Blogger break

Even bloggers need a break, this one will be back in early February! What will I find then I wonder? Best of luck to all my readers for whatever befalls and a joke to cheer you through. While on his morning walk, the Prime Minister falls over, has a heart attack and dies because the accident and emergency dept at his nearest hospital is too understaffed to treat him in time. So his soul arrives in Heaven and he is met by Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates. "Welcome to Heaven," says Saint Peter, "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a Socialist around these parts, so we're really not sure what to do with you." "No problem, just let me in; I'm a good Christian; I'm a believer," says the PM. "I'd like to just let you in, but I have orders from God Himself. He says that since the implementation of his new HEAVEN CHOICES policy, you have to spend one day in Hell and one day in Heaven. Then you must choose where you'll live for eternity." "But I've already made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," replies the PM. "I'm sorry ... But we have our rules," Peter interjects. And, with that, St. Peter escorts him to an elevator and he goes down, down, down, down, down ... all the way to Hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a lush golf course. The sun is shining in a cloudless sky. The temperature is a perfect 22 degrees. In the distance is a beautiful club-house. Standing in front of it is Harold Wilson and thousands of other Socialist luminaries who had helped him out and inspired him over the years - John Smith, Bevan, Jim Callaghan, etc. The whole of the deceased Labour movement were there... everyone laughing, happy, and casually but expensively dressed - even Michael Foot is in an Armani suit with Rayban shades. They run to greet him, to hug him and to reminisce about the good times. They play a friendly game of golf - which he completes in under par - and then dine on lobster and caviar. The Devil himself comes up to Brown with a frosty drink, "Have a single malt with me and relax!" "Uh, I can't drink anymore, I took a pledge," says the PM, dejectedly. "This is Hell, son. You can drink and eat all you want and not worry and it just gets better from there!" The PM takes the drink and finds himself liking the Devil, who he thinks is a really very friendly bloke. They are having such a great time that, before he realises it, it's time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves as he steps on the elevator and heads upward. When the elevator door reopens, he is in Heaven again and Saint Peter is waiting for him. "Now it's time to visit Heaven," the old man says, opening the gate. So for 24 hours, the PM hangs out with a bunch of honest, good-natured people who enjoy each other's company, talk about things other than money and treat each other decently. No fancy country clubs here and, while the food tastes great, it's not caviar or lobster. And these people are all poor. He doesn't see anybody he knows and he isn't even treated like someone special! "Whoa," he says uncomfortably to himself. "Harold Wilson never prepared me for this!" The day done, Saint Peter returns and says, "Well, you've spent a day in Hell and a day in Heaven. Now choose where you want to live for Eternity." With the 'Deal or No Deal' theme playing softly in the background, the PM reflects for a minute ... Then answers: "Well, I would never have thought I'd say this -- I mean, Heaven has been delightful and all -- but I really think I belong in Hell with my friends." So Saint Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell. The doors of the elevator open and he is in the middle of a barren scorched earth covered with garbage and toxic industrial wasteland, looking a bit like the eroded, rabbit and fox affected Australian outback, but worse and more desolate. He is horrified to see all of his friends, dressed in rags and chained together, picking up the roadside rubbish and putting it into black plastic bags. They are groaning and moaning in pain, faces and hands black with grime, covered in scabs and sores - and the stench is unbelievable. The Devil comes over to him and puts an arm around his shoulder." I don't understand," stammers a shocked PM, "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a club-house and we ate lobster and caviar and drank the finest malt. We lazed around and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and everybody looksmiserable!" The Devil looks at him, smiles slyly and purrs, "Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted for us!"

Labour MP group to table referendum amendment

The report is in the Guardian, linked here, the following is a quote: A group of 20 Labour MPs this afternoon tabled a wrecking amendment ahead of the second reading of the European Union (amendment) bill, due to be debated in the Commons on Monday. The motion, which also has the backing of Scottish Nationalist party and Democratic Unionist party members, seeks to kill the bill outright. The amendment states: "That this House declines to give a second reading to the European Union amendment bill as no provision for a referendum on the European constitutional treaty is made within it, despite the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish Nationalist and Plaid Cymru parties all having promised to make provision for such a referendum in 2005." Also in that same newspaper the Labour MP who represented Britain's governing party at Giscard d'Estaing's Convention spells out the reasons why the Lisbon Treaty cannot work, linked here.

EU Parliament shenanigans.

More on the breaking of its own rules from the England Expects blog, linked here. Meantime another blog reports on the completely inadequate British Home Secreatary's proposals to ban internet sites, read here.

Russia's actions against British Council

The dreadful nepotism of the Kinnock family continues as we have all been forcefully reminded by Russia'a heavy-handed actions against the British Council's man in St Petersburg, Stephen Kinnock son of the head of the Council, Lord Kinnock, former Vice President of the EU and scourge of whistleblowers. Hark back to this typical garbage from 2001 in the Independent, here. Or as NewLabourUnplugged... Once had it

With reports that up to one in five able bodied inhabitants of some Welsh towns are receiving incapacity benefit, it’s worth asking – what are the rest doing? New information about the Kinnock family provides part of the answer – getting rich on our taxes working for the EU. The family tree seems to be like this: Failed Labour windbag, Neil Kinnock, was made an EU Commissioner by Tory Prime Minster, John Major. After a few useless years in Brussels, he was made a Tony crony peer by Mr Blair, given a ₤270,000 retirement pay –off and will soon collect a ₤63,900 index-linked pension for life. Mrs Kinnock, the anti poverty campaigner, Lady Glenys, is also a euro MEP and collects ₤57,000 a year in pay and around ₤100,000 in perks. Son, Stephen, is the director of the British Council in St Petersburg and is married to another Euro MEP, Helle, who collects the same as her mother-in-law plus ₤40,000 as leader of the Danish Social Democrat group in Brussels. And now another Kinnock family member has stuck her snout in the Brussels gravy train. Thirty three year old, Rachael Kinnock, has become an executive assistant and researcher to that well known Euro MEP…her mother. Thank god for socialism.

Sub - Prime pain continues

Merrill Lynch figures are spooking Wall Street, full details here:

For the fourth quarter of 2007, net revenues were negative $8.2 billion, down from $8.4 billion in the prior-year period, and Merrill Lynch's fourth quarter 2007 pre-tax loss from continuing operations was $14.9 billion. The net loss from continuing operations for the fourth quarter was $10.3 billion, or $12.57 per diluted share, down substantially from net earnings from continuing operations of $2.2 billion in the prior-year quarter. Merrill Lynch's net loss for the fourth quarter of 2007 was $9.8 billion, or $12.01 per diluted share, significantly below net earnings of $2.3 billion, or $2.41 per diluted share for the 2006 fourth quarter.

At the end of the fourth quarter, book value per share was $29.37, down from $41.35 at the end of 2006. Including the impact of the equity and equity-related transactions which closed subsequent to year end, Merrill Lynch's pro forma book value per share would be $30.30 at the end of 2007(2).

China delights in EU Parliament's proposed FINES

In penalising the mildest attempts to obtain some small amount of democracy in the tyrannical EU, the Parliament and Potty Pottering as he coming to be known on the internet gives ammunition to anti-democratic regimes across the world. One such gloating report on the potential fines has just been issued by the Chinese news agency, linked here. Send a protest to the Parliament, suggested wording could be along these lines: The EU Lisbon treaty makes it clear that the EU constitution would be superior to and over-ride all national constitutions of the member states. No one in the United Kingdom, not even the Queen herself has the authority to agree to surrendering the supremacy of the British Constitution, to so do would be an act of treason against the state. Should anyone from the United Kingdom sign up to the EU constitutional treaty that person would be acting treasonously and therefore the action would have no legitimacy in British law. Should the EU disregard this fact and accept the signature, it would establish that the EU works complicitly with traitors within the EU states against the interests of the citizens within those states, thus proving that the aspiration of the EU is not in the interest of the people of Europe, but is solely in the interest of its own political power and territorial ambitions. Click here, to reach the pompously titled 'Correspondence with Citizens' internet page.

Updated Consolidated Lisbon Treaty in English

This version, from Ireland, linked here, has been obtained by Grahnlaw Blog, linked here. Go straight to the pdf pages TEU and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU Not, of course, that obeying the law or the Treaties is anything which the EU intends to do, see the post immediately below!

EU Parliament as lawbreaker

"By refusing to countenance any opposition, the European Parliament has put itself morally in the wrong. And, by failing to follow its own procedures, it has put itself legally in the wrong." Daniel Hannan, MEP writing in the Daily Telegraph today, linked here.

French Deputies vote on Democracy's demise

Details of the overwhelming vote in favour of the change in the Constitution of France with the brave few voting against may be read from here.

No depths to EU's deceit

"As we all know the temporary shelving of the tax proposals is a direct result of Charlie McCreevy lobbying the Commission to do so on the basis that the issue will impede the governments Yes Campaign in the Lisbon Treaty Referendum.

"The European Parliament and indeed Irish people have a right to know what the future of Europe holds for them. It is wrong that such a cynical and dishonest approach has infiltrated the business of the European parliament." DUBLIN MEP Mary Lou McDonald, Speaking during a debate on the Slovenian EU Presidency. Full report linked here. Most of us are surely by now fully aware that cynicism and dishonesty is the bedrock of the EU, still the more MEPs who admit that fact the better!

Parliamentary Supremacy

I have been sent a copy of the following email sent by Denis Cooper to a recipient in the UK Parliament the contents of which are self-explanatory and of supreme importance: Quote Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:18 PM Subject: Declaration 17 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon Dear, I wish to draw your attention to Declaration 17 annexed to the Final Act of the Lisbon Treaty, page C306/256 here: Link which asserts a legal doctrine which is fundamentally incompatible with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It starts: "The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law." and then reproduces an Opinion from the Council Legal Service: "It results from the case-law of the Court of Justice that primacy of EC law is a cornerstone principle of Community law. According to the Court, this principle is inherent to the specific nature of the European Community. At the time of the first judgment of this established case law (Costa/ENEL,15 July 1964, Case 6/641 (1)) there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice." "(1) "It follows (…) that the law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question."’" In my view the Conservative party should propose an amendment to the European Union (Amendment) Bill to explicitly repudiate this Declaration, asserting that notwithstanding the EU treaties and EU laws, and the doctrine of the European Court of Justice, the British Parliament remains the supreme law-making body for the United Kingdom, and giving a crystal clear direction to British courts that they must continue to uphold the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. If this is not done, then if at some point in the future MPs decided that they could not accept a particular EU law passed by qualified majority voting, or a particular EU decision agreed by Ministers without the prior approval of Parliament, or a particular judgement of the Court of Justice interpreting and/or extending EU law, and accordingly passed legislation contrary to that EU law or decision or judgement, they could find that British judges declared their new law to be invalid, ruling that the British Parliament had irrevocably surrendered its legislative supremacy by endorsing Declaration 17. I do not see how any MP can assume that such circumstances would never arise, and nor do I see how the present MPs can take it upon themselves to put at serious risk the future legislative supremacy of the Parliament of the British people, by default, and without the knowledge and consent of the British people. An amendment along the lines I suggest would avoid any possible doubt developing in the minds of British judges, making it clear to them that despite Declaration 17 annexed to the Lisbon Treaty they must continue to rank the will of the British Parliament above the will of the European Court of Justice, and they must continue to observe the long-established principle that no Parliament can bind its successors, by means of an international treaty or by any other mechanism. Therefore I urge you to put it to your colleagues that the Conservatives should table such an amendment. Yours etc Unquote Explanatory background to this email was provided as follows: Quote

For clarity, the primacy claim was imbedded in the previous Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe as Article I-6:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12004V/htm/C2004310EN.01001101.htm

"The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."

plus there was Declaration 1:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12004V/htm/C2004310EN.01042001.htm

"The Conference notes that Article I-6 reflects existing case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and of the Court of First Instance."

To disarm critics, the transparent primacy claim of Article I-6 of the previous Treaty has been removed, and relegated to Declaration 17 annexed to the Final Act of the Lisbon Treaty, page C306/256 here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0231:0271:EN:PDF

On the one hand, from the federalists' point of view this has the merit of disguising the claim. On the other hand, whereas Article I-6 was an integral part of the previous Treaty, Declaration 17 is a non-binding political declaration attached to the Treaty of Lisbon, and potentially therefore it can also be detached from the Treaty.

The federalists' objective is to induce the national legislature in each member state to endorse Declaration 17, perhaps unwittingly, in the expectation that the judges within that state would subsequently conclude that the legislature had resigned its legislative supremacy, effectively transferring its sovereignty to the ECJ as the final arbiter of the EU treaties and EU laws.

If that ploy was successful, in our case the consequence would be that British judges would no longer accept the doctrine of the legislative supremacy of the British Parliament, but would instead accept the doctrine of the primacy of EU treaties and laws, as warned by Martin Howe QC in his 2003 booklet "A Constitution For Europe: A Legal Assessment of the Draft Treaty".

Howe explains that across the EU national courts have rejected the primacy claim made by the ECJ, and the reason the primacy Article I-6 (or I-10 at the time of writing) was put in the previous Treaty was that "the draft Treaty is attempting to prevail over and reverse these national decisions". He later writes:

"... Parliament will have enacted Art I-10 [renumbered as I-6 in the final text], which states that the Constitution and European laws have primacy over national laws. This would give rise to an argument that by doing so, Parliament has abolished its own supremacy."

"... the present judicially approved view is that Parliament lacks the power to take this step because it cannot fetter its own sovereignty or deprive itself of the right to repeal the Act. However, the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament is not written in stone, but rests on continued judicial acceptance of its validity."

"It is on this kind of fundamental question that a drift of judicial opinion can occur over time"

This is why I believe that the Conservatives should table what is really a modest amendment to the European Union (Amendment) Bill, repudiating Declaration 17, asserting the continuing supremacy of Parliament notwithstanding the EU treaties, and issuing a clear direction to British courts that they should continue to uphold the supremacy of Parliament notwithstanding the EU treaties.

For those who haven't already seen it, this is the letter I sent to my MP ......... about this. I suggest that anybody else who has a Conservative MP should send a similar letter. Unquote

Referendum protest in EU's pretend parliament

Amateur video from a lady manhandled from the parliament may be seen on YouTube, linked here. All official footage has been censored!

Britain's rebate sold for Blair's ambitions!

Last evening I had the distressing experience of watching the House of Commons debate where Britain's hardwon EU rebate was sacrificed for the obscene power lust of the former Prime Minister. Earlier still I had the equally horrifying spectacle of Tessa Jowel, she of earlier scandals of the Blair years, stand at the despatch box and talk of examples to Britain's youth. The report on the European Resources debate from Hansard is linked here. This morning, in the Daily Telegraph, a faint glimmer of hope appears on the darkening horizon. Simon Heffer in his regular column, linked here, mounts the kind of attack on the despicable dregs of humanity that now control Britain's two main parties, although mainly concentrating on the contemptible Peter Hain, that previously could only be found on the blogosphere. Coupled with the attack from Richard Littlejohn in the Mail that this blog linked earlier, here again, there might now be some hope that the general public will slowly realise the dangers now facing the country from the conspiratorial and self-serving filth that are in charge of Britain's two largest political parties

MEPs protesting Charter signing to be fined

The link to the article is here. What can one really add? Charter of Fundamental Rights INDEED!

Towards Europe's next bloodbath?

Interesting comment from the US, linked here, from which comes this quote: The most astonishing fact is the apathy of ordinary Europeans, as shown, for example, by the trivial tabloid headlines in European newspapers; they are just not interested in the biggest political event of the last half century................................ The closest historical precedent is the unification of Germany by Otto Bismarck in 1871. That was not a happy event, in the longer term. The EU does not have to go the way of Bismarck's Second Reich, but it reflects very much the same aristocratic disdain of the ruling classes, and the same distrust of ordinary people.

How can the EU be stopped?

A great posting from The Huntsman blog linked here and aptly titled: WE GOVERN, WE SAY, YOU OBEY The truth will out, but will it be in time?

Death for democracy - "Bloody Misery" for pampered Parliamentarians

Labour's Chief Whip, the disgraced Geoff Hoon, writes to his colleagues as follows as reported in The Independent, linked here: "The European Reform Treaty Bill will be considered by a committee of the whole House throughout February and early March, day after day. "I wanted to give you advance notice that I will be running a three-line whip for each day it is considered." The confidential letter, which found its way into Pandora's inbox over the weekend, has been met with a mixed response from Labour backbenchers. Although most are behind the Bill, some are wary of such draconian measures to see it gets through. "Basically, our lives are going to be a bloody misery for the next three months," moans one. "It might just be easier to have handed the public their referendum after all." Note the Labour MP in the last sentence above, with 80 per cent of legislation already sent to the EU he complains about having to turn up regularly to Parliament to destroy what remains of our democracy. Classic!

EU destroys rain forests for biofuels

EU Commissioners obsessed with the perks of office and seemingly very little else can now add the rain forests to their terrible toll of destruction which already included fish stocks and third world farmers. Various reports are available this is from Deutsche Welle. The BBC Today programme included an interview with the Greek Commissioner presently responsible for this latest fiasco just this morning on Radio 4. When will it sink in that these petty, small minded bureaucrats can do the least damage when they stick to their own country's affairs. Greece making the wrong call on biofuels is one thing, the entire Continent of Europe (excluding the Oh So Wise Swiss and Norwegians) is of a different magnitude all together. Of course with a little democracy thrown in, where consequential accountability might bring an end to these lucrative sinecures with their tax free pensions and perks, things MIGHT be different - hence, no doubt, the Lisbon Treaty - ensuring that for these incompetent Commissioners and for all time democracy will be impossible in the present totally flawed EU.

President orders EU Commission to avoid conflicts

The President of the EU Commission must be glimpsing the reality of the monstrous tyranny he is trying to impose across Europe with his so-called Reform Treaty. The following is from Reuters India linked here: European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has urged his team to avoid controversial moves such as taking legal action against member states on sensitive issues while the 27 EU countries are ratifying a crucial reform treaty ths year. Is Barroso beginning to get a feel for the outrage this Treaty has already begun to unleash? Parasites might lie low for a period, but unless they are fully purged from their hosts they always return. Let nobody be fooled by a suddenly inactive EUCommission - it will return with a vengeance!

LIBOR jitters and small businesses fears

Reuters reports jumps in the one and three month Libor interest rates signalling more financial storms ahead for sterling, read here. Meantime the pound crashes to a new record low against the euro at 75 pence following weak manafacturing figures although such activity now only accounts for 15 per cent of this once mighty industrial economy. Small businessmen are surely right to be demanding their promised referendum on the EU Treaty, a report on that is linked here.

The EU renews its vows to citizens

Margot Wallström is Vice-President of the European Commission and states here: The relationship between the EU and its citizens may seem a complicated affair. Judging from my own everyday experience, it is in fact very simple. The EU is there for the citizens and its aim is to respond to their needs and concerns.................... The needs of the citizens are best met through the protection of their democratic rights through their elected national parliaments. The concerns of these same citizens, as everywhere reflected across the internet, are that these rights are being trampled upon by the Lisbon Treaty and the secretive and underhand means by which it is being implemented. Read Welt, also from Germany, a Labour Europhile, an Irish academic, a Finnish lawyer and countless others. Ms Wallström, change the second sentence of the passage quoted above to the following and you will have an exact statement of what the majority of the 400 million plus people of the EU think of your corrupt organisation: The EU is there to control and bleed its citizens regardless of their needs and concerns or former democratic rights.

Czechs to send Treaty to Constitutional Court

The report may be read from here. Interestingly it is the "now legal" Charter of Fundamental Rights that could cause a problem: "The Czech government is of the view that the treaty is not in contradiction with the Czech constitutional order, but it would like the Constitutional judges to assess it first for sure, Vondra added. Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek (ODS) said some problems might concern the fulfillment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, to which the treaty refers and which is now legally binding." It is difficult to comprehend how any sovereign nation could accept such an all encompassing document as the Charter, nor somehow being at odds with a Sovereign State's Constitution. As a Briton I object to such rights being granted by a foreign force as by my government accepting the provisions they tacitly accept the right of that same force to remove those rights, but that is what being a free-born Englishman was supposed to have been about!

EU Minister's Speech to the LSE

I have put the following on the Minister's blog this morning: Why can I not find the text of your LSE speech anywhere on the internet? A podcast is not sufficient as such cannot be properly fisked for all the deceptions and half-truths your speech had to contain if it set out to justify your governments breaking their manifesto promise of a referendum.

Police State &House of Commons -EU Scrutiny Committee

10 January 2008: The Committee will be taking evidence from Mr Tony McNulty MP, Minister of State for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing, Home Office, on Wednesday 16 January at 2.30pm in Committee Room 8, Palace of Westminster. Please see Press Notice No.5 for further information. Some concerns mentioned in yesterday's posting about a police state will hopefully be raised next week. One point in considering what Anne Palmer mentioned on the entry of armed EU police into Britain occurred to me overnight, Anne said : 27) One could imagine the outcome if the people were deprived of having guns for their defence, (Bill of Rights) and now allowing foreigners fully armed wondering about the streets of our sovereign Country. The Government though were fully intent of being part of Article 40. 3 (d) and was trying very hard to find ways to take forward co-operation in this area consistent with UK law. The only fixed link (The Channel Tunnel) was deemed to be “Sue Generis”; neither land nor sea border and thus, as above, halfway across the English Channel Waters. In spite of all the concerns, debated fully, there was no mention in the Bill of any firearms restriction. Yet anybody who has recently used the Eurostar train service will know that UK immigration checks are undertaken on Foreign soil. For example at Lille Europe, after passing through the British immigration check one is confined in a controlled area and herded on board the train, BUT there would be nothing to prevent the French authorities should they so wish from allowing possibly armed officials on board the train outside the control of UK officials. In fact an entire Eurostar train of armed EU Gendarmes could be diverted in place of a scheduled service and pass straight through to St Pancras, without any in Britain having any knowledge of their presence until they arrived. In this respect Britain now effectively has a land border with our European neighbours which perhaps accounts for our apparent adoption of their political ethos.

Press reaction to Portuguese Perfidy

Read a few reactions from this link. At least not all of Europe's media are asleep to the growing menace.

The Red Lines Confidence Trick

OPt outs and opt ins discussed, read it here.

Open Email from a Blogger

Read it here, there are some good points made.

Part Two Lisbon and Velsen (towards a police state).

The first part posted on 31st December is linked here.

Anne Palmer's thoughts on parts of the Treaty of Lisbon combined with other serious matters. 7.1.2008 Part Two. EUROGENDFOR V Our Constitution..

1) I had not even heard of the “Treaty of Velsen” until Torquil-Dick Erikson sent an e-mail about Eurogendfor to me. I know he has done a lot of work on Eurogendfor and has made very clear to many of us of his grave concerns and fears about it, so, as I skimmed through the pages of the Treaty of Velsen and in spite of the lateness of the hour, I just had to ‘burn the midnight oil” and read it through again.

2) I know that I cannot improve upon anything that Torquil has already written about Eurogendfor, but for those that have not read it through, I place here briefly what it Eurogendfor is about. At the moment it is a Treaty that has been signed by five Countries that are members of the European Union. These five are The Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of The Netherlands and the Portuguese Republic.

3) “The object of this Treaty is to establish a European Gendarmerie Force, which shall be operational, pre-organised, robust, and rapidly deployable, exclusively comprising elements of police forces with military status of the Parties (to the treaty), in order to perform all police tasks within the scope of crisis management operations.”

4) Could our Police Forces be classed as ‘police forces with military status’? We still for now, have separate (Regional) Polices Forces, although I do seem to remember there was mention of a National Police Force round about the time of the business of instigating the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Have we been ‘conditioned’ to accept the sight of our Police in paramilitary uniform, armed to the hilt in our cities? Could the United Kingdom be dragged into the Eurogendarmerie?

5) On Monday February 9^th 2004 Mr Blair announced an overhaul of Britain's law enforcement strategy, confirming government plans to create an FBI-style national force. Dubbed the British FBI, it brings together staff of four existing agencies - the National Crime Squad (NCS), the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and the investigative arms of Customs and Excise and the immigration service. One item that caught my attention, “We note the opportunity to enhance border security and welcome any changes in protocol that will make this more of a reality” Do YOU believe that has been achievable? Are our Borders secure? Can we prevent terrorists entering this country along with illegal immigrants? Are the borders being mentioned above just on the outermost Regions of EU’s alleged territory? Is that something else the people know nothing about?

6) Viscount Simon (14^th March 2005) made clear his concerns regarding SOCA when he told the House that the Police Federation had written to its members, currently on secondment to the National Crime Squad, advising them not to take up an offer of direct employment with their present organisation, which would lead to automatic transfer to SOCA where they would cease to be police officers thereby losing their status as Officers of the Crown. He went on to say that the new incumbent of the director general of SOCA---who used to hold the rank of Chief Constable---will be given the authority to designate the powers of a constable to his employees on a piecemeal ad hoc basis. If one follows this through, it means that an official appointed by a politician will decide who exercises the powers of a constable over their fellow citizens. Giving powers of a constable to those who do not hold the office of a constable severs the link between office and Crown. It is that crucial link that ensures that police officers act impartially, independently and outside political control. Police officers are accountable for their actions both on and off duty but will SOCA employees given the powers of a constable uphold these values?

7) Reading about CO19 shooting to kill, and I am thinking here of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian Gentleman shot seven times in the head on Friday, July 22, 2005. He never stood a chance. No one ever took responsibility or stood trial for the shooting of this innocent man. WHY? Do they have immunity? Were they all British nationals? This question has not, or so I believe, been answered. It should be answered. The people should know.

8) Headlines in the Daily Mail 18.12.2004 “Palace Dismay as British FBI fails to swear its Allegiance”. Will SOCA and SO19 eventually come under Europol, or Eurogendfor? If these two former organisations are to remain under UK authority there really is no reason why they should not swear allegiance to the Crown and this Country. The other reason why they have not as yet sworn allegiance to the Crown is too horrible to contemplate. Perhaps through that paragraph one can see the real danger to this Country by ‘no discrimination on the grounds of Nationality”.

9) I look at Article 5 of the Treaty of Velsen; “Eurogendfor (EGF) may be placed at the disposal of the European Union (EU) and also of the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and other international organisations or an ad hoc coalition”. So basically Eurogendfor may be put into use anywhere that may be deemed a crisis situation by the EU, perhaps a country that objects to EU Treaties or Legislation, especially if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, or perhaps NOT ratified?

10) Article 16 (2) Eurogendfor Personal may possess, carry and transport arms, ammunitions, other weapon systems and explosives on the conditions that they are authorised to do so by their orders and that they do so in accordance with the laws of the Host State (HOST means the Party on whose territory the permanent HQ is located) and the Receiving State (The Party on whose territory EGF Forces are stationed or in transit).

11) Eurogendfor has many Privileges and Immunities, (Art 19). Individual Privileges (Art 20) and they also have Inviolability of the premises, buildings and archives (Article 21). In other words, Eurogendfor can basically do what it wants. Don’t you wish all of us had the right to do what we want? If they come crashing into your house in the dead of night, we might all wish our premises too were inviolable. (For now, they cannot do this in the UK) I believe even the innocent have much to fear, perhaps more so than the Criminal because criminals know the risks they are taking when they set out to break the law. My thoughts turn to my memories of how I watched newsreels of the Gestapo in action during world war two. Some tried to have us believe they were just propaganda films. Now? Who would have thought this kind of thing could happen in peacetime? Do you still think of the police are your friends?

12) Bob Spinks MP is obviously very concerned about the role of Eurogendfor because he asked a question in the House of Commons on 11.12 2007. 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?

13) David Miliband: I only caught the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am happy to reassure him that a nation must give its consent before any operation can be held in it. END. We have governments now and in the past where they have been to eager to please the EU and to Hell with their own people and Country, as long as they appear to be “leading in ‘Europe’ or at its blesséd ‘heart’. It may well be that a National Country has to give its consent, but don’t they always, at least ours does as far as the EU is concerned. It goes running to be the good boy of Europe, every time.

14) There is no doubt at ALL that we have a Constitution, for, according to one member of our Government, even Bowling Clubs have a Constitution. It seems to me that there is no point in having a “Constitution” (the law above the law) in either, if it is not going to obeyed by all or it is changed at will or the will of foreigners. Our Constitution makes very clear for the whole Nation (and according to our Government, this is this a sovereign Nation) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, that only British Nationals are to be recruited in places of National Security or sensitive organisations, Police Forces, Armed Forces, Magistrates, etc, this is recorded in the Act of Settlement and Magna Carta. (I am aware government has ignored our Constitution on this matter). However, I am writing this to show the sheer folly of ignoring or altering our long standing Constitution. (See also Bill of Rights)

15) The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) makes clear that there should be no discrimination on grounds of Nationality. The Lisbon Treaty also makes very clear that there must be no discrimination on grounds of Nationality. The longer we remain party to the ECHR-although we have had derogations on certain parts of it within months of us acceding to it - it becomes obvious we should never have incorporated it into our system of Government in the first place. We do not have to ratify the Lisbon Treaty though. Both are against our Constitution for we are indeed a “Nation” in our own right. As a nation state, we should decide who could enter our Country, who can sit in Government, who can be in our Forces, be Judges etc. There is already a great deal of difference between a UK National and a foreign National. British Nationals, from the moment they are born here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain, it is as if they have already sworn an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and this Country. Many swear a further Oath of Allegiance depending on the position they may hold in later life. Foreign nationals do not swear allegiance to the Crown or this Country.

16) The Council of Europe’s European Convention on Nationality states Art 2-Definitions make clear that “The concept of Nationality was explored by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm Case. The Courts defined Nationality as a “Legal bond having as its base a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties (Nottebohm Case, ICJ Reports 1955, p23)

17) No discrimination on grounds of Nationality is fine if the European Union was one complete state, if it was one Country, or if all spoke the same language. Would I be allowed to sit in a French Government? A German Government? We are STILL separate Nation States at this moment in time and if we are still sovereign states, we should be able to decide who should sit in our Parliament, or fight for us or patrol our streets as policemen/women. We are putting our nation and ourselves at risk (jeopardy) in allowing other organisations decide foreign nationals should have the same status as British nationals. It makes a nonsense that we are separate Nation States. Only this week we have read that trusted forces of another Country have gunned down American servicemen. This is the reality of the situation. There is no loyalty we can trust of any foreign national and sometimes, as we know to our great sorrow, even some people born here in the UK have become terrorists in and against their own Country of birth.

17) The Crown is the continuity, the safeguard that makes this Country different from all others. To bear allegiance to the Government places too much power into the hands of would be dictators. We have witnessed this already. With no discrimination on grounds of nationality, we could have a French or German person as Prime Minister. Or indeed Government from Brussels. We could have a whole army made up of foreigners but could we call it a British Army? I have no idea who actually said, “the Law is an Ass”, but the no discrimination re Nationality is indeed in that category, UNLESS, it is part of a devilish, devious plot.

18) All British Nationals have a duty to defend the Queen (Crown) and country, particularly when the Country is in danger. This is also another great difference between a ‘British National’ and a ‘foreign national’ because the latter are not so sworn to do that. This is why Magna Carta is so very important. There is no question of whether they want to do this duty or not, it is something that has to be done. To destroy our Constitution is an act of treason and it is a cowardly act by traitors.

19) The greater part of the “Nationality” part of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Bill has been brought about to comply with the provisions of the European Convention on Nationality” “The Convention will establish common rules and principles relating to nationality, multiple nationality and statelessness.” As far as I can ascertain, Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s question, (Lords Hansard 18^th July 2002) “whether they will publish an explanatory memorandum describing their reasons for wishing to ratify the convention and the consequences of ratification for the United Kingdom law and practice? The consequences of ratification to the UK was never addressed.

20) In the new Citizenship ceremonies in Schedule 5, Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as well as making the sworn allegiance or affirmation to the Crown, the Oath there is also a pledge of commitment to the United Kingdom.

“I, [name], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law.” (No Loyalty there then)

21) The pledge of commitment to the United Kingdom is as follows, “I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.” Loyalty is to the United Kingdom, respects its rights and freedoms (what freedoms do we, the people have left? Spied on, filmed, Data Base proposed, fined for any little misdemeanour.) Democracy? When we have been denied our democratic promised referendum?

22) Lastly “ITS” laws. As we know these laws are not instigated by the United Kingdom of Great Britain, they are instigated in the European Union and transposed into this country. MP’s and Government that ratify these Treaties are in Parliament to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE that voted them into power, and these MP’s and Members of Government know without doubt that the vast majority of people that placed their vote by their name, do not want the Euro, the EU Regions, the Common Agriculture Policy, EU Fishing policy etc. and have never had their say through the promised referendum. In 1975 they did have a referendum, we now know that lies were told in order to get a “Yes” vote to remain in what was then a Common Market, where there would be no loss of essential sovereignty. We are now in great danger of being permanently governed from Brussels if this Lisbon Treaty is ratified. So how can these new citizens of the UK be true to both the Crown and the UK laws when they are in truth, EU laws? The people are being cheated out of their country by cowards that do not have the guts to tell the people the treachery they have done.

23) I found what was proposed originally in the Gov Research Paper, “I [swear by Almighty God][do solemnly and sincerely affirm] that, from this time forward, I will give my loyalty and allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth the Second Her Heirs and successors and to the United Kingdom. I will respect the rights and freedoms of the United Kingdom. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfill my duties and obligations as a British citizen”. Obviously this was changed and disgracefully so because loyalty is now the heavy burden belonging to the United Kingdom, at least, for as long as it lasts. This is demeaning our Monarch.

24) When the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill (HL):’Hot Surveillance’ was going through the House of Lords round about 2003, it had a very rough ride, especially when the debate touched upon whether Foreign Nationals could carry their service weapons here in the UK. I read and followed much of the debates on this issue at the time, there really appeared to be much argument about this matter and most certainly disagreement stemmed from the background of our Constitution.

25) Article 40 of the Schengen Convention allows police and customs officers of EU member states to continue surveillance of a person suspected of a serious crime into another member state (for up to five hours). On the continent, where it is possible to stand with one foot in one country and the other foot in another Country, matters might be more relaxed and easier to operate with the joining Country and ‘national’ officers may even be waiting at the border to assist. Here in the UK, the only such joined up border is between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, so there was much discussion as to what happened when in “Hot Pursuit” crossed the channel. The dividing line seems to be about halfway across the English Channel Waters. Schengen also states that “Officers carrying out surveillance may carry their service weapons during surveillance save where specifically otherwise decided by the requesting Party; their use shall be prohibited save in cases of legitimate self-defence”. If our territorial waters (seas and oceans) are transferred to the EU for their “Motorway in the Seas and Oceans”, it will become ALL EU Territory anyway.

26) The Government wanted very much to take part in this section of Schengen Art 40 (30(d) but Barbara Roache (then a Home Office Minister) explained that Foreign Officers would not be permitted to carry firearms here in the UK for UK Law does not permit the carriage of firearms unless specifically and individually authorised by the Chief Officer of Police. I followed the debate fully at that time because of our Constitution regarding the sensitive issue of GUNs, Dunblane and the handing in of guns, the Bill of Rights and mindful also of the Bill of Rights case by Michael James Burke.

27) One could imagine the outcome if the people were deprived of having guns for their defence, (Bill of Rights) and now allowing foreigners fully armed wondering about the streets of our sovereign Country. The Government though were fully intent of being part of Article 40. 3 (d) and was trying very hard to find ways to take forward co-operation in this area consistent with UK law. The only fixed link (The Channel Tunnel) was deemed to be “Sue Generis”; neither land nor sea border and thus, as above, halfway across the English Channel Waters. In spite of all the concerns, debated fully, there was no mention in the Bill of any firearms restriction.

28) What was very clear through reading this Bill is that as far as Continental countries were concerned the questions above would not arise because their internal borders have on the whole been dismantled and movement between them is completely free. Whereas, any foreign officer coming to the UK would have to go through immigration control and show he/she has a valid basis for entry to the UK.

29) ‘Liberty’ highlighted its concerns about police accountability-or as I see it-lack of accountability, “We have enough problems regulating our own authorities’ use of surveillance in the UK. Giving these powers to foreign police, even for a short time, opens the door to arbitrary foreign police action against British citizens on our own soil”.

30) Just how little Parliament is left to do was highlighted in 2003 Research Paper 03/30 when Baroness Anelay of St Johns said, “The Bill implements so many elements of the Schengen acquis and related agreements that it looks as though the Government are leading us gently by the nose into Schengen by the back door...How much has our scrutiny role in the UK Parliament already been undermined by the Government’s signature to various protocols and agreements? Exactly what room for manoeuvre does Parliament have to improve the Bill? The full regulatory impact assessment lets the cat out of the bag. It tells us that the government have already agreed, to urgently ratify the Protocol”. “Ministers have already agreed “to ratify the protocol in the UK and are under an obligation to do so…Failure to ratify the protocol in the UK would break an international agreement”. So even then Ministers apparently usurped Parliament’s powers to reject the Bill if they had wished so to do. If the Lisbon Treaty were ratified that is how it would be ALL the TIME.

31) However, the Lisbon Treaty must not be ratified. MP’s must choose between not ratifying the Treaty (Contravening International law as per Lord Denning indicated could be done and we would recover) or losing the governing of their Country forever, and in ratification of the Treaty violate their solemn Oaths of Allegiance to their Queen (Crown) and 70 million people in this Country, as I believe the ratification of the first Treaty of Rome was also a violation of that solemn Oath. That is not only the greatest betrayal of all, it is the greatest betrayal of the Crown and the destruction of this Country as we, and they have known it. Not since Guy Fawkes will there have been such a diabolical action by people that have been placed in a position of trust and guardianship of their Country. The people however, have a duty to do and that is to look to Magna Carta once more.

32) The people have been quite deliberately deceived in the muddling of the Lisbon Treaty by the EU and in this country by our own politicians. There is enough evidence to prove that this Treaty is not (or should not be) acceptable even to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties-the latter an agreement all countries involved have agreed to. (Covered in Part one)

33) We have fought many battles against terrorism and terrorists, and such is fear of terrorism that even known associates or friends of terrorists are now ‘suspect’, yet known terrorists or acquaintances of terrorists that tried to blow up a sitting government have been welcomed into Number 10.

34) Only because they would not swear the Oath of Allegiance have they been prevented from taking their seat in Parliament. Some MP’s even tried to have the oath changed to allow for them to join the rest of them in Parliament. Those that were involved in the plot to kill a sitting Government should have been tried for treason. The IRA fought all along for one Island of Ireland, they may get that under the Treaty of Lisbon although to the EU, Ireland will be simply, “one EU Region”.

35) Torquil is quite right, there is certainly a great deal to worry about over Eurogendfor especially if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified with us still in the EU. Whether we have signed up to the Treaty of Velsen or not, once the EU has its hands in the pie, I can see any British Government wanting to be at the heart of the Union still keen and eager to join Eurogendfor. In a paper dated 6.11.2007 we were notified about the Rapid Border Intervention Team’s first time in Action and there is of course a keenness for the UK to join Frontex and a further development of RABITS within Frontex. Our Government has put forward a paper to clear up the alleged ‘myths’ regarding Frontex, which they seem keen to join that too, for there is a Consultation paper out on it to be concluded by September. In all these papers re more policing, watching, pressurising, never once was there mention of liberty, freedom, and your happiness at being in the EU.

36) Our Politicians have to decide whether to contravene International law or continue to go deeper into the European Union. They have a choice; the people they serve do not have a choice. They should ask themselves when would the integration into the European Union end? They know that eventually this country will have to “have the Euro”, that this Country will be governed through ‘its EU Regions’, that there will only be a European Army, Navy and Air Force and that the Union will control ALL our seas and the rich resources in it and underneath the sea bed, our air space and land.

37) NATIONS, separate Countries will be gone forever and we will be of Europe but never IN Europe for we will always be but a small, cranky, off shore island just off the continent of Europe. The European Gendarmerie Force will be very active I should imagine here in the UK. Is this what our Politicians want?

38) Almost everything I have written about here has touched upon our Common Law Constitution. Will the EU eventually send in the Eurogendarmerie here in the UK complete with their high-powered guns? Will the people remain unarmed, having lost the fight to keep them for their defence of their country as written in the Bill of Rights? Will they obey that law having seen their own politicians ignore this Countries long standing Common Law Constitution? Or will the people see the Eurogendfor as an invading force? A force that might creep into this country one by one, silently in the still of the night? Or will the European Gendarmerie parade brazenly and proudly as a grand body of men and women as in victory?

39) The thousands of years of history, our Constitution that lasted under the likes of Winston Churchill will also be gone forever if the treaty is ratified. Will our politicians realise too late all that they have lost by giving away, willingly and freely? And sadly will they come to realise that the peace the European Union was supposed to bring will be also gone forever? Loyalty will of course be to the EU and its flag will fly all over our (occupied) Country if they ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. Ratification of the Treaty is not the end, but it is the beginning of the end for there is no return from this constitutional Treaty for we will have given too much sovereignty (authority) away to claw any back-not that the EU would allow us to have anything back. EVER.

40) What if the Eurogendarmerie that presents itself (if it ever is allowed to) here in the UK, is made up of British personnel? Ah yes, what then? Anne Palmer

Pictures of the Treaty signing ceremony at Velsen here

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

Download the EGF Treaty in .pdf

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.

Pictures of EU Forces from the federal Government of Germany (about 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

Judgements of the Court of Justice case C-77/05 and case C-137/05 United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/dec/uk-ecj-borders-prel.pdf

Slovenia prevents Portugal's Government from honouring election pledge

Read my headline again "Slovenia prevents Portugal's Government from honouring election pledge". Oh yeah!!! There goes a flying pig! Slovenia created in 1992 under German pressure, read here, was described as a territory of 7,817 square miles with a population of 2,017,000 and a GDP of $14.4 billion. Portugal at the same time had a population of 9,846,000 in a territory of 35,553 square miles and an existence numbered in centuries. The betrayal of the socialist party's promise, read here, comes as the French socialists announced they would not attend the Congress of Versailles which will amend the constitution to allow passage of the Lisbon Treaty as they are in favour of a referendum with the effect that the three-fifths majority of delegates attending will thus be achieved and no referendum will be necessary. Here we are only ten days into the new year, the year when democracy might die across Europe, and the plotting and skullduggery could not be clearer. Not yet to you cherished reader, then read the following from the link above on the history of the formation of Slovenia: "Prior to the Slovene unilateral action, the European Union and the United States were in agreement that the nation must remain united. This policy soon changed and it became evident that Germany and Austria were pressing for the recognition of Slovene and Croatian independence. It is now known that as early as 1990 Croatian and Slovene leaders held meetings with senior politicians from both of these countries urging support for independence. During this time the Vatican was openly lobbying for independence and had particular influence on German politicians in Bavaria." It must become obvious to all but the blind or thoroughly blinkered that pressure on the Portuguese cannot come from Slovenia at all. Similarly the French socialists are not really undertaking such contorted mental gyrations of their own free will! How come Slovenia holds the EU Presidency at this time. I cannot recall any public debate, was it a decision of the European Parliament (HA HA)? Throw in the fact that the potentially treasonous provision of Artcle 9c of the TEU of the Lisbon Treaty for British parliamentarians is no longer a problem as it appears the concept of treason was mistakenly removed in 1998 when the intention to merely end the hanging penalty had been the aim, and the full scope and history of the conspiracy now underway cannot any longer be avoided The mainstream media remains silent and even protest on the internet is sparse. The lawyers in Europe must see what is underway, but do they act? No sign yet! Are we europeans now really that gutless and so thoroughly careless of our liberties that Article 9c which neuters every democratic parliament is not even publicly debated?

Europe's shame to float over Canberra

The EU finds ever more extraordinary way to waste our money, read this from Australia. More importantly why is this apparently stateless man, Bruno Julien, describing himself as the EU's Ambassador when no such posts can exist until the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by 27 now doomed national parliaments?

Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman over EU Treaty

John Galloway has filed a complaint the detail of which may be obtained from this link.

Is Portugal to hold a Treaty Referendum?

A report, linked here, indicates this might be so. A bit of good news for once, although named Lisbon the Treaty may well be approved, however, considering that Portugal spent most of the past century under dictatorial rule there would be grounds for hope! After all, would any country really wish to return to such a state?

Ask the EU Lawyers why the EU acts illegally

The website Gateway to European Law/ European Law Network is linked from here. I have asked why an organisation such as themselves appear to be doing absolutely nothing about the blatant law-breaking of the European Union such as the example linked here. Others may wish to pose similar questions through the "Contact Us" link on their Home Page, after all as the citizens of Europe seem about to be totally betrayed by their elected national parliamentarians perhaps the lawyers will do something to at least extract a gesture of legality from the EU. If the EU breaks the terms of its own Treaty before it even comes into force, what can be the point of seminars such as this, run by eminent lawyers, for lawyers, all of whom are apparently content to sit idly by while the potential law they discuss is already being blatantly broken by the institution it is supposed to govern?

The First Council President

Several of the EU nation states who will finally and almost completely lose their sovereign independence and certainly their democracies under the ratified Lisbon Treaty, will have arrived at that point because of the naked ambition of their present leaders to become the first President, or even more amazingly, as hinted by Bernie Ahern, merely the EU's first High Representative for Foreign Affairs. Britain is not quite in that category as Tony Blair has already resigned. The obvious fact that he still aims to collect his thirty pieces of silver in the form of the Council Presidency is referenced again by the FT today, linked here. Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who dined with President Sarkozy this week, at least has the sense to realise that it is unlikely a less than fully participating national is unlikely to be considered, is now planning to run a referendum on the remaining Danish opt outs before the year ends, according to an interview in Le Figaro, linked here. Also in French, Les Echos reports that the appointments will be matters for the French Presidency: "c'est aussi au second semestre que devraient être désignés le président de l'UE et le haut-représentant pour la politique étrangère, les deux nouvelles fonctions prévues par le traité de Lisbonne." Can you imagine Blair's face when the first President is announced by Sarkozy as .....,( still most probably in my opinion Edmond Stoiber, or possibly his fellow countryman, the present President of the corrupt European Parliament, Hans Gert Pottering!) Will a Frenchman ever latterly get a turn? I doubt I will live long enough to know!

Can Sovereign States be bloodlessly destroyed?

Mr Jouet, France's Foreign Minister, is reported in the Financial Times, as saying: “I think the UK will not see another such opportunity to secure its objectives of taking part in the European adventure, staying at the heart of the EU project and at the same time respecting the peculiarities of British society. Nor could Britain retreat to a special relationship with the US: unlike in the late 1990s, both France and Germany now saw themselves as “an enthusiastic ally” of Washington, he said.” My interpretation of the first paragraph quoted above - "Britain must get out, it is now or never." The message I receive from the second paragraph is - "France and Germany imagine they can continue as independent sovereign states after ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, while others cannot" The tragic reality is that Lisbon will ensure the break-up and destruction of probably all European sovereign states as we presently have come to recognise them. This may well not be considered as a tragedy by many EU federalists, but as they collapse under the tyranny of the EU now being created and logically attempt to regain their lost sovereignty and self-governance on a differing regional basis (as we are now witnessing in Belgium and the UK) the potential for unspeakable bloodshed and violence seems enormous. So just why are Europe's leaders embarked on this tremendous folly? Self-interest and greed seems the only answer! Democracy across twenty plus different entities with several languages is possible as the Swiss Confederation has proven down the centuries! The EU power elites have chosen to ignore this fact! On their heads will lie the consequences if the National Parliaments now fail in their obligations to their electorates and recklessly ratify this Lisbon Treaty.

Restoring an Absolute Momarchy

The Lisbon Treaty, Crown Copyright, available from the FCO and linked here, states: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, DESIRING to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam1 and by the Treaty of Nice2 with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action, HAVE RESOLVED to amend the Treaty on European Union3, the Treaty establishing the European Community4 and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community5, and to this end have designated as their Plenipotentiaries: ........................................................... HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Gordon BROWN Prime Minister David MILIBAND Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs WHO, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: AMENDMENTS TO THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY .................................................................... ARTICLE 9 C 1. The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down in the Treaties. 2. The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote. ................................................................... OH NO THEY MAY NOT! !!!!! NOT AT PRESENT ANYWAY! BUT if the Westminster Parliament ratifies this Treaty, England returns to the situation as it existed prior to the English Civil War under Charles I. Can this Treaty be read any other way? I am posing this question directly to William Hague and Tony Benn who gave evidence on plenipotentiary powers to the Commons Privileges Committee on 10th April 2003, linked here. As I received no reply to this earlier query, I fear this too will be similarly ignored. Are the English seriously about to allow all the gains of our bloody history to be reversed in such a manner?

French Constitutional Revision

To ratify the Lisbon Treaty France must first amend its constitution which requires a two thirds parliamentary majority. This is a higher margin than that required for the actual ratification of thepartly Sarkozy inspired "faux" constitution. One more slight hope that the people of Europe will be saved from yet another tyranny, the date to watch 4th February. Le Figaro reports that former PM Laurent Fabius will vote against the constitutional change. In the UK, meanwhile, PM Brown continued his bullying of the state broadcaster's employees, this time on the Radio 4 Today programme, once again with the EU subsidised BBC employee failing to mention the broken promise over a referendum on the clearly constitutional EU Treaty.

Legal analysis of the EU Treaty

I posted the following comment on a blog called Grahnlaw, linked here. As it has not yet been posted and for my own record, I repeat the remarks below: Martin said... I am finding your reports on the so called EU Reform Treaty (Constitutional/Lisbon Treaty) most interesting and helpful. How, however, can you justify this statement: "The EU will continue to punch below its weight, but perhaps a little bit less so than presently. With the common foreign and security policy of the EU continuing within the sphere of intergovernmental cooperation, democratic scrutiny and accountability of the external action are going to be weak." The EU enforced, by this Treaty is a tyranny as defined by Karl Popper, lacking even a nod in the direction of democracy which allows periodic removal of the peoples' rulers by means other than the shedding of blood. The European Council President, High Representative and new politbureau the European Council itself have no democratic accountability whatever and all their activities will be secret. Democratic scrutiny, only possible in national parliaments is now being side-stepped. Efficiency and legal exactitude is naturally the enemy of democracy which is necessarily cumbersome and anything but efficient. As we see in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa, democracy once crushed is difficult (if not impossible) to quickly restore. Europe's contempt for democracy is noted across the world. Ignore the legal wording of the Treaty and consider the means of its being brought into effect and the disregard for the law in the early appointment of EU diplomats. The contempt for the law that is the real message from this process is obvious. Musharref first locked up the lawyers before suspending the citizens rights, such is not necessary within the morally bankrupt and lawless EU! 07 January 2008 09:41

Brown bullies pathetic Andrew Marr

After Andrew Marr was hardly allowed a word in edgeways by the Bullying Brown on the BBC's flagship (????) political TV show this morning, especially on the topic of taxpayers risks from Northern Rock, reports of house price fears increasing the risks are now flooding across the internet, eg from Channel 4 linked here.

Death throes of Democracy

The column by Christopher Booker in today's Sunday Telegraph, linked here, opens as follows: ==================================

A last stand for democracy in Strasbourg

Before Christmas, almost entirely unreported here in Britain, the proceedings of the European Parliament were brought to a halt by an unprecedented uproar. Just after the EU's leaders had flown back from signing their new treaty in Lisbon, the Portuguese prime minister Jose Socrates, as the EU's acting "president", was in Strasbourg for a ceremony to celebrate the signing of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, part of the Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. ===================================

Primacy of EU Law

Some interesting points from a legal blogger from Finland, linked here: "If government bodies and courts in the Member States were free to apply or disregard European Community acts, the ‘acquis communautaire’ would be just a collection of political declarations. Therefore, it is a logical necessity that Community legislation takes precedence over incompatible national legislation. Only thus can natural persons and firms get the legal protection guaranteed by Community law...... The Constitutional Treaty would have admitted this frankly. Article I-6 Union law said: “The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred upon it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States.” It can therefore be seen as a test of the maturity of public opinion and government in some Member States that the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) struck the provision on primacy from the Lisbon Treaty..... Should a citizen of the European Union thank the voters in France and the Netherlands who, in effect, landed us with the contortionist act called the Reform Treaty?" The only answer to the question in the final paragraph which I have emphasised is of course YES. But only the Irish can save us all now!!

EU Treaty Referendum

Read a first class explanation of what is at risk from T.D. Erikson on my blog Teetering Tories, linked from here.

Irish Government Challenged over EU Reform Treaty

The Irish Times, linked here, reports a legal challenge against a government funded website promoting the anti-democratic Lisbon Treaty.

Democracy - Ring any bells, Gordon?

Richard Littlejohn in today's Daily Mail, linked here:

Our Prime Minister has never been elected by his own party, by parliament or by the British people.

He represents a Scottish seat in an overwhelmingly English parliament and passes laws affecting the English which do not affect his own constituents north of the Border.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own versions of self-government, something which Brown stubbornly denies the English.

He signed away Britain's sovereignty to Europe, blatantly breaking a promise to hold a referendum he knew he'd lose, and lied through his newly-capped teeth about the consequences of his actions. He didn't even have the guts to attend the formal signing ceremony.

Even when he had the opportunity to secure a democratic mandate, he chickened out because he didn't trust the people to give the right answer. He was frightened he might lose the job he has always considered to be his birthright.

If Brown could find a way of abolishing elections altogether, believe me he would.

Lord Hailsham once described Britain as an elective dictatorship. Under Brown it's not even elective.

Britain is now governed by a series of placemen, quangos, bureaucracies and unaccountable officials who pay little heed to the will of the people. Most of our laws are made in Brussels by people we didn't elect and can't eject.

We don't have plebiscites, we have spurious 'consultations' which are then ignored.

But are there any left in the country prepared to protest, let alone push for change?