Lisbon and the Treaty of Velsen (Towards a Police State)

Anne Palmer's thoughts on parts of the Treaty of Lisbon combined with other very serious matters. 30.12.2007. Part One.

1) It is a couple of months ago now since I last looked at the Web-site of the European Gendarmerie Force (mid November) round about the time I sent out an email address for a 35 page booklet with Pictures of EU Forces from the federal Government of Germany (34 pages) European Security and Defence Policy.

2) Perhaps if I had paid more attention to regular visits on the site I would have seen that a new Treaty (The Treaty of Velsen) had been signed more or less at the same time as the EU’s Reform Treaty (now known as The Lisbon Treaty) had been signed by our Prime Minister.

3) It was only when I had an e-mail from Torquil Dick-Erikson that I was I alerted to the Treaty. Treaties should be clear and precise with the meaning perfectly clear especially when dealing with a Treaty that will affect all 27 Member States and every person in those Countries. For a Treaty not to be clear and precise and to deliberately make it so that few can understand its meaning, is a complete betrayal of all the people that MP’s and important dignitaries represent. It is, I would suggest, dishonest and deceitful. It is clearly meant to deceive. Fraud?

4) While the Treaty of Velson seems relatively clear to me, the Treaty of Lisbon is open to misinterpretation. It has been made so intentionally. Passages in it can mean anything the authors of the Treaties want it to mean with the real and true intention of achieving its objective hidden away from view. Numbers of the Articles have been changed three times (to confuse?) along with placing certain Articles in completely different places and sense can only be made of certain articles if put together with others. For the Reform Treaty look to the web page listed below. Jens-Peter Bonde explains this deliberately muddled treaty very well on his Web-page. (below).

5) It was only comparing the Treaty of Lisbon with the Treaty of Velson, the latter brought to my attention by Torquil, the remarkable difference to the layout of the Velsen Treaty to the Lisbon, that I realised just exactly how the people had been deliberately duped, made fools of, by a despicable underhand action by those that had a ‘say’ in the writing of this Treaty. Perhaps because of the need by politicians to try to rush through their particular Parliaments and Governments this important constitutional Treaty of Lisbon, I have decided to act on the Lisbon Treaty first, because action is needed now, at once, it is URGENT.

6) During the “Period of Reflection” after the rejection of the “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe” by France and The Netherlands instead of going back to the “Drawing Board” and looking to rectify the concerns of the people, the EU decided on what may well turn out to be, a “suicidal mission” in their attempt to deliberately deceive millions of people, among which may be (or are) Government Ministers and Heads of State.

7) Ours is not the only country where the people have so many grave concerns. Jens-Peter Bonde has also accumulated many points and are listed on his web-site. Many have been the comments from those in power as to the real meaning of the Treaty. “That it is the same as the Constitution, only put another way” etc, and others, particularly in this Country, “that it (the then Reform Treaty-now the Lisbon Treaty) “is nothing like the EU Constitution and therefore there is no need of a (promised) referendum”. So very many are these kind of comments from people ‘of note’, from many countries, from important dignitaries that there is more than enough ‘evidence’ to prove this point.

8) It is a Treaty that perhaps the Vienna Convention on Treaties would not want to be party to, particularly so in view of its ‘guide lines’ or “laws” on the subject. Perhaps the EU’s methods are distasteful to the United Nations that even the United Nations might in the end shrink away from it too, for it has its high reputation to consider. Could or would the United Nations or the Vienna Convention on Treaties accept a European Union to “Speak with its one voice for all” knowing that the EU had deliberately set out to deceive 400 million people with such a Treaty? Particularly so, now that the people are beginning to be aware that those that want power over all, have sunk to such low depths to “get their way”? Is this not the way to ‘civil unrest’ in some of the EU’s member states? That during the “Time of Reflection” the EU had brought about a muddled Treaty to be able to say it is completely different to the rejected Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe to avoid holding the promised referendum in any State except Ireland whose constitution is such that a referendum has to be held? The EU in this instance, if this Treaty is allowed to go through in its present state may have brought Organisations that many people look up to, into disrepute.

9) Listed below is an “Editorial”, which on pages 38 and 39 headed, “Tales from inside a Blue Submarine”, gives reasons why and how the Treaty is deliberately muddled to confuse the people (and possibly MP’s) so that none would understand the true meaning of its contents. I quote; “the negotiations that preceded the Lisbon Treaty were a masterpiece in submarine technology. In complete contrast to the relative transparency surrounding the drawing up of the Constitution in 2003-2004, member states and the EU institutions this time deliberately opted for opacity…. and all in the name of efficiency! But on one condition…that it wouldn’t be seen.” …… “The mandate is, however, so detailed and incomprehensible that it is almost impossible to unravel. ‘that was the aim’ admitted one diplomat ‘to leave as small a margin as possible for the unexpected to happen’.

10) Having looked at the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I took particular note of Article 31, and in particular section 1, General rule of interpretation, Article32, Supplementary means of interpretation, Article 40 Amending Treaties, Article 49, Fraud and others up to Article 62. These articles are in this Treaty for a purpose. Long lasting Treaties should be honestly written so that all involved in the ratification of these binding Treaties can understand them fully. Where there are deliberate attempts by authors of Treaties to confuse the people, this brings only shame and more lack of trust to politicians once more. I have also found that there are wide variations on the interpretations of the Lisbon Treaty by our Members of Parliament and also in the House of Lords in recent debates on the Treaty of Lisbon already. They cannot ALL be “right” and as these Treaties alter the way of life of all the people in each Nation State seemingly forever, the people at this particular time deserve the true meaning of the European Union and its aims for the future. If EU politicians (who are mainly national politicians also, are proud of what they are doing, they should tell the people. I do not mean because they ‘have achieved an “opt out” on certain matters or “red-lines’ through another section, I mean the main goal, the ultimate end of the EU if there is ever to be an end. We read that already parts of the un-ratified Treaty are being implemented, I write of course of the EU Embassies.

11) There may also be a feeling that, because of the lack of trust among the British people for their politicians caused through their own representatives in Parliament ignoring the people en mass, they doubt, but perhaps live in the constant hope that no Member of Parliament is capable of deliberately misleading the people as happened before when a former Minister said before we joined the European Economic Community that there would be ‘no loss of essential sovereignty’ and that ‘this Country had joined a Common Market for trade’. Sadly, the action regarding this Treaty and its passage through Parliament already, the trust I have in politicians is even less ’today’ than it was ‘yesterday’.

12) This is too important a matter not to put this ‘reasoning’ to our own MP’s, ‘legal’ people, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her Heirs and I doubt very much that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties would take very kindly to having such a deliberately muddled document lodged with them. I will of course be forwarding on this to Jen-Peter Bonde..

13) I am not asking for a referendum, I rather expect our own politicians to reject this Treaty outright on similar grounds and/or as portrayed above. I cannot believe that any British MP whose solemn Oath of Allegiance is to the Crown and their own Country could possibly agree to ratification of this Treaty. Violation of that Oath is of course the gravest matter of all.

14) It is your right to question those that ‘speak’ on your behalf. It is your DUTY as a British citizen to defend and protect your Queen and Country from those that you do not elect for Governing your Country in what may be forever if this Treaty is ratified. Two Prime Ministers of this Country have indicated their agreement by signing Treaties that, if ratified, would allow foreigners to govern this Country probably, forever. It is not in their gift to do this for it is completely at odds with our own Constitution, to which ALL MP’s should follow at all times. Each and every one of us have a bound Oath of Allegiance to the Queen (Crown) and this Country and to which our total loyalty is to our Crown and our own Country. The Governing of it, the freedoms once fought for and cost this Country so much in young lives, must be preserved for following generations. This too is our duty.

15) This Treaty would bind this Country forever to an organisation we would have absolutely no control over and laws we would have to obey and never, ever be able to protect ourselves from. This I will show clearly in Part 2 through the words in the Treaty of Velson. At the very least this Treaty of Lisbon should be re-written, to be clear and precise and truthful as to what is wanted, and for those countries that want to become fully integrated and be governed from Brussels to go ahead and for those that want to be free, to say NO.

16) Members of Parliament and our Government send our troops to allegedly fight for “Democracy” for other countries while we here in “The Mother Country” obey laws by un-elected Commissioners in the EU, and our own democratically elected Politicians deny their own people a promised referendum.

I end with a paragraph taken from an Article shown on the Telegraph website before I had received the e-mail from Torquil which, when I received it found me burning “the midnight oil” long into the early morning light, such was the horror at what I was reading and what would, could, may happen to us all in this Country if we “simply trust our MP’s and ‘let it all happen’.

My contribution to the Telegraph Web page, “We no longer live in a democracy, we have not lived in a true democracy for some time now. Prime Minister Brown is in POWER in order to hand over this Country to the EU to govern BUT, and it is a very big BUT, powerful leaders become so used to POWER, they forget the people. For years leaders of this Country have re-organised our forces, Police, Counties, Parishes into REGIONS of the EU in order to "fit in" with the EU and obviously Mr Brown's plans. However, not everything goes according to plan, does it? The people obviously will not have a vote on the EU Treaty but if MP's DO have a vote on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and if ever there is indeed another general election for alleged Government of this Country, WHO will place their cross by the name of any MP that has put the EU before their own Country by voting for ratification of the EU Reform Treaty (Lisbon Treaty). FOR ALL, each and every one of us owes allegiance to this, our own Country and may it always be so”. (This is one point I would like to get across very, very strongly because the names of ‘who voted for what’ are printed in Hansard. It is perhaps up to us to bombard National Newspapers into getting this message across, that we will know exactly who has voted for the EU to govern us forever. If we, the people cannot vote to save our Country, we must make sure that MP's that WE have democratically elected and through our taxes, paid for -in the past- to work for and represent US, especially if they still want to get paid and handle their famously high expenses-they know without doubt that the vast majority of people want no further integration into the European Union, they should therefore and without doubt, vote against ratification of this Treaty of Lisbon.)

I see no point or a need for a British Parliament-either houses- because the EU will rule through “its Regions”. Most certainly the people of this Country cannot afford yet another layer of Government. Our MP’s will have voted them-selves out of a job if they vote to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon and they know it.

“Freedom, Liberty and Democracy have to be nurtured, treasured and protected. We have treated all three too carelessly and it rather looks as if we, the people will have to insist politicians who we used to vote for in the past to represent us, do so once again”. Posted by Anne on December 29, 2007 8:16 AM

Should this Treaty be ratified however, the people have nothing to lose. Even our MP’s and the EU know that too. Hence no doubt what will bring me on to Part two of this Article. We can revert to our own Common Law Constitution. This is what it is there for. We all then, each and every one of us, have a duty to adhere to Magna Carta with all its implications and our Bill of Rights 1688.

http://www.europolitics_3407_special_treaty.pdf I have tried this and it seems to no longer work, however, I can send as ‘attachment’ if required.

Jens-Peter Bonde’s article of 19.12.2007 is on

http://www.bonde.com/index.phtml?print=true&sid=487&aid=25366

or http://www.bonde.com/ or I can send in attachment.

Official Journal for the EU Reform Treaty latest.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 on

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

Pictures of the Treaty signing ceremony at Velsen here

http://www.eurogendfor.org/eurogendfortreaty/treaty.html

Download the EGF Treaty in .pdf

Pictures of EU Forces from the federal Government of Germany (34 pages) European Security and Defence Policy held on http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/Infoservice/Broschueren/ESVP-EN.pdf in glorious Technicolor.

http://www.europolitics.info

Anne Palmer.

From the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Article 17

Consent to be bound by part of a treaty and choice of differing provisions

1.Without prejudice to articles 19 to 23, the consent of a State to be bound by part of a treaty is effective only if the treaty so permits or the other contracting States so agree.

2.The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty which permits a choice between differing provisions is effective only if it is made clear to which of the provisions the consent relates.

SECTION 3. ENTRY INTO FORCE AND PROVISIONAL,

APPLICATION OF TREATIES

Article 24 Entry into force

1.A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree.

2.Failing any such provision or agreement, a treaty enters into force as soon as consent to be bound by the treaty has been established for all the negotiating States.

3.When the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is established on a date after the treaty has come into force, the treaty enters into force for that State on that date, unless the treaty otherwise provides.

4.The provisions of a treaty regulating the authentication of its text, the establishment of the consent of States to be bound by the treaty, the manner or date of its entry into force, reservations, the functions of the depositary and other matters arising necessarily before the entry into force of the treaty apply from the time of the adoption of its text.

Article 29 Territorial scope of treaties

Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory.

Article 31 General rule of interpretation

1.A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

2.The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:

(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;

(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

3.There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;

(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;

(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.

4.A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.

Article 32 Supplementary means of interpretation

Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:

(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or

(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

Article 40 Amendment of multilateral treaties

1.Unless the treaty otherwise provides, the amendment of multilateral treaties shall be governed by the following paragraphs.

2.Any proposal to amend a multilateral treaty as between all the parties must be notified to all the contracting States, each one of which shall have the right to take part in:

(a) the decision as to the action to be taken in regard to such proposal;

(b) the negotiation and conclusion of any agreement for the amendment of the treaty.

3.Every State entitled to become a party to the treaty shall also be entitled to become a party to the treaty as amended.

4.The amending agreement does not bind any State already a party to the treaty which does not become a party to the amending agreement; article 30, paragraph 4 (b), applies in relation to such State.

5.Any State which becomes a party to the treaty after the entry into force of the amending agreement shall, failing an expression of a different intention by that State:

(a) be considered as a party to the treaty as amended; and

(b) be considered as a party to the unamended treaty in relation to any party to the treaty not bound by the amending agreement.

Article 49 Fraud

If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 50

Corruption of a representative of a State

If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 51 Coercion of a representative of a State

The expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 62 Fundamental change of circumstances

1.A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as aground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and

(b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.

2.A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:

(a) if the treaty establishes a boundary; or

(b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

**********************************

Another EU Constitution Conspirator eyes Presidency

Oh the blatant shallowness of these little creeps who now lead Europe into non-democracy! Now the Prime Minister of Ireland, following the naked ambition of the ex-Prime Minister of the UK and the Danish PM, lusts for the power of the presidential post. Read the report from here.

9th May 2008 - Last chance for EU Democracy?

Read about the possible Irish referendum date from here.

EU relies on Brown's treachery to ease Irish YES

The report on the ongoing conspiracy is in the IHT linked from here.

Which is greater, Democracy's Crisis or the Economic Crisis?

The Scottish Parliament has voted for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty!!!!!!!!!! Read it here. BUT also Barclays is suing Bear Sterns which seems to me a serious development, read here, and Morgan Stanley has another 9.4 billion write down and a 5 billion Chinese investment, linked here. Britain of course remains without one single competent Cabinet Minister nor any effective opposition. Merry Christmas.

The Lisbon Treaties Signature 13/12/07

This Horrendous EU. Lies, Intrigue, Sedition and Blackmail Overpowering Nationhood. Tyrannical and Rotten Elites, Acclaim Totalitarianism In Extinguishing Self-governance. (Martin Cole, use freely as you wish).

Brown belatedly signs the shabby treaty

See the shameful moment from the good Evening Standard coverage, linked here. Now the battle to prevent ratification must begin. Shame your MP. Threaten their pensions!

Miliband greeted in Lisbon

The Foreign Secretary has arrived at the signing ceremony and been greeted by the Portugese President and Prime Minister. Britain's democracy is slipping away.

Brown confirms Parliament to be bypassed over "Opt Ins"

In the closing moments of the evidence to the Commons Liason Committee, at 1115 GMT, Gordon Brown, Britain's Prime Minister has confirmed that with the three month limit for "Opt Ins" under the Lisbon Treaty the Westminster Parliament will not be consulted and such decisions will be made by the Government of the day. This admission must surely now prevent his signing this Treaty in Lisbon today, for it is a clear contravention of all the parliamentary procedures of the British nation.

Britons will be slaves!

Even though the Foreign Minister's flight from Heathrow to Lisbon has been delayed by some two hours and the Prime Minister is still giving evidence in the Commons, it seems that today Britain will join the other 26 countries of the EU in sacrificing their parliamentary democracies to be governed by a small secretive politburo called "The European Council" If you can stand the sickening sight of this treachery being performed a live TV stream is available from this link.

EU democrats demonstrate in Strasbourg Parliament

The report from Reuters may be read from here.

Signing away our birthright

The Hansard report on yesterday's debate begins from this link. I am quoting what I consider the main points. Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): As the Foreign Secretary is adamant in refusing the British people a vote, why does he not give this House a vote before he signs away our birthright by signing the treaty? Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend confirm for the record that, however lengthy the debate in the House may be, it is not a question of amending even a single comma but of accepting the whole treaty or nothing? Therefore, the whole concept of the House being involved in the drafting and drawing up of the treaty was not realised. We are being given a rather black-and-white choice rather late in the day. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): Just to clarify exactly what the Foreign Secretary said, will he tell me what would happen if a particular amendment tabled by the House went through to amend one part of the treaty? Is he basically saying that we are going to spend months and months discussing it, but that it quite honestly makes no difference whether or not anyone turns anything down because the treaty will go through? Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way; he is being most generous. At the Council, will he raise the question of the European gendarmerie force? Will he confirm that the force is now heavily armed and can recruit personnel from any EU member or candidate country, including countries such as Turkey? Will he give an undertaking that it will never be allowed to operate on British soil? Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): Bless the very young Foreign Secretary. However, he has not mentioned the greatest myth of all—the Labour party’s pledge to hold a referendum on the constitution. What happened to that? We still substantially have the constitution. Among all the myths that the right hon. Gentleman has found, where are the British people invited to express a view on something that is profoundly important to their future and well-being? Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks) (Con) (Highlights from the Shadow Foreign Secretaries speech): Alongside all those compelling global questions, the House’s main preoccupation is, of course, the European treaty that is to be signed this weekend. This debate is traditional, but it is disappointing that the Government have offered no separate debate on the recent report of the European Scrutiny Committee, which resulted in the Committee’s exceptional decision to exercise its scrutiny reserve on a treaty and to call for a debate specifically on the document before it was signed. The response of Ministers to that request has been to ignore it. There has been a pattern in the Government’s behaviour this year of minimising parliamentary scrutiny on the issue whenever possible. In June, only days before the treaty was agreed in principle, the Foreign Secretary’s predecessor was saying that she was not aware of any negotiations, even between other countries—as if the vast document that then emerged came literally out of nowhere, handed down by some great deity of European affairs with no prior discussion with any human beings. Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab) rose— 11 Dec 2007 : Column 196 Mr. Hague: I shall give way to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. Michael Connarty: I am sorry for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman’s flow, but I must correct him on an important point. The document under scrutiny was the Commission’s opinion on the intergovernmental conference, which was then added to by the Government’s White Paper on the Commission’s opinion. The reform treaty, even in draft, has never been presented to us in this House, which is disappointing. We are not scrutinising that, because we have never been given it to look at. Mr. Hague: I am sure that that is correct, because it comes from the Chairman of the Committee. It is also correct that the Committee called for a debate in this House specifically on its report before the treaty is signed. That, of course, is the point that I was seeking to make. Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): The situation is a bit worse than my right hon. Friend described. In May, the Foreign Affairs Committee wrote a public letter to the Foreign Office stating: “The Committee regards the refusal of the FCO to provide a Minister to give oral evidence during this crucial phase of the discussions on the future of Europe as a failure of accountability to Parliament.” Is he aware of any other instance when a Select Committee of the House has reprimanded the Government in those terms? Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, because that is highly unusual language from a Select Committee to the Government. It was used against the background to which I was just referring, whereby the Foreign Secretary’s predecessor said that no negotiations were taking place. Her actual words when she gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee on 7 June were “that nothing that you could really call negotiations have taken place”. Everyone knew that Sherpas were going around Europe and that discussions were taking place between European capitals. Richard Younger-Ross: The question put to the Foreign Secretary’s predecessor was put by me, and she was clear that no negotiations or discussions had taken place. Under pressure from the Committee it was later confirmed—this Foreign Secretary has confirmed it—that the Sherpas did meet on 24 January, 2 May and 15 May. The right hon. Lady was clearly trying to avoid any questioning about what might have been discussed at those meetings. Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): On that very point, would my right hon. Friend also take into account the fact that not only have these proceedings and this process been conducted in a deceitful manner, but the European Scrutiny Committee said, after we had seen the Foreign Secretary, that “we reiterate our earlier comment that the process could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate”? In other words, the whole thing has been a charade. Mr. Hague: I was going to cite that very passage from that report. It is marvellous of my hon. Friend to provide the service of reading out parts of my speech before I have arrived at them. [Interruption.] It is also quite unusual. That is not the only example of such treatment of Parliament. On 25 June, when the former Prime Minister came back to sell the treaty in his last two days in office, he managed some remarkably selective quoting. Reading from the protocol on the charter of fundamental rights, to show—as he hoped—that there would be no effect on British law, he actually missed out the words “Title IV” from an otherwise verbatim passage, so as not to betray the fact that the Government’s clarification on the charter, whatever that may turn out to be worth, can apply in only one of the areas that it covers. The Foreign Secretary himself has set a doubtful example in such matters by refusing to list, in response to my written questions, the areas in which the constitution and the reform treaty are exactly the same—even though other authorities have been willing to do so—presumably because he does not want to concede with his own pen what is a fact: that vast tracts of the constitution have been incorporated as they stood into the reform treaty...... On the Government’s approach to frank discussion of the treaty, the Foreign Secretary and his predecessor were at fault. I shall not quote again the passage that 11 Dec 2007 : Column 198 my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has already quoted, but I believe it to be true. Even now it is unclear just how much debate there will be in the House of this far-ranging treaty. Ministers have told the press that there will be 20 days of debate, although it would not be difficult to fill far more than that. However, they have not so far been forthcoming on the matter in the House and we look forward to hearing how many days of debate there will be. The treaty will bring about a profound change in the EU’s structures and powers, with major consequences for Britain. One way to illustrate to the House the scale of what is proposed is to look at the wide range of proposals in the treaty to which the Government were themselves opposed in recent years, and even in recent months. As recently as June this year, the Government argued that the high representative or Foreign Minister should not be able to chair the regular meetings of Foreign Ministers or take over the resources of the European Commissioner responsible for external affairs, but both of those things are to happen. ..............The ability to abolish further national vetoes without a new treaty—something that he (Denis Macshane) himself opposed—is now there in black and white. Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not intend to keep him long. Is he aware that we do not need any kind of change, because as we have recently seen with Galileo, it does not matter what the House of Commons thinks about particular items, if our views are to be totally ignored through the use of qualified majority voting? Mr. Hague: On the particular matter that we are discussing, unanimity is required to abolish further vetoes, and I suppose that it would be possible to build into the procedures of the House further safeguards on that. However, in respect of many other matters, what the hon. Lady says is quite right. One by one, the Government’s arguments on the treaty have been knocked down. First, they said that it was quite different from the constitution, and they made reassuring noises. The Foreign Secretary talked about the Conservative Prime Minister of Denmark. He should know that the Danish Prime Minister belongs to a party that is in the Liberal group in the European Parliament, so it is a doubtful proposition that he will persuade Conservative Members to agree with his argument, on the basis that they would be agreeing with the Liberals.

Secondly, the Government said that the treaty is different from the constitution, because

“the constitutional concept...has been abandoned”.

The European Scrutiny Committee pointed out in an earlier report that it considered that

“references to abandoning a ‘constitutional concept’...are...likely to be misleading in so far as they might suggest the Reform Treaty is of lesser significance than the Constitutional Treaty.”

11 Dec 2007 : Column 201

Yesterday, another of the Government’s arguments—that we desperately a need a new treaty to avoid institutional standstill after EU enlargement—was knocked down by yet another study, this time by the London School of Economics, which found that

“the ‘business as usual’ picture in the EU is more convincing than the ‘gridlock’ picture as regards practice in and output from the EU institutions since May 2004.”

The truth about the treaty is that it is not actually necessary. The Government have therefore been forced to say that it does not pose a problem, because all their negotiating objectives have been reached......

It was one of the most important features of the original Constitution that criminal and civil justice and policing would no longer be intergovernmental matters, and the red line does not change that effect in any way. The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the Committee’s stringent criticisms of the Government’s failure to ensure that, unlike Denmark, our position vis-� -vis existing agreed measures is secure. The Committee concludes that “under the system to be established by the Reform Treaty, a Member State will lose the ability finally to determine its own law” on justice and home affairs— “to the extent that measures are adopted at Union level”. These conclusions must be taken seriously. They come from a Committee that has a majority of the governing party in the House. Each of the Government’s red lines is in turn exposed as weak or worthless. The last of Ministers’ arguments that the treaty is significantly different from the EU constitution has been demolished. In any other field of policy, it would be thought perverse to hand more responsibilities to a body that cannot properly manage those that it already possesses, yet that is what Ministers propose to do. This is the 13th year that the Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the EU’s accounts. Year after year, the European Union fails to look after taxpayers’ money to the standard that taxpayers have every right to expect. It is time Ministers took more action over that than they have in recent years. The abolition of national vetoes—69 by one account, and 50 by the Government’s latest tally—is another important issue. It is astonishing that Ministers are so blithe about it when they are even now fighting a desperate rearguard action on the temporary workers directive, whose red tape would, according to the CBI, endanger 250,000 jobs. The Government are finding it very hard to keep a blocking minority together, but they need a blocking minority only because this area is an EU competence and subject to qualified majority voting, both of which are a direct consequence of the abandonment of our opt-out from the social chapter in 1997.

Mr Hague's conclusion:

It is worth remembering that no one in the House has any democratic mandate from the British people to agree to the treaty. All three main parties stood on manifestos promising the British people a referendum on the constitution. No one’s manifesto said that there would be a referendum on the EU constitution, but if another country voted no in their referendum the British referendum would be scrapped, the Constitution would be given a new name and a few tweaks, and the treaty would be shoved through without the British people being given any say on it at all. But that is the extraordinary thing that Ministers are proposing. The whole story of the treaty has been of the Government’s failure of leadership, in Europe and in Britain. If Ministers are to be believed, they never wanted the constitution or the treaty. They were defeated time and again in the negotiations. Of the 275 amendments that the Government tried to make to the original constitution text, only 27 were accepted. Now they have accepted a treaty that practically the whole of Europe agrees is only cosmetically different from the constitution, and which they dare not put to the British people. Everyone knows what the Government are up to. No one seriously believes that the treaty is significantly different from the constitution. Some, like the constitution’s chief draftsman, about whom the Foreign Secretary was rather dismissive earlier, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, cannot stop pointing that out. After the October summit he told European newspapers that “the difference ... is one of approach, rather than content”. Last month he told the BBC that “you wouldn’t be honest to tell the British voters the substance of the text has changed— because the substance has not changed”. He has written with satisfaction in his blog that the constitution’s “essential points ... reappear word for word in the new project. Not a comma has changed!” Everyone knows what is really going on. No impartial commentator thinks that the Government are up to anything other than a cynical and calculated manoeuvre to avoid holding a referendum. Ministers have neither the courage to fight an election, nor the courage and honour to keep their own promise of a referendum. Once again they are happy to treat the people of this country like fools, and the British people deserve better than that. Trust and confidence in the Government are draining away. There remains one notable way for the Prime Minister to repair some of the damage—to honour his promise of a referendum. We will see if he has the courage to admit that he was wrong, act like a statesman and give the British people the chance to have the say that we all promised them.

Extracts from the speech of the Labour Chairman of the Commons EU Scrutiny Committee

Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): In one way I am disappointed that we are having another general debate on European affairs and not being given a full debate on the reform treaty. I believe that there is a technical term for this—it is not one that I knew before I came to Parliament—and that is “frit”. The Government are frit to have a debate on the issue 11 Dec 2007 : Column 206 that really is at this moment at the heart of Europe. We have a term for it in Scotland, which the Minister for Europe will recognise, and that is “feart”. I cannot understand why the Government are in that position: it is clear that a reform treaty debate would have allowed the Government and people such as myself who have looked at the treaty to talk about its contents and structure, but again to argue on the front foot for a European treaty that takes us where that treaty will take us. We could agree on what the treaty will do, and still debate whether it is a good or a bad thing. But in the context of a general debate on European affairs, it becomes somewhat lost. However, at least we are having a debate on European affairs, and I make no apology to the House for raising an issue that is not the reform treaty as my first point today. We should have debates such as this on general matters going to the European Council, but we should also have had a formal debate, as the Lords were brave enough to do on the reform treaty.....

Just last week I spoke to a group of business people through the Industry and Parliament Trust. They said, “We no longer know who to write to. We no longer know who is on the Committees or who we should send our briefs to, because of the collapse of the scrutiny process.” The problem with the treaty is that it will be a festering sore until the Government lance the boil. They could have started that process with a debate on the reform treaty.....

However, we will never get beyond certain issues because the Government appear to be hiding among a maze of red lines and superstructures that they have constructed above them. That is a great disappointment. Mrs. Dunwoody: If my hon. Friend’s Committee had the power to table an amendment to the papers that it considered and to have that voted on to get a resolution capable of being referred to the Floor of the House, that would solve a great many problems—not only from his point of view, but in respect of monitoring what happens in our name in the European Union. 11 Dec 2007 : Column 209 Michael Connarty: I cannot think of a stronger advocate for more powers for the Committee. At the moment, the Government and their Ministers just see us as a bit of an annoyance. We have been crawling all over them and doing our job properly and that can sometimes be tedious. Someone said to me recently, “I’m fed up with writing you letters.” I should say that it was said jovially, but underneath it there was a bit of truth. We do not apologise for that or anything that enhances scrutiny. I shall come later to questions of to deal with the opting-in process; that must be discussed on the Floor of the House if the process is to have any credibility.

The report also introduces the idea of a European citizens initiative; I heard that debated at length last Monday and Tuesday but still do not know what it means. How would citizens get together so pressurise that great bureaucracy? Last week, I also heard statements again and again—including from the rapporteur Richard Corbett, of the Party of European Socialists, and a member of the Labour party. He did not think that the yellow and orange cards would be workable; he said that they would never be used, and many echoed that in last week’s debate. So according to European 11 Dec 2007 : Column 210 parliamentarians, those supposedly great powers given to the national Parliaments would never be triggered. That worries me greatly. Ms Gisela Stuart: Does my hon. Friend accept that the citizens initiative, which as he rightly says is completely unworkable and gives rights to citizens that we do not even give to Parliament, was introduced so that some countries could avoid the need for a referendum? It could be said that the people had a direct voice, even if it did not amount to anything. Michael Connarty: The dialogue was interesting. Some members, particularly people from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe—and particularly Mr. Duff, who chaired and steered the sitting every way, as long as it was his way—said that the national Parliaments should focus on telling the European Parliament what they thought, and that it would then try to tell the Commission and the Council. I do not think that that is the role of national Parliaments, which should focus on making their Governments go to the Council and agree the right thing. We have arrived at a new place, which may be interesting, although I am not sure how it will work.

Mr. Davidson: May I seek clarification? If in future 95 per cent. of legislation that comes through Brussels will be consulted on with the European Parliament, what percentage of that legislation will be consulted on with this Parliament? Michael Connarty: That will depend on the Government’s attitude to the role of Parliament. When the Government go to the Council, the European Scrutiny Committee is involved, and European Standing Committees can be involved if they can get the interest of Members of Parliament. However, at the moment I do not think there is a mechanism for Parliament to tell the Government what to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made exactly that point: if resolutions could be tabled and voted on, we might feel that matters of substance were being debated in the House and its Committees. Mr. Davidson: The answer is no then, is it?.............

Michael Connarty:I turn now to the fundamental issues. I hope that people will read what we have said in our reports. As I believe that we have shown in the annex to our 35th report, every provision of the constitutional treaty, apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the reform treaty. We think that they are fundamentally the same, and the Government have not produced a table to contradict our position....

Our third report of the 2007-08 Session shows that the Danish had an agreement whereby if they decided that they did not want to opt in, they would remain with the status quo; the issue would still be under the jurisdiction of the Danish courts and they would not have to walk away. They had an agreement whereby they could keep what they had or choose the new arrangement. We could not understand why our Government did not get the same agreement, and we said so in our report. We are a much bigger country than Denmark, so why did we not have the leverage to say, “We’ll keep what we have, and if we like what you offer we’ll opt into that”? I cannot understand that at all; I have never been able to explain it to myself or to my Committee. Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman is an excellent Chairman of the Committee—I hope that my saying that does not ruin his progress—and he is making some excellent points. Is part of the problem the fact that Ministers do not wish to come to this House for decisions to be made, because they wish to make decisions in smoke-filled rooms so that they can trade off a policy that they wish to see go through against other policies? Did not the former Minister for Europe go as far as saying on the record that they were 11 Dec 2007 : Column 213 even prepared to agree to proposals with a questionable legal basis if they could get something that they wanted in return? Michael Connarty: That is a factual statement. The previous Minister for Europe, who is now our Chief Whip, has said that that is how deals are done. I do not know whether other Members who were in previous negotiations accepted that that was how Europe works—that sometimes people give in to something that they are not quite happy with on the basis that they are storing up good will for something coming down the line. That is on the record in one of our evidence sessions, and it was a revelation to me. The Committee cannot understand why, when the text finally came out following the process of negotiations, it contained the word “shall”. It said that under article 8, Parliament “shall” participate in institutions of the European Union. We objected to that and asked why the Government did not negotiate to put in the word “may”. They said that the French word, “contribuant”, means that the action is ongoing, but we talked to French Members, who said, “No, that means, ‘You will contribute’”. We understand that France took a strong position on this. They did not want to take out the word “shall” and put in the word “may”. The wording now is that Parliaments shall “contribute to” or “participate in”. The legal judgment of our officials is that that will be used by the ECJ to say that the Commission, if it wishes to in future, can take infraction against any Parliament that refuses to participate in any part of the EU’s institutions. That is a very negative aspect. We expressed that view to the Government and suggested that they seek that amendment, but they did not secure it. On Monday, I asked President Barroso why we should not insert the word “may”, and he gave the same interpretation as the Portuguese Foreign Minister—that the article imposes no obligation on national Parliaments and is purely declaratory in nature. If that is the case, why not put in “may”?

To be continued

Scotland to back referendum

The press release is linked from here. A report on yesterday's crucial Westminster debate is under preparation and will be posted later today. While sparsely attended there were several first class contributions and the detail of some aspects of what has clearly been a conspiracy are now fully on the public record.

Parliamentary general debate on European Affairs

The debate on the floor of the House of Commons will begin at 3:30 pm this afternoon. It seems there will be no vote so the quality of the contributions will be crucial. This blog will try to monitor the speeches and provide highlights. Needless to say this is a crucial day for our Westminster Parliament, ignored in the media.

Britain a laughing stock...!!!!!!

Former Foreign Secretary Lord Owen writes in the Sunday Times, linked here. A quote;

Signing up for the EU reform treaty in Lisbon on Thursday is a matter of profound consequence. It locks the UK into a process of further integration, with consequences that are hard to foresee. Yet the repercussions of Britain rejecting this treaty, albeit flawed and dangerous, would also be profound.

We boast about Westminster being the mother of parliaments. Well, now is the time for our parliamentarians to show their mettle.

Booker lists some EU failings

Read the Christopher Booker column from here today to read a few of the EU's lesser failings, for the destruction of democracy does not merit a mention.

English heroes to be turning in their graves.

If an English minister puts pen to the Treaty of Lisbon next week the numbers of past English heroes who will be turning in their graves will surely number in the tens of thousands. I have been trying to imagine which of so many would feel the most betrayed and among the non-military and therefore lesser known I have concluded John Locke would be up there amongst the front-runners, for what better description of what the EU now plans to become can be this description from his Two Treatises on Civil Government published anonymously in1690: No government, he wrote, could be considered legitimate unless grounded in the consent of the people - and any ruler who attempted to exercise an arbitrary power "is to be esteemed the Common enemy and Pest of mankind and is to be treated accordingly".

Parliament wins Treaty debate

According to a report from the Daily Telegraph, linked here, the Government has conceded the need for a debate on the Lisbon Treaty before it is signed on Thursday. This will be the supreme test for David Cameron, who must now firmly and unequivocally declare that a referendum will be held on the Treaty by an incoming Conservative Government, even if ratification has already been achieved. There are many grounds to justify such a stance, not least the manner of the negotiations, many of which can be found on this blog.

Arrangements for 13th December Signing Ceremony

The details are here. All freedom loving citizens of Europe must hope that one or more leaders has the courage to refuse to attend this undemocratic ceremony. Not a single national parliament in Europe has had the chance or time to review this document. The elected representatives of the people of Europe should make clear to their leaders that signature of this Treaty prior to parliamentary ratification is a travesty of democracy! National Parliaments, in such constitutional areas, and given the manner of the Treaty's negotiation, must insist on the right to force amendments for subsequent negotiation. The people of a continent are being betrayed next Thursday! Read it here.

The Lisbon Treaty - Full Text

The full text is finally available including the aptly named 'Final Act' Reach it from the 'Council' site linked here.

Belgium break-up and Danish deception!

An interesting insight into the Belgian political crisis comes from the "World Socialist Web Site' linked here. Surely these events clearly reveal where the EU's contempt for nation states is leading. Britain is surely the next at risk as made even clearer by the news today that Scottish police will soon be paid more than their counterparts south of their border! How long can those in Westminster believe such insanity can continue? When the Lisbon Treaty is finally presented to Parliament in English, next week the treachery will be clear! But do any of our representatives care? Their own Commons EU Scrutiny Committee has called for a debate on the floor of the House before this dreadful document is signed are ignored both by both party's establishments but also by the media. The EU provides the nationalists and separationists with the comfort that somehow their citizens will be protected from any fallout from their extremism by the 'motherhood' statements of the Charter of Rights, though growing abuses of the EU systems clearly prove the opposite will be the case, see this. In Denmark suspicions grow that a referendum is being denied to foster the ambitions of the re-elected PM as EU President.

Northern Rock Nationalisation could save Independence

Vince Cable has described Gordon Brown as "petrified by indecision" on the topic of Northern Rock, here, as we learn that one of the main bidders has withdrawn, here. Nationalisation is reported as requiring at least one full day of parliamentary time to push through, certainly a perfect excuse for Brown to cease agonising over an even more awesome decision - whether or not to sign away the nation's independence next Thursday in Lisbon! If Thursday is chosen as the day for the nationalisation legislation all MPs will be required to remain in London with the economic whirlwind likely to then take so much in its wake that Britain's failure to sign might be seen as incidental. At present the EU Reform Treaty appears a comparatively low key matter, but this cannot continue once it has been signed, for the Government is committed to finally releasing the full text to the House of Lords at the same time. The request by the EU Scrutiny Committee, chaired by a Labour MP, to allow debate on the floor of the House before the Treaty has been signed is being ignored, this must become a major issue if Britain becomes a signatory to a document that will for ever bind Westminster. Brown's name as Britain's destroyer will outlive even the Northern Rock fiasco and the economic incompetence it illustrates as being the main Brown legacy and my guess is that he knows this is true! The Constitutional arrangements in the UK are now so muddled that once the Treaty is signed our partners might be able to make a valid case that if Westminster is the sole parliament refusing ratification any veto is no longer relevant. Where would such a case then be argued? An interesting week lies ahead, if next Friday New Labour have signed the document, even more interesting years will lie ahead for a decimated Britain.

Crisis! What crisis?

Gordon Brown to Dr Vincent Cable yesterday in Parliament when asked about Northern Rock: I am beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman is better at the jokes than at economics Anatole Kaletsky today in The Times, linked here: Meanwhile, the British banking system is on the verge of collapse, with total catastrophe only avoided by the biggest financial support operation ever offered to any private company by any government anywhere in the world.

BBC reporting Brown may miss signing.

A diary conflict, as reported by the BBC, seems highly unlikely as the real reason for the PM's non-appearance. An unwillingness to have your signature on a document that consigns your country's democracy to the dustbin seems far more likely. Has milksop Miliband the nerve to perform this ultimate treachery? Read the report from here.

'The Sun' reports Brown might miss Treaty signing

HasBrown twigged that signing this Treaty could be treason? Read the newspaper report from here. If Miliband has full British citizenship then he could be landing himself in big problems being the sole signatory. Proposing the monarch restrict Parliament's powers seems to this non-legal spectator almost certain treason. I had pondered whether Brown might be exempt as Scotland never fully participated in the Reform Act 1688/89 but unless Miliband has retained Hungarian nationality he would appear to be the sacrificial lamb. His performance as Foreign Secretary has been so abysmal I feel sure none in the Labour Party would now much care, certainly none outside that degraded mess. Talking of ministers in trouble, Douglas Alexander looked particularly dejected behind the PM at PMQ today, it is as if he can already feel Plod's grip on his collar! It was Alexander, brother to the now known criminal leader of the Scottish Labour Party, who it was denied was responsible for withdrawing the objections to the Durham Green Business Park, I quote from the original Telegraph article, linked here:

The Secretary of State to whom the Highways Agency answered was Douglas Alexander, who went on to become Gordon Brown's election co-ordinator.

As a result, the Conservative MP Chris Grayling has demanded that the Government discloses whether ministers have discussed planning applications with Mr Abrahams, Mr Ruddick or Mrs Kidd.

Last night the Highways Agency said Mr Alexander had played no part in the decision to allow the development.

Bill Cash MP on the Treaty and Referendum

Bill Cash writes in the European Foundation "Through the EU Labyrinth" linked here, a short quote: "Given the importance of the issues and the fact that the Conservative Party is, at last, fully committed to a referendum, and the deceitful manner in which the Government and other Member States in connivance with the German Presidency have collaborated in secrecy to produce this Treaty and the Government’s broken promises there is more than ample justification for tearing up this Treaty even after it has been implemented in Parliament. It has been signed by deceitful use of the Prerogative and will be rammed through by the Whips in a manner worthy of the Stuarts in the seventeenth Century whose downfall ironically led to the establishment of our democratic Parliament. This is now being undermined. What is missing from the current debate is a real debate. Calls for a referendum will not stir the blood or feelings of those who are being betrayed unless those opposed to the Treaty step up to the plate and argue with passion and honest conviction for their cause. The deliberate playing down of these arguments in the media and in the political parties is in this modern media age an indictment of free speech on which the media harps continuously when anyone dares to impute their editorial integrity."

Shamed head of HMRC back at work

The Times sneaks it at the end of an article hilariously describing how Douglas Alexander's sister cannot resign as they might all fall, linked here, as follows: Paul Gray, the official who quit after taking the blame for the loss of two discs containing bank details of 7 million families, is back at work on a plan to improve civil servants’ skills, two weeks after he resigned as chairman of HM Revenue and Customs. Other media are picking up the story after it broke on Channel 4 last evening, read The Telegraph from here. Surely 'Outrageous' is not too strong in this case.?

The Scot who will sign away England's Parliament

Latest ICM Poll linked here The moral compass is lost, his integrity in tatters, Gordon clings on to disgraced ministers out of fear. Three senior ministers are accused of reckless criminality and senior Labour party officials are facing potential jail sentences. Is it any surprise that an ICM Poll for Newsnight shows that 57% of voters think Gordon Brown is tainted by sleaze? The Labour party is now perceived by most people as institutionally corrupt. (Thanks to "farm3" for the image)

A nice thank you letter to Jersey

Coup d'Etat in Belgium

A report is in The Brussels Journal, linked here. The EU has already brought low many democracies and any semblance of clean governance but this seems to be the first of its hated nation states to have been thus brought to such a pass. The seizure of special powers is in my view essential for the tyrannical EU to ensure the final nail in democracy's coffin may properly be hammered home in Lisbon in ten days time. The lack of a proper Belgium government was one of the last remaining hopes that the dreadful 'Constitutional' Treaty might remain unsigned. Wikipedia states 'Article 88 of the Belgian Constitution provides that "the King's person is inviolable, his ministers are responsible". This means that the King cannot be prosecuted, arrested or convicted of crimes, that he cannot be summoned to appear before a civil court and that he is not accountable to the Federal Parliament.' Britain's Conservative Party remain silent on this Treaty.

E Mail Question for William Hague, Shadow Foreign Secretary

Dear Mr Hague, As Shadow Foreign Secretary and in light of your evidence with Tony Benn to the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee on 10th April 2003, do you not consider the signing, planned in Lisbon on 13th December, of the EU Reform Treaty a potentially lethal breech of the balance of power between Parliament and the Royal Perogative. Article 8a subsection 2 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." In the all powerful European Council will Britain's PM be sitting as a representative of the Monarch or of Parliament in your view? I have posted this question on my blog Ironies Too which has been detailing this unfolding conspiracy for many years, and should you feel able to reply to this query I would appreciate your agreeing to my posting such reply on my blog. Yours sincerely, Martin Cole

EMail Question for the shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve MP

Dear Mr Grieve, Re the Lisbon Treaty Signing 13-12-07 As Shadow Attorney General can you advise if Gordon Brown, as a Scot, representing a Scottish constituency, with loyalty to the Scottish crown, IS bound by the 1688/89 Reform Act? Does the re-birth of a Scottish Parliament affect his obligations? I have posted this question on my blog: http://www.ironiestoo.blogspot.com If you feel able to reply please indicate whether such reply may be similarly posted on my blog. Yours sincerely, Martin Cole

Taxpayers offering unsecured loans

Northern Rock, on a web page headed "We're Open" linked here, is offering unsecured loans up to twenty-five thousand pounds for those with credit problems at 10.9 per cent interest rates. No wonder the debt is growing at such a rate. Is this not an invitation to all to get up to twenty-five thousand pounds for nothing? Has Britain gone completely insane?

Brown must go

The sunday press as can be seen from the two posts below makes Gordon Brown.s continuance in office an impossibility. The leader of the Observer, linked here, makes that perfectly clear, it concludes as follows: As long as there is no evidence that donors received favours for their money, failure to register the gifts properly is a paltry piece of corruption: inept and shabby, but not a malicious subversion of the political system. But it leaves a pall of dishonesty and shiftiness over the government. It reinforces the impression in the public eye that giving money to parties is by definition sleazy, when it could be seen as a civic virtue. That does diminish democracy, albeit over time. It diminishes trust in Labour and Gordon Brown much faster.

Gordon Brown killer of servicemen

The Sunday Times has a report on the Nimrod fire, linked here, this is a quote:

In August 2004 BAE Systems, the manufacturer, was asked to check to see if it would be safe to delay its replacement. BAE’s report warned that there had been 880 fires or “smoke-related incidents” on Nimrods in the past 22 years and that hot air pipes in the bomb bay were too close to the key elements of the fuel system. If a fire broke out in the bomb bay, there was no way of extinguishing it.

The report urged the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to fit a fire suppression system in the bomb bay, but the warning was ignored.

Jimmy Jones, a former RAF engineering officer who worked on the Nimrod trials, said: “If the MoD had acted on BAE Systems’ recommendations, those 14 crew members would still be alive today.”

In November 2004 a hot air pipe in the bomb bay of a Nimrod fractured as the craft came in to land at RAF Kinloss, Morayshire, blasting hot air onto the No 7 tank. An inquiry into that incident found the hot air would have been at least 50C above the spontaneous ignition point of the Nimrod’s Avtur fuel, which had begun to boil in the tank.

Disaster was averted only because the aircraft was on its way back to base. In his report on the incident, the station commander at Kinloss warned of more “unexpected failures” due to the aircraft’s age.

Death of Britain

Britain as it has always been known can be nothing without the Royal Navy, the following is from an official report quoted in the Sunday Telegraph, linked here: "The current material state of the fleet is not good; the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary." A medium-scale operation is similar to the naval involvement in the Iraq War. The document adds that the Navy is too "thinly stretched", its fighting capability is being "eroded" and the fleet's ability to influence events at the strategic level is "under threat".