedures, two password-protected discs containing a full copy of HMRC’s entire data in relation to the payment of child benefit were sent to the NAO, by HMRC’s internal post system operated by the courier TNT. The package was not recorded or registered. It appears that the data have failed to reach the addressee in the NAO. I also have to tell the House that, on finding that the package had not arrived at the NAO, a further copy of those data was sent, this time by registered post, which did arrive at the NAO. However, again HMRC should never have let that happen. Later the Chancellor advised he informed the Prime Minister within half an hour of his learning of the loss, vividly illustrating his full lackey status. Gordon Brown was in charge in March when the first breach occured, as he had been for many years before, when our income tax offices were sold off to an offshore company fro tax avoidance purposes, when the Revenue and Customs were quite unsuitably combined and when mass redundancies were enforced. This man whose two defining characteristics of arrogance and incompetence constantly battle for supremacy, as frequently highlighted on this blog, is now in complete and 'hands on' charge of the entire British government machine, which is clearly failing in almost every area. This woeful situation, of which the founders of Veritas endeavoured to give warning at the last General Election, but failed due to the subservience of the media and disconnection of the British electorate has also allowed, in the shape of Tony Blair, probably the most insubstantial and shameless shyster ever to have emerged from British politics to now strut on the international political scene. As I blogged yesterday, Blair was this week accused in Parliament of seemingly having given up some seven billion pounds of taxpayers funds merely to obtain consideration for the post of EU President. A suggestion that even seems to have found echoes in the speech from the Lib/Dems on the pointless loss of our rebate, read here, yet still the spineless Labour MPs troop through the lobbies to allow such a scandalous transfer to proceed.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Britain's sold-out Rebate

A Tory front bench spokesman put on a sparkling performance in the Commons yesterday, no it was not George Osborne taking aim at the sitting lame duck Chancellor but rather the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Philip Hammond. His entire speech is worth reading from Hansard, linked here, but I will quote this section with a particularly acccurate intervention which I have put in bold: Mr. Hammond:......... To return to the result from Brussels, the limit on the cost to the UK of the reduced rebate will end in 2013. Failure to reach agreement on a budget for the period after 2013 would have a devastating effect on the UK contribution, because the rebate reduction would become uncapped. We would have no effective veto, and thus no negotiating power, during negotiations on the EU budget for the period from 2013—and our partners in Europe would know it. There is one further twist to the tale. The Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, put it about that he was against the deal. When it was announced, the Treasury pointedly refused to endorse it and denied all responsibility, because it was worried that the deal would force future spending cuts. According to the Treasury briefing, the current Prime Minister was “quietly fuming”. What did he do? This April, it became known that having failed to claw back some of the rebate through negotiation, he too had caved in and agreed to accept the original deal—the deal that he had previously condemned. So much for his powers of persuasion on the international stage. That is the sorry tale behind the Bill, although, of course, that could never be discerned from reading it. We, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, whose responsibility is to our electorate and our UK taxpayers, are invited to give the Bill a Second Reading, thus giving effect to what was done—in our name, but in complete contradiction of everything promised to us in this House—at Brussels in December 2005. If we do so, by 2010 the UK taxpayer will be footing the bill for an extra £1.9 billion a year—a sum roughly equivalent, fittingly enough, to the total Foreign Office budget—as a result of the sell-out on the rebate. That is in addition to the increase in the UK contribution to the underlying budget—£1.5 billion a year on average for the period 2007 to 2013—to deal with the cost of enlargement. Taking into account the loss of the UK rebate, which will increase our share of total EU costs, and the 19 Nov 2007 : Column 1001 growth in the budget during that period, the UK’s net contribution will more than double, from £2.8 billion a year on average under the previous financial perspective to an estimated £7.3 billion in 2013. Mr. Baron: May I tempt my hon. Friend to speculate about why we caved in on the rebate? Given that it was non-negotiable and that there has been no meaningful reform of the common agricultural policy, does he think that there is a connection between our sudden cave-in and the recent statement by the French that they thought Tony Blair would make an excellent President of the EU? Mr. Hammond: That is an extraordinarily interesting piece of speculation better made from the Back Benches than from the Dispatch Box. I leave my right hon. and hon. Friends to draw their own conclusions. The choice before the House when the Question is put this evening will be whether to endorse or reject the sell-out of the British rebate. It is not about the overall EU budget or the financing of enlargement, which the Government have tried to spin; it is about the division of the total budget cost into individual contributions. It is about whether we are prepared to throw away the hard-won victory of 1984.

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 19, 2007

More muddle from Hague

In a Q&A in the Independent, linked here, the Shadow Eoreign Secretary concludes a reply on the EU as follows: "... we should be arguing for a more flexible Europe and not think we always have to go along with things not in the interests of our country." Hague must know that the EU Reform (Lisbon) Treaty once ratified will not permit any such thing. It achieves exactly the opposite of what Hague says above. In future we will have to go along with all kinds of things the direct opposite of what this country requires with us paying for them, the Gallileo project as pointed out by the Commons Transport Committee being a case in point from the past few days. The EU is now unashamedly abandoning democracy and any continued pretence that the former nation states have any serious powers. The contempt for the voters of France and Holland by the backdoor implementation of various of the provisions of the failed Constitutional Treaty must surely be indication enough of the future attitude of the EU once the very similar Lisbon Treaty has actually been ratified. Hague knows, or should, that the binding mandate given the IGC was not allowed for under the Treaties but continues to refuse to attack the Treaty on that basis, let alone the fact that the two British negotiators left office immediately afterwards, the main culprit and only individual with all the facts left parliament itself within days. At this stage opposition should be concentrating on the means in which the negotiations were undertaken with an aim to prevent the PM signing the document on 13th December. The 1688/89 Reform Treaty provides ample ammunition! It appears another Tory sell out on the EU is under way, this time it will be almost completely irreversible by non-confrontational means. Statements such as that quoted above from the effective Deputy Leader of the main opposition party are nothing less than outrageous! Read my posting of yesterday for one suggestion for more robust opposition in the event Brown has the courage to sign the Treaty..

Sunday, November 18, 2007

The POWER of pensions

Even in the forerunner to this blog, 'Ironies', the insidious influence of the EU's power to withdraw the tax advantageous EU pensions of Commissioners and officials has been stressed as a cause for the insidious nature of the institution having been successfully concealed from the broad public. As I have posted over the past couple of days it has been gratifying to see that Lord Pearson, the UKIP peer, has since this past summeralso been making this a major issue by trying to get such pensions declared as an interest in the Lords and highlighting the disgraceful fact that several such ennobled ex-EU public pocket-pickers will be involved in the consideration of the EU Reform Treaty! It is time to turn this pension weapon against that institution which is bent on destroying our Westminster democracy as the sole authority in the land. The EU now aims to finally remove the right for the people to periodically and bloodlessly remove their leaders, the basic premise of democracy rather than tyranny as defined by Karl Popper. David Cameron, if he is serious about preventing the EU Reform Treaty being ratified or maybe even just allowing the voters their promised referendum on this sweeping Treaty change, should table a Referendum amendment and concurrently commit a future Conservative Government to withdraw the pension entitlements for MPs elected in 2005 on a party platform promising a referendum who then vote against such referendum amendment. This is a blunt weapon which once deployed might be turned against the Tories in the future, but if he restricted the pension loss to that earned to the period from 2005 until the next election it could be seen as perfectly acceptable and not necessarily setting a precedent as the public purse should not continue to be available to such dishonourable MPs. The dire constitutional consequences of the Reform Treaty being ratified must ensure that eventually all perks of the past offices of those who have thus sold out their nation will eventually be placed at risk. (For more background read Christopher Booker's speech to the Bruges Group presently on the EU Referendum blog, linked here). If David Cameron, (presently an almost certain member of the pocketbook pandering Political Class as defined by Peter Oborne in his new book) flunks such a proposal then perhaps enough smaller parties will seize upon the idea to be able to ensure the Tory election majority which seems possible from this morning's polls will eventually prove illusory. These people only understand money!

The Coronation Oath

It is fascinating to me that the Telegraph newspaper group has chosen this weekend to highlight the Queen's Coronation Oath, read the article from here.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

All costs, no benefits for the UK in the EU

The Open Europe briefing note on the EU budget is linked from here. Lowlights: France is the largest recipient of funds getting 89 billion euros versus only 46 billion for the UK. UK citizens pay 20 per cent more per head than the French in spite of those unbalanced receipts. UK pays 6 billion pounds more in than it gets out. Britain's gross contributions are 71 billion POUNDS! Britain pays in one fifth (20 per cent) MORE than France even though its economy is only 6 per cent bigger. (Recent proposals are that the UK will get one less MEP- blog editor's comment) British citizens get back the least per head of any country, 776 euros per head, half of that received by the French and one quarter of that by the Irish. EU Administration alone costs 34 Billion Pounds, (36,000,000,000 pounds sterling!) (Editors further Comment: - DO NOT BLAME THE EU! IT IS BRITAIN'S OWN POLITICIANS GIVING YOUR MONEY AWAY WHILE GETTING LITTLE BACK.........YOUR PARLIAMENT WILL AUTHORISE THIS CONTINUED SPENDING NEXT MONDAY - ONLY YOU CAN INFLUENCE YOUR MP!)

Friday, November 16, 2007

No curtains to be raised in the Lords (see also post below).

Lord Pearson has let it be known that the Lisbon Treaty will be reviewed behind closed doors in the House of Lords and that five of those responsible will be receiving EU pensions. It is worth considering what the same Lord Pearson had to say on that topic last July, linked here, from which comes this quote: EU pensions are unusual and perhaps unique in that holders can lose them if, in the sole opinion of the Luxembourg court, they indulge in any action incompatible with their former duties. The rules governing former Commissioners are set out in Article 213 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, which states that Members of the Commission,
    “shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. When entering upon those duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom ... In the event of any breach of those obligations, the Court of Justice may rule that the Member concerned be deprived of his right to a pension”.

The solemn undertaking includes the promise to,

    “perform my duties in the general interests of the Communities”,


    “to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties”.

The undertaking goes on:

    “I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligations arising therefrom”.

The rules covering former staff are covered in Section 3 of the staff regulations entitled, “Disciplinary Measures”. Article 9 of those states:

    “Where the official is in receipt of a retirement pension ... the appointing authority may decide to withhold an amount from the pension”.

So it seems clear that both former Commissioners and EU staff can lose all or part of their pension if, in the judgment of the Luxembourg court, they behave sufficiently badly. I shall return to what that behaviour might be at the end.

That was accepted by the Government in a Written Answer of 6 October 2003, which stated:

    “Former members of the European Commission and their officials are bound to respect certain obligations arising from the office that they held. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the EU institutions are able to rule, according to the circumstances, that that person should be liable to a reduction or withdrawal of pension rights”.—[Official Report, 6/10/03; col. WA 31.]

Curtain slightly lifted on conspiracy

The written version of the evidence from Lord Williamson to the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee is not yet posted on the Committee's web site, but the hearing may be heard in full from this link for the next four weeks. The Committee is now clearly on the track of the conspiracy at the top of Britain's establishment as was fully described on this blog as it slowly unfolded in the late spring and across the summer of this year. Unhappily the Labour MP who Chairs this Committee, Michael Connarty, appears to have been reined in since his altercation over Munich with Foreign Secretary David Miliband, as about half an hour into the testimony he refuses to allow a question, from David Heathcoat-Amory, which could only have resulted in an exposure of the former Foreign Secretaries lying to this Committee on "negotiations". Thus is democracy still being blatantly trampled underfoot. When the written record is posted I will comment further on this significant evidence which together makes clear that my assertions of the early summer were entirely correct as may be verified, here, here, here and here. While from June particularly this posting titled "The Queen must dissolve Parliament Immediately" although that entire months record from the blog's archives is a reference well worth bearing in mind! Lord Williamson expresses surprise that the European Council of 22nd June could bind the IGC in the way they did with the pre-negotiated mandate. Pity indeed that he and other influential figures were not reading my blog, which precisely predicted the series of events and the end result - the destruction of our Westminster parliamentary democracy, which remains the most likely outcome. David Cameron is still allowing the main opposition party to participate in this conspiracy and time is rapidly running out for him to fulfill his parliamentary function and halt the signing by Britain of the Treaty before the December gathering in Lisbon.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

EU Scrutiny Committee

The Committee will hear oral evidence at 3.20pm on Wednesday 14 November in Committee Room 19, Palace of Westminster. Rt Hon Lord Williamson GCMG CB, Former Secretary-General of the European Commission will give evidence on the inquiry into "Arrangements for the preparation, consideration, and approval of the conclusions of the European Council and the Council of Ministers".

Satellite Insanity

Open Europe reports on the Labour MP heading the Commons Transport Committee on thw Gallilleo Project as follows: In an interview with the Today Programme Dunwoody said the UK would have to contribute 17% of the estimated £10 billion costs, and noted that the project will be decided by a qualified majority vote, saying, "frankly, two thirds of the people voting would not need to make any contribution." She said, "This is not one pig flying in orbit, this is a herd of pigs with gold trotters, platinum tails and diamond eyes! And we ought to be asking ourselves, 'where is our common sense?' Are we really saying we're so frightened of the Americans that we must fling gold bars at something that we don't even know is going to work?"

Confusion on Conservative Lisbon Treaty Policy

The following is from an item in The Times yesterday, linked here: Mr Hague told MPs: “If we don’t succeed in forcing a referendum in this House and if we fail to win in another place [the House of Lords], and if all EU member states implement the treaty and if an election is held later in this Parliament, which is a lot of ifs, then we would be in a situation where we had a new treaty in force that lacked democratic legitimacy in this country and in our view gave the EU too much power over our national policies.

“This would not be acceptable to a Conservative government and we would not let matters rest there.” When asked if that meant a postratification referendum, he replied: “It means what it says it means, exactly what I said earlier.”

Mr Clarke(Ken) then intervened, telling Mr Hague: “It seems to me that the alternatives are repudiation of a treaty which this country has ratified, an attempt to renegotiate it or reopen it or a parliamentary process of some kind, or a referendum.”

In my view this is an attempt to not only confuse, but also to deceive, as the restriction of 'in this parliament' restricts the commitment to a period when full ratiificatiom by all nations has not been accomplished. Cameron does seem to be prepared to accept permanent loss of our democracy if he is elected PM after the Treaty has been ratified and Britain will therefore only ever be able to withdraw under the unacceptable terms of Article 35 of said Treaty. In other words what little national wealth and assets might remain after our decades of membership will also be lost with who knows what obligations of longer term indebtedness.

Cameron's Conservatives are once again on the old devious pro-EU route.

EU Accounts fail again!

The Guardian report is here. Daniel Hannan MEP, has an item, linked here, in the Telegraph expressing surprise at our continuing acceptance of EU corruption, my comment may be found at 07:36 am.

Friday, November 09, 2007

One year without trial????

Yesterday our pathetic and now virtually powerless politicians discussed how much beyond 28 days it was reasonable to hold terrorist suspects. In Italy today, for the second time in a few days, we were shown what one of our European partners thinks of EU law, human rights and Habeas Corpus. Three suspects in the murder of a British student will be held without charge for up to a year. This British Government has already presented us with the European Arrest Warrant ensuring we can all share in such enlightened justice.

EU institutionalises suppression of truth!

The disgusting villification of whistleblower Marta Andreasen has now been awarded the full seal of EU approval by the increasingly shameless and blatant \ly tyrannical EU as reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning, read it from here. The following quote says it all: "..The commission is entitled to respect, trust and loyalty from its officials," said a spokesman.

The commission claims that Mrs Andreasen broke internal rules of "hierarchy" by going to the press and MEPs with her concerns over standards of EU accounting.

Unhappily this disgraceful assertion has been upheld by EU Judges in EU Courts, anyone get comfort from the Charter of Rights?????

The news comes in the same week as it is expected that for the 13th year running auditors will refuse to sign off on the EU accounts. Meanwhile the people of Europe are supposed to idly stand and watch as their career politicians in the ruling party of each government in the EU, the main beneficiaries of this massive scam, happily hand complete control of their countries to the new EU Council run by and for the benefit of the members of their own cosy club! With the funds thus gathered they no doubt hope to then bypass what little remains of democracy in their own neutered ex-nations. Surely this can more widely be seen for the outrage it truly is? A good rule in life when encountering an enigma is to follow the money. The EU Judges by this ruling have ensured this will effectively be impossible within the EU. To bring this home here is a quote from the Englishman expected toperhaps sign off on this year's accounts, linked here: 'Life is very good here. Brussels has a million people, so it's a very liveable size. And the cuisine is very good.' No whistle blower he!

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Only a quarter of the Irish support EU Reform Treaty

The BBC reports the Irish Times Opinion Poll, linked here. In France the largest union the CGT is demanding a new referendum in spite of the Socialist Party having now agreed to parliamentary ratification.

Across the board incompetence!

The head of London's Police Force is determined to stay in position regardless of the motions of no confidence and ever mounting evidence of his incompetence. The useless Home Secretary heading a department of proven senior incompetents refuses to request his resignation as the flood gates would then swing open! Dirty hospitals, unlawful killings from the MOD, runs on banks, uncounted mass immigration, failing education, throttled transportation systems, prisoners freed early and jails over-crowded, the list goes on and on! Is it any wonder that Sir Ian Blair refuses to resign, if he went could any government minister or senior functioneer really remain in post?

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Some in Africa see the truth behind the EU

An item on a site "African Path" has a revealing article by Elie B. Smith titled:
"Robert Gabriel Mugabe: the disgrace of Africa will be in Lisbon"
The opening paragraph is quoted below, but I recommend you read it all, from here. How can it be that African commentators can see the reality so clearly while almost the entire population of the Continent of Europe is silent on the tyranny rising in their midst? "Are we surprised that, the European Union, which is made up of 27 states, has decided to give a VIP invitation to Mr Mugabe? The invitation, will enable Comrade Bob, to attain the Euro-African summit, scheduled for the Portuguese capital, Lisbon, on the 8th and 9th of December 2007. If there is any one who is surprised by the consecration, given to the Zimbabwean leader by Brussels, then he/she does not know or understand, the proper functioning of the aspiring Empire of Evil, that the European Union truly is. The European Union, that is already or has metamorphosed into a de facto country, is a body that doesn’t like contradictions and its leaderships are constituted of spent and nationally regurgitated politicians."

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Charter of Rights inapplicable for Romanians?

The British Foreign Secretary challenged the EU Scrutiny Committee to find one legal right in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU Reform Treaty that was not already in existing treaties. IF that is the case the Charter must be worthless as this blog has always maintained for it must clearly exclude Romanians as may be read in this report from the International Herald Tribune. A Charter of Rights can only be as good as the moral authority and integrity of those enacting the Charter. Given the complete lack of honesty or integrity in the activities and structures of the EU, rights granted by that institution are therefore quite obviously worthless. Handy of the Italians and the EU Commission to demonstrate the point so clearly AND before the parliamentarians of the nation states can innocently claim they did not know we are all losing our freedoms as they rush through the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty! Which group will be next to lose their rights? Opponents of the disgraceful Lisbon Treaty perhaps?

Monday, November 05, 2007

Lisbon Treaty must become the modern day Munich!

Chamberlain at Munich became noted as the high point of Nazi appeasement. In fact the terms were so abhorrent to the nation at large that in reality Munich marked the turning point from which resistance to the Nazi evil could commence. The terms of the reborn Constitutional Treaty are practically irrelevant when considering the means by which it is being foisted upon once sovereign and democratic European nation states. Can secretive powers capable of such deception later be relied upon for one moment to adhere to the terms the Treaty contains? It seems inconceivable that they will, when expediency is so clearly the main driving force. A German Foreign Office view of the Munich Agreement and the immediately following decision by Britain to rearm may be read from the transcripts of the Nuremberg Nazi War Crimes trial from which comes the following quote, linked here:

Q. What was the foreign political reaction to the Munich Agreement?

A. The Munich Agreement is well known. Its contents were the following: Germany and England should never again wage war; the naval agreement on the ratio of 100 to 35 was to be permanent and, in important matters, consultations were to be resorted to. Through this agreement the atmosphere between Germany and England was undoubtedly cleared up to a certain degree. It was to be expected that the success of this pact would bring about a final understanding. The disappointment was very great when, a few days after Munich, rearmament at any cost was announced in England. Then England started on a policy of alliance and close relationship with France. In November, 1938, trade policy measures were taken against Germany, and in December, 1938, the British Colonial Secretary made a speech, which negatived any revision of the colonial question. Contact with the United States of America was also established. Our reports of that period, as I remember them, showed an increased, I should like to say, "stiffening" of the English attitude towards Germany, and the impression was created in Germany of a policy which practically aimed at her encirclement.


Sunday, November 04, 2007

Northern Rock

Professor Tim Congden was reported in an FT article, in which he tried to claim taxpayers money in Northern Rock is a good deal, to hold shares in Northern Rock. The article is linked here, the following being the online summary: ===========================================================

Northern Rock is making money for taxpayers

By Tim Congdon

Published: November 1 2007 18:20 Last updated: November 2 2007 00:02

Government intervention in the management of Northern Rock is universally regarded as a stain on British banking and monetary policy. The Bank of England’s loan has reached nearly £23bn, which is about a fifth of Northern Rock’s total liabilities. Alistair Darling, the chancellor, has said he expects the bank’s directors to come up with proposals by February to end its reliance on government support.

But what is the rush? Is there a serious threat to Britain’s public finances? Is a large sum of public money at risk?

=========================================================== It ends as follows: "The writer's latest book is 'Keynes, the Keynesians and Monetarism' (Edward Elgar). He has shares in Northern Rock" How is it then that the BBC Newsnight programme put this same "Professor" up against the temporary Lib/Dem Leader Vince Cable, as an "INDEPENDENT" expert????????????????? FOR MORE ON THE UNFOLDING FINANCIAL CRISIS THIS SEEMS THE BEST ARTICLE FROM THE SUNDAY PRESS -"The worst crisis I have seen in 30 years" Will Hutton, The Observer.

Friday, November 02, 2007

Worrying times!

From the business pages of The Times comes this news: Last night in New York, the Federal Reserve was forced to pump $41 billion (£19.7 billion) into the American financial system, the largest cash infusion since the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Barclays and Vodaphone seem to be the shares under pressure in London. Northern Rock has so far cost British taxpayers over seven hundred pounds each and the costs are still rising. What a time for Britain's Parliament to be recessed, one presumes because of the fright of the Prime Minister at the daily and ever growing evidence of his own past total incompetence AND that of almost every one of his Cabinet colleagues!

Treaty text being denied to Parliament

Is there no affront to democracy beyond the power of this government...... and no outrage against democracy that cannot be ignored by our media? The House of Lords Committee responsible for vetting the EU Reform Treaty is being denied immediate access to the agreed text as reported only in The Guardian, linked here: "We accordingly recommend that, as soon as possible, the government deposit in parliament a full and thorough analysis of the changes which the reform treaty, on the basis of existing texts, would bring about, drawing attention to differences from existing treaty provisions.

"This should include both a consolidated version of the treaties, as amended by the reform treaty, and an in-depth policy analysis of the effect of the changes.

"We expect that all departments would be involved in the preparation of this material."

Jim Murphy, the Europe minister, said he welcomed the committee's report and would respond fully to its recommendations "in due course".