A view on Lisbon Treaty from Canada

Our post this morning had an Irish view on the destruction of their Parliament sold as enhancement, this evening I suggest you consider this item from Canada, linked here, from which comes this: ".....This has Britons incensed, as they see it as an example of a democracy derailed. Brown’s stubbornness in the matter boggles the mind in view of the fact that virtually everyone wants a referendum. The Tories have called for a consultation of the voters, but Labour and the Lib-Dems are opposed. The Lib-Dems are playing a very interesting game on this one: they oppose a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but they would not mind holding one about Britain’s EU membership in general. Britain, however, is not alone in the fight for a referendum on the Treaty. An equally high percentage of Austrians want a referendum, which socialist chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer has rejected out of hand. Voters in favour of a referendum recently staged a mass demonstration, but the public broadcaster (ORF), controlled by the socialist government, refused to cover the event. (Incidentally, the Austrian chancellor now stands accused of having broken the law by illegally unlocking an iPhone). Tempers are flaring, and people are getting really frustrated with their undemocratic governments. Most Austrians are saying these days that, if the Lisbon Treaty were to enter into force, they might just as well abolish their parliament, as most of Austria’s sovereignty would be delegated to Brussels anyway. Britain would be affected to a somewhat lesser degree, but it too could essentially close down the Houses of Parliament and send everyone to Brussels for future decisions and votes on bills. Clearly, this is not the kind of Europe that Britain signed on to in 1973. Back then, it was to be a free market area, facilitating trade and commerce among the member states. Nowhere was it said or written then that Britain, as well as all other member states, would have to hand over the keys to their countries and hand all decision-taking powers to a foreign international body in Brussels."

A view on Lisbon Treaty from an Irish blogger

Interesting questions are posed in this link.

Labour's tartan taxes

Make Jock Strapped

Lies and more lies yet none care

Read Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph, linked here, which concludes as follows: In a way, however, it is only appropriate that, in giving away Britain's powers to govern itself, our Government should do so on the basis of showing such total contempt for Parliament, breaking promises and telling lies. They do so because they know they can get away with it, and that by next year when the Constitution comes into force, it will be too late to protest.

Has Brown's Britain any purpose?

What a day! Chaos continues at Heathrow Terminal 5 for British Airways and the Spanish owned British Airports Authority, while in Basra British troops remain inactive as warfare swirls around them, read here , from Reuters. At least Land Rover and Jaguar will soon be safely(?) in Indian ownership - a triumph of British automotive ingenuity as reported by the propaganda mouthpiece the once impartial British Broadcasting Corporation.

Nicholas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown relaunch European Defence

The front page of the Le Figaro reads "Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown relaunch defence Europe." An article in the paper notes that Britain has always in the past been against the idea of Europe having its own autonomous planning and operational centre outside NATO. However, it notes, "The British now seem to be more inclined to accept the idea of giving the EU a new 'operational headquarters' in Brussels." (Open Europe, Daily Press Review)

So which nuclear deterrent protects us now. Are non-Nato members included in our commitment to mutual defence. Must we retaliate if a nuclear weapon is fired upon Bulgaria? Or Malta?

How can EU defence provide security when EU members rarely fight and exclude the USA, Canada, Turkey and Norway... is anybody thinking any of this through or are we blindly walking towards another fiasco such as Kosovo independence, but with even graver consequences?

Brown's courage and loyalty to EU = TREACHERY TO BRITAIN

President Sarkozy's praise of Brown's courage and loyalty and the gratitude he expressed of all the other EU leaders can be directly measured in an exactly equal degree of Brown's betrayal of the electors of his own country who he has duped and robbed of democracy by not honouring his pledge of a referendum on the ramrodded EU Reform Treaty. Read the report in today's The Times, linked here.

A busted airline of a broken nation

Only days after the Queen opened Heathrow's new terminal five before the fat cats of Britain, the whole expensive shambles, so typical of the present day UK, collapsed into complete chaos, the Daily Telegraph report is linked here. With its Parliament pulped the country is effectively leaderless, none involved in the decades long decline can conceivably be considered competent to participate in a desperately needed turnaround.

RIP House of Commons

President Sarkozy in Britain

As an Englishman living in France I must quote at longer length than normal the speech made on the occasion of yesterday's state visit to Britain by the French President. The Times report had this section: The French President made an impassioned plea that Britain and France “write a new page in our common history” as he addressed both Houses of Parliament. Calling for greater cooperation over the issues of energy, immigration, security and defence he called for a new Franco-British “brotherhood” to drive through reform. His most powerful rhetoric was used to express gratitude for Britain’s help for a free France. President Sarkozy insisted France would “never forget” and was not “entitled to forget” the sacrifice the British had made during the Second World War. “On behalf of the people of France, France will never forget,” he said. “France will never forget that when it was virtually wiped out, down on its knees, it was Britain who stood by us. France will never forget the heroic resistance of the British people without which all would have been lost.” While he said that Britain was seen in many countries as a “political and human ideal”, it was with France that it had the “tightest, closest ties”. “The destiny of our countries has been intermingled for some thousand years since William the Conqueror landed from Normandy and wrested the throne of Edward the Confessor, right through to the reverse trend whereby thousands of young British men and women contributed to the liberating of Europe,” he said. The Guardian had better overall coverage in my view, linked here, with this section most worthy of quotation: In Europe, Sarkozy argued, Franco-German friendship remained "indispensable" but it was no longer enough to keep the European Union vigorous For that, he said, "we need this new Franco-British entente". Speeches are all well and good, what develops is normally something different, this blog will comment further as matters proceed. France having recovered its status in the EU due to the political adroitness of President Sarkozy, must now feel free to watch the fate of the Lisbon Treaty with comparative disinterest. The Dutch position becomes of increasing interest as do the clear Constitution conflicts for the Germans. Brown's fate lies in the hands of the House of Lords the sole remaining functioning Chamber of Britain's once proud parliament.

Mendacious Parasites

Londoners this evening may read the latest sorry saga on our sick parliamentarians, if you also have the stomach - click here.

Vaclav Klaus silenced

Comment on the silencing of the last serious EU critic within the leadership of the EU nation states is linked here.

England's Scottish enemy

The deceitful, conspiratorial and often plain downright lying and dishonest man that is presently Prime Minister of Britain, through the neglect of their own democracy by England's electorate and the tilted voting mechanism of the UK, today spells out in the Daily Telegraph, here, his plans for the further subjugation of England having already vitually assured the destruction of that nation's parliament by ramming through the Lisbon Treaty without the slightest conscience of breaking his manifesto commitment to a referendum. Read his exact words, to have as clearly illustrated as it can possibly be, that he does not even consider England as worthy of consideration in his scheme of the world: In recognition of this, 10 years ago we embarked on devolution - ensuring that the smaller nations that are part of the UK have more control over their own affairs. Devolution simply acknowledges the dual identities: Welsh and British, Scottish and British too.

Role of National Parliaments post Lisbon Treaty

The following is the conclusion of a report by Global Vision on the above crucial subject, linked here: Role of National Parliaments § Under the pretext of enhancing the role of national parliaments, this Treaty actually institutionalises their subservience by defining a limited role for national parliaments in the EU institutional structure. They are allowed to scrutinise draft EU legislative acts, but while the Commission is required to review the legislation if a third or more of parliaments object, the Commission can then decide to continue with the legislation unamended – with their decision confirmed by the normal QMV procedures. Ultimately it is the EU itself, through the ECJ, which has final right to arbitrate on claims of subsidiarity infringement. (Article 7 of the Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality) § Commenting on the process for agreeing the IGC Mandate and Reform Treaty, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee said: o "We again recall that as recently as June of this year the European Council not only emphasized the ‘crucial importance of reinforcing communications with the European citizens...and involving them in permanent dialogue' but also stated that his would be ‘particularly important during the upcoming IGC and ratification processes'." (Paragraph 8) o “Such statements now ring hollow, and 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, until it has become too late for such debate to have any effect on the agreements which have been reached." (Paragraph 8)4 Commenting finally on whether the Reform Treaty imposes legal duties on national parliaments, the Committee said: · "We are not persuaded that the text of the Reform Treaty has been amended so as to put beyond any doubt the principle that no obligation must be imposed on Parliament." (Paragraph 16) · "In our view, the obvious amendment would have been to use the word ‘may' instead of ‘shall' in Article 8c EU as well as in Article 63 and Article 9 of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the Union. The statement ‘National parliaments contribute to the effective functioning of the European Union' is one from which an obligation can readily be inferred." (Paragraph 16) · "Given its constitutional significance, we must emphasise that this is not an area in which any ambiguity is tolerable and we shall look to the Government to ensure that its original undertakings are met in any new text." (Paragraph 16)

Why the news blackout on Lisbon Treaty?

A posting on Blogger News Network asks the question posed in this postings headline above. Well may it be asked, the answer of course is that when democracy and freedom are being suppressed those wielding the axe prefer to operate in the dark, incredible as it seems all 27 leaders and governing parties of 27 European nations are the guilty in this deceit. Read the article from here.

Carla del Ponte Book to inflate EU's Kosovo fiasco

A report from Fox News, linked here, indicates more problems ahead for the unthinking controllers of the EU's early disastrous forays into Foreign Affairs. The former UN prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, read here, is a substantial international figure having successfully prosecuted certain matters with mafia connections in her native Swiss Canton of Ticino before moving on to the high profile war crimes tribunal in The Hague. In her book to be published on 3rd April in Italy she touches upon accusations of the transportation of Serb prisoners to Albania and allegations of body organ sales resulting therefrom. Can anything be more likely to highlight the full extent of the EU's recent blunder in the Balkans? Elsewhere in Kosovo events follow the predicted course, as may be read, for example, from here. How can any nation, concerned for the welfare of its citizens, continue in the crazed doomed construct of the EU?

The End of Britain - Christian Science Monitor

Read the article by Stephen Webbejust issued from this link, a quote from the article is here: But for England (Britain, actually) the Treaty of Lisbon isn't that appetizing. That's because, if ratified, it will become the decisive act in this creation of a federal European superstate with its capital in Brussels. Britain would become a province and its "Mother of Parliaments," a regional assembly. And that's no small humiliation for a country that gave the world English and saved Western civilization in the Battle of Britain in 1940. The Eurocrat elite in Brussels might not admit it, but the Treaty of Lisbon is essentially a constitution for a "country" called Europe. More bluntly, it's a cynical repackaging of the EU Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Meantime the English celebrate Easter as if nothing is afoot and they have not already been totally betrayed by the politicians they wrongly assume are protecting their national interests. The article correctly closes as follows:

Surrendering to supranational rule is hard for Britain given its celebrated past. Its European neighbors, by contrast, their histories indelibly stained by tyranny, military defeat, and imperial barbarity, seem eager to subsume themselves in a suffocating superstate.

The Treaty of Lisbon crystallizes the EU's core belief that nation states are every bit as defunct as Stone Age tribes. In the case of Britain, though, it would curtail the freedom of action and global vision of a nation whose people are far from convinced that sovereign independence is a badge of shame.

Britain could walk out of the EU today simply by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. But political courage of that order is in short supply.

Perhaps only Queen Elizabeth II can rescue her realm from the baleful Treaty of Lisbon. She could veto it when it comes to her for royal assent and – sensationally – declare that she's not prepared to see her proud, independent, liberty-loving country swallowed up by an arrogant, authoritarian, and unloved European superstate.

She would be in excellent company. Queen Anne refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708. And that was only about a bunch of musket-toting rubes of doubtful loyalty. This is about national survival Never has there been such a massive overarching betrayal.

Poettering to Dublin

Read the report of more high level German pressure from the Irish press here. Read a somewhat more realistic view from here. A quote: A Catholic priest here in Ireland has warned correctly it will be a Godless Empire, with a constitution that rejects God and is deadly for the unborn and the natural family.It has denied its Christian roots a long time ago. Does our country want legal abortion, euthanasia,homosexual 'marriage'?, lack of freedom to home school or even 'practise' our religion.Do we want to see the legalization of prostitution and drugs as we have seen in some other EU countries?. Two-Thirds of Irish laws are already made in the EU and this Treaty will transfer more power from you. People you didn't even vote for are deciding what laws you have. Remember the water charge issue.Schools here were complaining because they had to pay water charges. This is an EU directive and our government are powerless to change this. They banned patio heaters and certain light bulbs. What next? You can rightly assume a call for a No vote. Ireland has our own constitution that is also under attack. I will be voting No to Lisbon and campaigning to save Irish sovereignty and safe guard the next generation.It is not good for the Church, the faith, nor Ireland. Vote No to the Lisbon Treaty.

EU ignoring Irish Referendum result

At last the disgraceful vote of the European Parliament on Amendment 32 to ignore the result of the Irish Referendum is receiving some attention. The following letter is in today's Irish Independent: We need Lisbon Treaty facts now Saturday March 22 2008 I have to question the silence of this paper on the fact that in the European Parliament's vote on the Lisbon Treaty in February 499 MEPs, including Proinsias De Rossa, voted not to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum. Further, that silence continued when Pierre Jonckheer, Vice-President of the European Green Party in the European Parliament, spoke on March 6 in Galway and said that it was irrelevant what the Irish do in their referendum. If the result was a no to the Lisbon Treaty, Europe would ignore it and carry on with the Treaty. This silence continued when Senator Dan Boyle, Chairman of the Irish Green Party, defended Mr Jonckheer's assertion. Let's first clear the air. The Lisbon Treaty must be ratified by all 27 member states or it can not go ahead. This means that an Irish no vote is an automatic veto of the Treaty binding the entire EU. Any country is entitled to use a veto and no country can be punished for using it. The fact that the Irish people are being given their democratic right to vote on this Treaty means that we have an obligation to the entire EU to have all the facts of the debate, including that the European Parliament voted not to respect our referendum. It is disappointing that this paper did not report this fact to the Irish people. If the EU is, as Mr Jonckheer seems to think, so desperate to get this Treaty and the additional powers it bestows on it, that it is willing to break its own laws, then we must ask where the EU is heading. I trust that the law will be respected and an Irish no will mean no and send the Treaty back for serious revision, because otherwise the "rule of law" that the EU says it stands for is a sham. KATHY SINNOTT MEP BALLINHASSIG, CO CORK Get the conclusion, it is irrefutable so I repeat: Because otherwise the "rule of law" that the EU says it stands for is a sham.

Hopelessness.

Matthew Parris sums up the feeling very adequately in his column in The Times this morning, here, of which this paragraph gives a flavour: Who knows what's happening? Perhaps nothing, after all. Perhaps this will all blow over. But what unsettles me goes deeper than a sense of mystery about the future. At most junctures in history there arises the feeling of a lull before a possible storm. Heck, we were in a worse state in 1945, or 1979. Danger was more imminent in the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 posited bigger unknowns for the future. But at these crossroads the air was full of ideas: strong ideas, competing ideas, confident philosophies, angry dissent. People had policies. Ideologies clashed. Politicians and thinkers jostled to present their plans. Leaders led. David Cameron rightly comes in for his share of criticism in the column but the main point seems to me to have been missed. All day yesterday the 24 hour news programmes delighted in replaying the Daily Mirror video of Cameron breaking various traffic laws when cycling to one of his other hobbies in Parliament. It spoke volumes did it not: A 'V' sign to the law-abiding majority as he cycled the wrong way along a one way street. A 'F*** you plebs' as he shot not one but two red lights And an Oh so clear "I am above the law" as he deliberately swerved the wrong way around a traffic separation marker in the Mall. This is also the man who permitted his party a free vote, and instructed his front bench to abstain, on the supremely important matter of whether our Parliament should retain its supremacy under a New Clause 9 proposed by Bill Cash MP in the EU (Amendment) Bill that will enforce the Lisbon Treaty without the promised referendum. David Cameron thus joined with the Government and the Liberal Democrats in effectively defecating on the democracy of the nation by rejecting this amendment on which less than 50 MPs were found to vote in support. This is the same man who is asked on the Guido Fawkes blog, linked here: Why does Dave claim £20,563 for staying away from home? We all know he lives in Notting Hill, the kids go to school locally, it is his primary residence isn't it. Is he claiming the Witney constituency home is his primary residence? The same fiddle that the Yvette and Ed Balls pull? The German President estimated some 80 per cent of his country's legislation now comes from the EU so the proportion for Britain is clearly probably roughly the same. So why are MPs increasingly ripping off the electorate while at the same time throwing away the parliamentary sovereignty which is the one remaining small excuse for their continued attendance in Parliament. Matthew Parris need not feel hopeless, he, like everyone else in the country has an MP. That MP is probably in his constituency this holiday weekend, wracking up the expenses on the second home on which they have reclaimed mortgage payments and disgustingly ramped up the national house price to extreme levels to thereafter reap the maximum gain. Visit that MP, send them e-mails, ask why they have turned the best meaning for the abbreviation MP from Member of Parliament to Mendacious Parasite AND if you are a Conservative ask yourself why you continue to tolerate this shallow, worthless individual at the head of your party and the nation's opposition.

Bulgaria ratifies Lisbon Treaty

The sixth country to commit national hari kari was Bulgaria today, read here. Twenty-one small remaining hopes for democracy - what a drawn out tragedy this is proving to be,still not one single courageous European leader prepared to step forth and tell the truth of what is afoot!

Constitutional crisis (continued).

Following along from my earlier posting this morning, regarding Martin Bell's ascribing the corruption of our MPs as having reached a level sufficient to cause a constitutional crisis; I would like to expand the concept to areas not explored by Mr Bell. I feel the true scale of the nation's difficulties were very well summarised by Mr Bob Lomas of the Magna Carta Society in an e-mail circulated during a private debate on the difficulties our country now faces following the vote in Parliament abandoning the concept of its own supremacy.. The section I feel most aptly summarises these concerns is as follows: "..the Queen and Parliament had absolutely no 'intent' of ever leaving the European Community, thirty five years of unlawful rule from Brussels has proved this, and the Queen and Parliament still have no 'intent' of returning this nation to its lawful state of sovereign independence. This shows without doubt that the Queen and Parliament had every 'intent' to destroy this nation by surrendering for all time to come the sovereign independence of this nation, and the Queen and Parliament have proceeded towards this goal under the pretence that Parliament has the power to end it all at its discretion, obviously believing that given time the people would come to accept the status quo, but at the same time gradually disarming the people and removing their civil and military defences, introducing draconian laws and a state police structure in preparation for the European totalitarian state control enforced by a European styled thuggish and above the law militia type police force. At this stage there is no point in discussing how things should be or ought to be, the subject for discussion must be how things actually are and what we can do about it. As for your claim that the EU has not achieved all that it intended is neither here nor there, as given time it will. As far as we are concerned the EUs intention to destroy nationhood has already made its mark in this country to an unacceptable degree. Look around you, the nation is in chaos, political corruption up to European standards, financial corruption, corruption in policing, a high level of crime in the community, apathy, despair, and above all a general sense of fear. The assertion that all is well because all we have to do is to proclaim our right to sovereign independence, is, under the prevailing circumstances hollow rhetoric indeed when there is absolutely no means of achieving it. We will be in no position to regain our sovereign independence and put our country back together until the people find a way of getting rid of the establishment which has for personal gain seen the corrupt EU to be in their interest. Finding our salvation is not impossible but we are nearing the time when it might be impossible without creating a national disaster. Twenty years ago I was saying that there was no political way forward simply because our problem is not one of politics but one of constitutional and common law. I would claim that my point has been proved. The keepers of the Constitution are the Monarch, the Judiciary and the Anglican Church. All three have not only failed this nation they have conspired to destroy its lawful structure. There is remedy, the nation is sick but there is a medicine, the big question being, is it a medicine the people are prepared to take?" While a visit to your local MP's surgery this holiday weekend to personally query their individual expense claims should be top of your list, there are also these greater issues to dwell upon.

MPs corrupt practises cause constitutional crisis

Such is the situation faced by the country this Good Friday morning, according to former broadcaster and independent MP Martin Bell, as reported in the Guardian, linked here, as follows: "...Scotland Yard announced last night it would not be "appropriate" to launch an investigation into Conway after being advised by the CPS that "the lack of systems in this case to account for MPs' expenses would severely undermine the viability of any criminal investigation leading to a prosecution" The Metropolitan police statement added: "In these circumstances we do not believe that it is appropriate for a police investigation to be instigated." The gaps in the parliamentary scrutiny drew immediate criticism and calls for wholesale reform. Martin Bell, the former BBC journalist who was elected to parliament on an anti-sleaze ticket in 1997, told the Guardian: "This shows the need for external regulation. This has happened again and again and again. "Anyone who has tried to make MPs more accountable - from Elizabeth Filkin to Alistair Graham [both former Commons sleaze watchdogs] - has been removed. We are in a state of constitutional crisis. MPs are supposed to set an example to the rest of us and yet they think there is one rule for them and another for the rest of us." Conway was sacked as a Conservative MP and announced that he would not be standing at the next election after a Commons committee ruled that he had provided insufficient evidence to prove that his "all but invisible son" worked for him as a researcher at Westminster. A former Tory government whip, Conway had paid an annual £11,773 salary, plus bonuses of more than £10,000, to his younger son Freddie to work as a researcher while he was a student at Newcastle University." Our law-makers have contrived to make their own financial scams so woolly and disorganised that the nation's primary law enforcers, Scotland Yard, are unable to hold them to account. More on even graver aspects of this crisis for Britain over this holiday weekend.

Typical letter all Labour and Lib/Dems should see in their local press

The following letter is in the Shropshire Star, linked here. Liberal peers must somehow be made to get this same message, as I blogged in the posting below.

MPs ought to pay for EU treachery

MPs voted not to give us a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty by 311 to 248, this is despite all three main parties promising a referendum.

Labour and the Lib Dems both claim that the EU Reform Treaty and EU constitution are different enough not to warrant a referendum - this is an outright lie.

The EU Reform Treaty produces the same end result as the constitution except references to the flag and anthem of the EU are moved to an appendix which is voluntary.

The constitution replaced existing treaties, the EU Reform Treaty amends them. The payload is the same, it is the method of delivery that is different.

A private referendum by iwantareferendum.com showed that 88 per cent of the electorate wants a referendum on the treaty. David Wright and all the other (mainly Labour) MPs who voted against a referendum did so in the full knowledge they were going against the wishes of their constituents.

I will do everything I can to ensure that David Wright loses his seat at the next election for his treachery.

Stuart Parr, Brookside

Liberal/Democrats for once must be held to account

In what passed for debate on the third reading of the EU (Amendment) Bill in the House of Commons on 11th March 2008, Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) Liberal Democrat spokesman on Europe made much of the activities of the Democracy movements leaflet campaign against referendum promise breaking MPs (see my first posting on this blog of yesterday beneath this). I quote from Hansard, linked here one small examples of the distortions in which he engaged: The third charge made by the Democracy Movement in the leaflet is that Lisbon creates a president and a Foreign Minister for the EU. As our debates have shown, that is also untrue. The proposal that the existing presidency of the European Council should change from a six-month rotation to a more permanent two-and-a-half year position means that such a president will not be created and that there will be no president of the EU who is akin to a US President. As for the lie that a Foreign Minister is being created, the fact that the EU has no foreign policy on anything unless and until 27 real Foreign Ministers from all member states unanimously agree shows what nonsense that charge is. The fact that the Lib/Dems are severely rattled by the Democracy Movement's campaign could not be made clearer than by the portion of this speech devoted to that campaign. Now the Liberal Democrats are preparing an even greater treachery against their electors in the House of Lords where they seem set to vote against a referendum rather than just to abstain as they did in the Commons. Lib/Dem peers, being appointed for life, are free from electoral pressure which is why the Democracy Movements campaign against sitting Lib/Dem MPs must be supported to the maximum extent possible. Anybody with relatives or friends living within a constituency with a sitting Lib/Dem MP is urged to pressure that contact to pressure that MP to ensure the peers of that party DO NOT break their party's manifesto promise by voting against a referendum amendment in the House of Lords, and should they do so the MPs themselves should be fully aware of the likely electoral consequences for each of them personally in each of the constituencies which they will then dishonestly represent.

Free Press restritions could delay Slovak subjugation to Lisbon

A detailed report on problems likely to be encountered in the Slovak Parliament may be read here.

New hope from the Czech Parliament

The web site of Radio Praha carries this opinion from Czech commentator Petr Just, linked here: “It is obvious that the process of ratification by the Czech Parliament will be influenced by the fact that the strongest political party in government – the Civic Democratic Party – has adopted a cautious stand with regard to the treaty. It does not fully support it and we must take into account the fact that for example in the Senate the Civic Democrats have a majority which would enable them to stop or block its ratification. We know that the Civic Democrats want to ask the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic to asses whether the Lisbon Treaty is in accordance with the Czech legal system so it is obvious that even if the treaty is eventually ratified it would go through a revision process by the Constitutional Court.”

It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

The following is the conclusion in the Leading Article in today's Wall Street Journal, linked here:

With all the effort put into avoiding referendums, it's hard to escape the conclusion that EU politicians are trying to pull a fast one on their voters. On the one hand, they're selling Lisbon as a grand reform treaty that propels Europe out of the malaise that followed the French and Dutch no votes. On the other, they say the treaty is a small tightening-up exercise that doesn't require a return to the ballot box. Which is it?

EU partisans find it hard to make a persuasive case for the treaty, except to trot out the tired argument that "good Europeans" would support whatever EU leaders think up. To which an antitreaty jingle making the rounds in Ireland offers a proper response:

You're not saying no to Europe when you vote this treaty down.

You're saying yes to democracy and the right to stand your ground.

Should Lisbon be rejected in Ireland or Poland, EU leaders and Brussels insiders will proclaim yet another crisis for Europe. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. (blog editor's highlight)

Poland's Lisbon Ratification looks increasingly problematic!!

The latest news from Hurriyet English is linked here. Much media comment mentions concerns in Poland about legalisation of gay marriage as a risk seen lying in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but potentially more lethal to the Lisbon Treaty itself are reports that fear of individual German citizen's claims to ancient property rights could cause a carve up of this frequently invaded nation. Such worries would act as a good counterweight to the economic weight normally felt from Poland's powerful neighbour. I was perhaps a little hasty earlier this week when I suggested that once again Polish doubts might prove insubstantiave. Failure to ratify by Poland either in Parliament or by a referendum, where a 5o per cent turnout would be required, would be a major blow to the developing pan-european EU dictatorship. The EU steam-roller would find this a much harder obstacle than a mighty NO from the much smaller Ireland. Perhaps it will also bolster the nerves of Britain's peers.

Rough ride for EU

Living in a dictatorship under construction it is hard to obtain media coverage of events that cast the tyranny in a less than favourable light. Thus it appears from a search of google news the best coverage comes from China, Canada and Switzerland on events in Kosovo and the Balkan tinderbox on the EU's doorstep into which the spark was recently thrown. The following end to the report from ISN Security Watch from Zurich, linked here, sums up the disaster that was, is and will be - EU involvement:

Rough ride for EU

Belgrade is fighting its battle on another front by refusing to acknowledge the European mission (EULEX), and pledging its cooperation only to UNMIK, which arrived in Kosovo in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

Following the official example, Kosovo Serb civilians are also cooperating only with UNMIK and KFOR, and not with the EU mission (which has not been positioned in northern Kosovo) or the Pristina institutions.

The EU is putting tremendous pressure on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to mark the end of UNMIK's mission and invite EULEX to take over. However, the secretary-general is also facing an intense drive from Russia and other countries that have sided with Belgrade, which leaves UNMIK on the field.

Last week, the EU admitted that the takeover of authority would require more than the initially planned 120 days. Some members of the EU even think it would be wise for UNMIK to remain in the Serb enclaves.

"The situation is still volatile, particularly north of the river Ibar, in northern Kosovo," the chairman of the EU Council of Ministers Dimitrij Rupel told a press conference at the end of the meetings of the Council of Ministers in Brussels last week.

Rupel said UNMIK should take control of a border between Serbia and Kosovo. The Slovenian foreign minister admitted that the planned transition between UNMIK and EULEX would take longer and will require more effort.

Peter Feith, the international civilian representative in Kosovo, says that his mission is not coming to Kosovo to establish a NATO state, adding that it is politically impossible to admit a mistake and go back to the previous state of affairs. (blog editor's highlight)

In a 12 March interview for the Serbian Vecernje Novosti daily, Feith said his first impression after coming to Kosovo was "it could have been worse," adding that the worst was perhaps still to come.

The EU envoy went on to say that the EU mission would attempt to be as "invisible" as possible, adding that it was necessary for the Kosovo cabinet to assume power. In addition, he stressed that if Pristina tried to endanger the Serb community in Kosovo, he would not hesitate to use his powers, even if that meant dismissing and banning the violators of the rules.

Noble(?) Lib/Dems to vote against Referendum?

The following is the lead from today's Open Europe Press Summary: Lib Dems to vote against a referendum in the Lords? Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg is thinking about abandoning his policy of abstaining on any Lisbon Treaty referendum vote, according to Lord McNally, leader of the Lib Dem peers. This emerged yesterday in a Lords debate when, asked about the Lib Dem position, McNally said, "My Lords, on 1 April [the Second reading of the Treaty in the Lords], probably the best day of the year to have such a debate, I will explain in full and take the noble Lord step by step through Liberal Democrat thinking on this matter." TheyWorkForYou Comment: If the Liberal Democrats can't say how they are going to vote in the Lords that can only mean one thing: they are not going to have a three line whip to abstain as they did in the Commons, but will allow their peers to vote against a referendum. This would be total hypocrisy. Indeed, since the Commons vote various Lib Dem MPs (e.g. Harvey, Cable) have argued that it did not matter that they abstained because their votes were not enough to make a difference. This is a rather bogus argument anyway, because more Labour MPs would have rebelled if the Lib Dems had kept their promise. Nonetheless, what is absolutely clear is that how the Lib Dems vote in the Lords will decide whether there is a referendum or not. Journalists should now be asking the Lib Dems: how can it be right to do one thing in the Commons and something completely different in the Lords? How much longer is Clegg going allow himself to be pushed around by Shirley Williams?

Parliamentary sovereignty is indeed DEAD!

As this blog has long and repeatedly been maintaining Sovereignty is indivisible and does not now exist in Britain. An article on the topic may be read from eGovmonitor , linked here, it concludes as follows: The Lisbon Treaty debate has highlighted a gaping hole in the UK constitution. The Labour government tacitly accept that Parliamentary sovereignty is no longer a useful concept - that's why they lined up to vote down Bill Cash's amendment. The Conservatives know it too - they have been insisting for years now that EU treaties should be ratified by referendums. Yet it seems to suit both their purposes to pay lip service to the idea that our democracy is protected by a supremely powerful Parliament. It is time we shook them out of their complacency.

Support the UK Democracy Movement

The following is from the web site of The Democracy Movement in the UK, linked here:

The Democracy Movement has responded to the vote by announcing the launch of an 'Integrity Fund' to finance local campaigning in marginal constituencies between now and the next general election, which could now be just over a year away.

The fund will target MPs of all parties who have voted against the referendum they promised at the last election, and will finance the distribution of thousands of leaflets, advertising and other campaign activities in each target constituency. Funds have already been pledged to cover more than a dozen constituencies.

Democracy Movement director Stuart Coster said:

"Those MPs who hoped this issue would go away once they had voted contrary to their election promises have made a huge miscalculation.

"On the basis of how MPs have voted on a Treaty referendum relative to their election promises, between now and the next general election we intend to ensure local voters know who they can and cannot trust."

After the remaining stages in the Commons, the Bill ratifying the Lisbon Treaty will move to the House of Lords where there will be further debates about a referendum.

If the Lords pass a referendum amendment, the issue could be put to the vote once again in the Commons.

Tie the pound to the UK wheat yield!

I tried to post the following comment to the William Rees-Mogg column in this morning's the Times, linked here but repeat it below as it has not appeared: I date the start of these present problems back to 1971 and Nixon freeing the dollar from gold. Since that time currencies have merely moved against one another in a macabre manner apparently directed by government whim and market greed. No investor has anywhere realistic or reliable to currently protect this meaninless worth except in gold or commodities, the value of the latter being themselves doubtful due to the approaching macroeconomic slump. A Central Bank that now tied its currency to something tangible and of constant worth would attract sufficient sound investors to better weather the hurricane. Given that wheat has been the staple of the West I suggest the BoE consider fixing the pound to the value of the annual wheat yield in an acre of land in the Vale of Evesham.

More power for a Parliament of Cheats

Such is the thrust of an article by the Irish Business Post yesterday, linked here. Interestingly the only fleeced mugs in the EU who have the power to try to make the answer to such a question a resounding NO are the lucky Irish!

EU Withdrawal - inconceivable peacefully post-Lisbon?

Think about this quote from a Reuters report on Canada.com linked here:

"We are concerned that Serbia is slipping away," Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev said in Brussels in a comment to Reuters ahead of an EU summit.

"The political situation in Serbia is creating an atmosphere of national rhetoric...which means possibly in the end Serbia would voluntarily isolate itself from the EU."

Now consider this reference in the House of Lords Impact Assessment on the EU Reform Treaty:

2.68. It is significant that the Lisbon Treaty adds to the Treaties a clause confirming the right of a Member State to withdraw from the Union, and also sets out the procedure it could use to negotiate a withdrawal.

"Could" Ideas of what they might mean by that on a postcard please! Consider the following: 1. Before Lisbon, or certainly before the European Communities Act 1972, as a Sovereign State nobody could argue that we had the absolute right to withdraw from any Treaty. 2. A State wishing to withdraw after the Lisbon Treaty, if ratified, would presumably presumably be in "dispute" with all the other members, namely it is being unfairly victimised or acting unreasonably. But there is no disputes procedure so withdrawal is its only option - But the terms of its being allowed to withdraw will be set by the parties with whom it is in dispute AND it will be excluded from these considerations. 3. This is equivalent to any commercial contract or arrangement having no arbitration clause or reference to legal jurisdiction merely a stipulation that the bully will determine the terms of the settlement of the dispute. 4. If Malta withdrew it would probably be stuck with the terms laid down, a larger country such as the UK "could" threaten nuclear retaliation or some such, but why would any nation wish to put themselves in such an unhappy relationship with its neighbours? Especially when they are as clearly ill-intentioned as those presently prepared to force through such a deceitful and conspiratorial arrangement as the EU Reform/Lisbon Treaty. I have always suspected that one of the worst aspects of this Treaty could well prove to be this withdrawal clause, as if the nation states retain any pretence of sovereignty it should be redundant. Hopefully the House of Lords debates will throw some light on this. Meantime it looks like clever Serbia, I would say, if only the UK could have one simple vote on 11th May and thus 'isolate ourselves' from the EU as it is being constructed under the "CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY REBORN"

Polish election speculation on EU Treaty doubts

A summary of today's Polish press coverage may be read from here. More on the Czech Constitutional Court Assessment from here. The more doubts the better for democracy! Some Parliament must say no to add force to any Irish veto! President Sarkozy will also be receiving some electoral response to his recent performance later this evening. None of us should allow any of the Lisbon signatories to ever again be re-elected to public office, as the real facts emerge this will become ever more simple to achieve.

The end of Nato as we have known it

Gawain Towler, former powerhouse of the satirical Brussels based magazine 'The Sprout' was forced to quit open blogging when he became associated with the UKIP. The blog England Expects was always insightful but lacked a certain cutting edge due to the anonymous nature of the blogger behind. This blog was delighted when a while back Gawain stepped forth and his blog is all the stronger for it. Take this outstanding contribution on "NEUTO" from his blog this morning. Welcome back Gawain!

Two of seven Czech Committee members against Lisbon Treaty

The first step of the ratification process of the EU Treaty in the Czech Republic went through but the Constitutional Court seems likely to get a say, report here.

EUs Plethora of Presidents

The Economist article, here, opens as follows after an apt cartoon: KING SOLOMON, relates the Bible, acted wisely and decisively when faced with two women claiming the same baby: his threat to cut it in half swiftly revealed the real mother. The European Union is different. Faced with two rival plans, its approach is to say yes to both, delay a reckoning for years and then throw money at the compromise. If EU leaders were running Solomon's court they would award both women custody, build parallel nurseries with public funds and review progress in 2014. As a strategy, this has a big flaw: it does not work........

VIDEO: End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty

Global Research in Canada has a Video, titled as above available from their web page linked here. The description implies it has uncovered the full reality that so many in Europe are trying to hide as it summarises it as follows: We set out to make a video about the pros and cons of the Lisbon Treaty and found out to our horror the lies, manipulations and deceit ... all » behind the EU. From MEPs, legal experts and EU researches the true nature of the EU unfolded, how it really operates from behind closed doors and away from prying eyes. We discovered the massive power grab away from citizens and nations to the elites that is being proposed in this treaty. Most shocking of all was how our elected representatives are willingly handing us over to this emerging Totalitarian Superstate by deception , propaganda and outright lies.

This video details how the structures of the EU really operate, what the full significance of the Lisbon Treaty is and how it is the end of Nations within in the EU. MEPs describe their experience in Brussels and how they are undermined by the real power of the unelected and unaccountable Eurocrats who run the organization. How the politicians are working together for their own selfish needs while being used for a bigger agenda.

VIDEO: End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty

Treasures from the threads - Number Eight

Simon Heffer in his Telegraph column todays hits out at Ed Balls, linked here. The following contribution came from Anne Palmer at 0734: Maybe a word can be changed in Hansard but the deeds that are happening "Today in Parliament" and what will be written down in Hansard forever will cast a shadow that will stain the future of this Country, because it cannot all be altered. That famous verse of Cicero "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive treason from within" is spoken now more than it ever was in his 'own time'. Just add up Simon, the 'wages', vast expenses, second home perks so recently revealed, the cost of the extra layer of Regional Assemblies, Councils etc, then the EU Commissioners, ALL the MEP's, plus expenses, the overseas visits-you get the idea, the list is endless,and then ask yourself, just how much longer are the general public going to continue to pay the politicians here in the UK for a Job they no longer can do, or in the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty obviously they no longer want to do? We see "our Leaders" in The EU scraping the barrel having to cook up ways of raising yet more taxes from people though means of "saving the planet". It became obvious when "smoking was banned' in so many places that there would be a need to raise taxes in other ways. What could be better than saving the planet? Our newspapers and TV haven't shown the dreadful weather, the freezing temperatures in other parts of the world just across the Atlantic for one because it would not be helpful to their plans. This Government that has ignored the people, must make a decision and make it soon. Does IT want to Govern this Country? Does IT really think that the people will continue to accept ALL that THEY, our own MP's are doing, and NO, they are not doing it in the people's name, for they know without doubt, that the people do not want further integration into the Union. ALL this cannot be altered in Hansard. Hansard must record the treachery that is taking place in those magnificent buildings, because the people know for sure, that both sides in the argument re the Treaty of Lisbon cannot both be right, can they? We will remeber this Government all right Simon, but not as "Great Warriors", actually not as "Great" anything. Posted by Anne Palmer on March 15, 2008 7:34 AM

Europe's path forward now lies with Britain's House of Lords

I have been reading the EU Reform Treaty Impact Assessment published by the House of Lords which may be browsed from this link. The report makes clear that Britain's senior legislative chamber is not about to lightly cast aside its centuries old responsibilities for the sound governance of our nation. (Unlike the House of Commons, one is inevitably unable to resist adding right here!). Yesterday on the Radio 4 Today programme, Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Conservative Party in the Lords, made clear that the House of Lords would take its responsibilities very seriously and the reverse impact of the so-called Salisbury considerations on manifesto commitments would be a factor on the referendum question. Constitutional experts and researchers are already preparing arguments on the critical question of whether or not their Lordships might perhaps be even bound by precedent to enforce the manifesto promise of a referendum by the three main political parties elected to the House of Commons at the last election. I will post what I may of these arguments on this blog when they become available. Critical to the vote of individual peers on a referendum amendment will surely be their own view, if no common agreed position is achievable, on whether or not the Lisbon Treaty is effectively the same beast as the Constitutional Treaty earlier rejected by the voters in both France and Holland. Obstruction by the EU itself makes arriving at that decision much harder as an official consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty is being withheld until after ratification. Read the excellent opinion in English of Finnish Lawyer Ralf Grahn on this situation from here. English Consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty do exist, I heard Europe Minister Jim Murphy refer to such in the Commons during the Treaty debates although I cannot find the Hansard reference. They are, however, not official and I believe their Lordships as a first step, before the second reading begins on 1st April, should demand an official EU approved consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty which can publicly be laid alongside the former Constitution Treaty so that the clear distortion they are not very, very, very, very, substantially the same document can be nailed once and for all. In the interim we at least have the side by side comparison of the two treaties by Open Europe, linked here. Are there other considerations which could guide these noble Lords and Ladies in arriving at a decision on the thorny issue of a British referendum. I believe there are several which I list in order of their importance as I consider them: 1. The possible illegality of the "non-negotiated" mandate of the June 2008 Council replacing if not effectively binding the legally required IGC. {I put this item at the head of my list as in my view it should be an equal concern across the entire EU and thus clearly understandable to other nation's electorates whom themselves feel a sense of betrayal over this Treaty but lack all of Britain's particular concerns}. (Briefly why I believe this is a major problem - the EU leaders met under the EU Treaties which require amending treaties be drawn up by an IGC. The mandate overruled this which is possible as has been proved by 27 separate Heads of Government forcing it through, BUT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE when meeting within the structures of the EU and most decidedly not within the spirit of the EU as it has PREVIOUSLY been sold to the EU electorates. The end result we are told is a mandate agreed within 48 hours and negotiated at a chance meeting of 27 leaders!) 2. The lies by Foreign Office Ministers to the European Scrutiny Committee both ahead of and following the imposition of the mandate. 3. The transfer of Prime Ministerial and Foreign Secretarial responsibilities during the period in question depriving the Lower House of holding those responsible to Parliamentary account and proper scrutiny. I blogged on this danger throughout June 2007, especially before the meeting where Merkel's mandate was issued by decree, read "Strictly limited scope for an IGC" 1st June, "Queen must dissolve Parliament immediately" 2nd June, and by the end of that month "Blair's secret EU side deal" 30th June, from which I quote the penultimate paragraph as worth full consideration by the House of Lords before deciding whether the British people deserve a say on this crucial treaty: But one of the 27 is no longer national leader (nor shamefully even a member of the parliamentary chamber he has so disgracefully sold out). Although I argued long and hard on this blog for Brown to represent Britain at the 21 - 23rd June European Council, so that the negotiator could answer to Parliament - the fact that he did not, could as the Portuguese seem about to realise - provide Britain with the way out. 4. The present public perception of both the members of the House of Commons and the European Parliament and their near contempt for the institutions of the EU. 5. The present world economic turmoil. My view is presently drifting towards a solution where more than one referendum question be posed, not on withdrawal as opted for by the Lib/Dems, but perhaps an option for Britain to reject Lisbon but authorise pursuit of a democratic model possibly along the lines of the multi-lingual Swiss Confederation model but with Common Law legislation only available to the EU's replacement in the sphere of the Single Market, all other competences being returned to the Sovereign States, only on such a basis can Britain really justify continuing involvement given the now blinding contradictions with our own forms of governance and society perhaps leading to open dissent.

Angela Merkel to visit Ireland

I think Merkel's visit, read here, is probably good news for all of us fighting to preserve European nation states and their democracies. Earlier reports that France's National Front leader was now not going to visit also seemed positive as I feel outside interference will most likely be counter-productive. Even better news on the Irish referendum side this morning is this report in The Economist that Mr Ahern has lost his gloss in the country, read here. Also this morning comes more news of difficulties in Poland, read here, although experience shows that the Polish governments tend to go along with the EU mainstream at the end of the day. The growing economic crisis, being felt the most in the USA at present, will also play a part I believe as the summer advances. Politicians who have between them seem to have managed to destroy Western capitalism as we have enjoyed it for decades seem unlikely to be able to lead their citizens by the nose into the new style of EU as that envisioned in the Lisbon Treaty, I would guess, an EU where the clearest change is that these same politicians will in future run everything without further need of democratic renewal.

EU Reform Treaty Impact Assessment

The Lords report published today may be browsed from this link! Highlights will be available on this blog over the coming weekend. In the meantime I will merely offer this quote on the matter of "shall" on which this blog had much to say over recent months: Articles 14-19 TEU impose duties on the institutions of the Union. Each begins in French with the mandatory present which is translated into English using "shall", e.g. Article 16, where the original French reads: "Le Conseil exerce, conjointement avec le Parlement européen, les fonctions législative et budgétaire. Il exerce des fonctions de définition des politiques et de coordination conformément aux conditions prévues par les traités", which is translated as: "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." It is very unlikely that the Court of Justice would ever have to interpret Article 12 of the amended TEU. If it did, while an argument could be made that Article 12 imposes duties on national Parliaments, it is highly unlikely that such an argument would succeed, having regard to the context and the understanding of the Member States as to its interpretation (mentioned in Chapter 11 of this report).

Finnish Islands could scupper EU Reform Treaty over snuff

The report is here from Der Spiegel.

Who will Rule Us after Lisbon?

It all seems a bit confused after the vote on the Third Reading of the EU Treaty Amendment on Tuesday as I posted first thing this morning. We have the Queen of course somewhere up there above us, President Barroso of the EU Commission, who as I also posted earlier seems to believe that avoiding hunger is not aided by growing food close by, post-Lisbon will also provide the new EU President f0r 2.5 to 5 years appointment, the notable Dr Hans-Gert Poettering, President of the false EU Parliament will I feel sure still be hovering around, but Gordon Brown MP., as PM., has at that point ceded Parliament's powers to the ECJ and the British Courts so we must now add this figure, who has unsurprisingly been previously unknown to me:

18 January 2008

Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, today announced that Ms Jenny Rowe will become the first Chief Executive of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom upon its creation in late 2009.

In the interim Ms Rowe will act as Chief Executive designate and take up the post overseeing the creation of the Supreme Court. She will work with the Supreme Court implementation team and the Law Lords.

Jack Straw said:

'I look forward to working with Jenny Rowe in establishing the new Supreme Court that will endure as a symbol of our commitment to justice and the independence of the judiciary.'

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom replaces the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The Supreme Court will become operational in October 2009 and will be situated on Parliament Square in the refurbished Middlesex Guildhall building.

When the new institution opens, the existing Law Lords will become the first Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Senior Law Lord will become the President. For the purposes of appointing the Chief Executive under section 48(2) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor consulted the current senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill.

EU Treaty Bill in the House of Lords

The Bill received its First Reading, linked here, and appropriately enough the Second Reading is scheduled for April Fools Day. Prepare the final arguments!

Starvation in Africa

The now clearly near lunatic EU Commission President Barroso, is quoted in today's Times, linked here, as follows: “The problem of hunger in Africa has nothing to do with biofuels. The idea that, if you have more production of food near you, you can eat better is a complete mistake.”

Polish problems on Lisbon ratification

A report on problems being caused by the Law and Justice Party is linked here. The priority remains, for the sake of the democracy and freedoms of the EU's hundreds of millions of citizens, for one or more of the 27 National Parliaments, and/or the people of Ireland, to reject this dreadful treaty and allow Europe to start again but on a democratic and non-tyrannical course.

A fine kettle of fish

On 11th March, 2008 in the evening, MPs in the House of Commons voted by 346 to 206 for what was effectively the Treaty of Lisbon, if ratified, to become English Law, read Jurist here. In doing so, however, quite extraordinarily in my view, (indeed I remain in a state of some considerable degree of shock over this which rendered me incapable of blogging throughout yesterday) what they actually voted for was the defeat of the following: That this House declines to give a Third Reading to the European Union (Amendment) Bill because it does not protect the Parliament of the United Kingdom itself or its enactments from judicial rulings of the European Court of Justice and of the Courts of the United Kingdom. In other words, should the Lisbon Treaty be ratified, an event now almost entirely in the hands of their Lordships in the 'other place' as far as the UK is concerned, thereafter this House of Commons is entirely at ease with being overruled and indeed subservient to the judiciary in the European Court of Justice and the UK. Of course the Lisbon Treaty also is at some risk elsewhere on the Continent, from its workplace implications across Scandinavia, the German Constitutional Court consideration and the Irish Referendum to name but three pending complications, but let's assume for a moment it goes ahead - where will the House of Commons, and it follows the British electors, then stand? Well at first look it might seem simple, no House of Commons can supposedly bind its successors, but other changes have been afoot again at the behest of the EU. The butchering of the role of Lord Chancellor who was the head of the judiciary and sat on the woolsack in the Lords has already been accomplished by BLiar and Lord Falconer - a new Supreme Court for the UK is under construction close to the Parliament it will then rule, read here. At first it appeared the main effect of this seemed to be the Justice Minister trying to walk backwards after handing the 'gracious speech' to Her Majesty (an art he should easily have accomplished having never seen what lay ahead throughout his political career), but now we see the full potential of the EU's insistence that the Head of the UK's judiciary be separated from that of the Government. Now we seem to face a new ruler and this House of Commons seems to have provided such future Lord Chief's of Justice (Supreme Justices or whatever they be called) a powerful basis to argue that, in future, other parliaments will be unable to regain the powers thrown away last Tuesday. As Bill Cash MP asked the Speaker on a Point of Order after the debate - what value now has the parliamentary mace other than for scrap? A neat constitutional trap appears to have been sprung, but where does that leave us? The Commons seems for this parliament to now be in the hands of the Lords - let us trust they show more constitutional awareness and soundness of voting choices! I will blog further on this as my concerns coalesce into some tentative conclusions.

Parliamentary Supremacy

The Main Business of the House of Commons today will be on the EU Lisbon Treaty I quote the critically important motion herewith:

3 EUROPEAN UNION (AMENDMENT) BILL: Third Reading (12th allotted day). (Queen’s Consent to be signified.) [Up to six hours]

Mr William Cash Mr John Redwood Mr Iain Duncan Smith Mr David Heathcoat-Amory Mr Michael Ancram Mr Peter Lilley

Mr Philip Hollobone Mr James Gray Mr Nigel Evans Mr Douglas Carswell Sir Nicholas Winterton Ann Winterton Mr Bernard Jenkin Mr John Whittingdale Sir Peter Tapsell Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger Mrs Nadine Dorries Mr Brian Binley Mr Adam Holloway Angela Browning

That this House declines to give a Third Reading to the European Union (Amendment) Bill because it does not protect the Parliament of the United Kingdom itself or its enactments from judicial rulings of the European Court of Justice and of the Courts of the United Kingdom.

Proceedings on Third Reading shall, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six hours after commencement (Order of 28th January).

Forty-three thousand euros a year to sell out your country

It is difficult to discover how much ex-officials and Commissioners of the EU might receive to continue working in the interests of this corrupt organisation once they retire, and so far impossible to learn the exact terms they may have agreed to continue to be beneficiaries of such ill-deserved payments, but I have found this from a BBC report, linked here, on Mandelson's 2.4 million pound house purchase which seems relevant: For example, the former French prime minister Edith Cresson, who was a commissioner for just four years in the 1990s - before helping to bring the whole Commission down in a corruption scandal - receives an annual pension of 43,000 euros (£29,000). This amount has by now probably been adjusted for inflation but nevertheless provides a good guide as to what the likes of Baron Tugendhat receives for his involvement in Business for Europe and votes in the House of Lords as I reported in my first posting on this blog today. 43,000 euros every year to continue selling out your country's parliament and the right of the people to periodically change their rulers - how low can such people stoop?

EU Reform/Lisbon/Constitutional Treaty for German Courts

The article from EU Observer is linked here. Mentioned is the Irish referendum and this statement on BRITAIN'S BETRAYAL BY ITS POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT, AS FOLLOWS: A leader in Saturday's edition of business daily the Financial Times noted that while in the UK "the chances of a plebiscite on Lisbon are now close to nil. The issue could be reopened if Ireland (...) votes it down." That gloomy scenario might be different if the parasitical leeches in the House of Lords who are in receipt of pansions or other payments from the non-democratic European Union were to declare their self-interests and absent themselves from the vote on a referendum amendment. One such I will name here and now, Christopher Tugendhat, read here and here. Baron Tugendhat was a one time Commissioner in the EU and logically therefore is a recipient of an effectively tax free EU pension which binds him to unthinking support for the authoritarian and corrupt new empire. He is every inch the establishment figure who have together destroyed the British nation as we knew it. I came across him in the 1970s and a more arrogant figure it is difficult to imagine. He was an honorary director of the virtually inactive UK subsidiary of an international oil company for which I worked and was granted a luxurious office within a stone's throw of Westminster which he hardly required having one of the largest conservative majorities in the land. Working just down the corridor, never once did he acknowledge my existence nor have the courtesy to exchange a normal greeting such as returning a 'Good Morning' Many similar types must infest the upper house, they too should be outed and have the decency after decades of gorging at the public trough to stand aside from the upcoming critical vote on this oppressive Treaty.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Hang on! AND not for the high winds. Now when we talk trillions I begin to get confused, but I believe 4.9 trillion dollars comes out as: 4,900,000,000,000,000,000 This from the Houston Chronicle:

While the government isn't obligated to assist Fannie or Freddie in a financial emergency, many on Wall Street believe it would bail them out if there is a collapse. The idea that they are "too big to fail" enables the two companies to borrow relatively cheaply by issuing top-rated securities backed by mortgages.

Fannie and Freddie hold or guarantee around $4.9 trillion in home-loan debt, though under a 1992 law they are required to hold in reserve only a fraction of what is mandated for commercial banks.

Bill Cash, MP., letter to Telegraph

Legislation should override Lisbon Treaty Sir - Further to the Lisbon Treaty debate (Letters, March 7) I wish to draw your attention to the House of Commons' vote on my New Clause 9 (Supremacy of Parliament) amendment. It was supported by 47 MPs from all parties, including several former Conservative cabinet and shadow cabinet members; 379 Labour and Lib Dem MPs voted against it. My new clause would oblige the UK judiciary to give effect to future Westminster legislation where it overrides any specific provision in that treaty. This would include EU over-regulation, as the Conservatives voted on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill in 2006. The reason for the new clause is that the Lisbon Treaty includes a new division of EU powers, which exclude Westminster from legislating; collapse of inter-governmental pillars; new legal obligations on the UK Parliament; a self-amending text, bypassing Acts of Parliament; and a declaration endorsing the assertions of the European Court over our Parliament. UK case law includes what Lord Denning stated in Macarthy's Ltd v Smith: "If the time should come when our Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty or any provision in it or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament." The former Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet members have signed my amendment for the third reading of the Bill on Tuesday to protect the supremacy of Parliament. We want British laws for British judges. Bill Cash MP, Shadow Attorney General 2001-03, London SW1

Fake President of fake state with fake parliament defrauding millions - OPENS anti-COUNTERFEIT SUMMIT

Read the mind boggling report in the IHT, linked here, amongst many others. The EU is not qualified to comment on "AUTHENTIC" anything without any in the know of its own structures and practises collapsing into helpless but hollow laughter!

EU citizens can 'no longer fathom' EU project

The headline and quote below is from EUPolitix.com, linked here. More than 50 years after the creation of the EU, the ‘aims and meaning’ of the European project remain unanswered, according to bishops from around Europe. They say that ratification of the reform treaty will still not solve these “crucial” questions. That was the keynote message to emerge from the plenary assembly of the commission of the bishops’ conference of the European community (COMECE). Perhaps the Bishops should be looking for divine guidance as the only logical explanation to this simple mortal is that all involved in the EU are solely motivated by greed and self-interest!

England's defeats

This blog generally ignores sport but notes that successes in the sporting arena have a positive effect on a nation's morale and presumes the opposite can therefore prove the case. Noting the disaster at Murrayfield on Saturday for England's rugby team and this headline on the latest cricketing disaster - 'England's Darkest Hour', linked here, I am force to make the observation that our sportsmen played like men betrayed and pre-defeated by their own rulers, which looking back to the events of last week, is indeed the case.

And for our next lie... the great EU betrayal

William Rees-Mogg, concludes his article in this morning's Times, linked here, and titled the same as this posting with the follow-up "The British will never trust those who deceive them" as follows: The Commons voted against a referendum by 311 to 247. There were some Labour rebels and a handful of Tories voted with the Government. The Lib Dems adopted that cringing device, a three-line whip, to abstain. They also had rebels. The result is a direct conflict between the public and the parliamentarians, a conflict made worse by more than 300 Members of Parliament breaking their election commitments. How can we trust such people?

This is bad for Parliament, but worse for the future of Europe. Most Eurosceptics want Europe to be reformed, not destroyed. How ever much it may annoy the Eurofanatics, they are the “good Europeans” who have Europe’s long-term interest at heart. No political society survives without trust. British voters believe that they have been deceived about the Lisbon treaty, a promise has been broken, and the breach justified by lies. If the EU cannot trust the people, the people cannot trust the EU.

Lost liberty

Please read the harrowing contribution by Henry Porter in today's Observer, linked here, which was his evidence to the joint parliamentary committee on a Bill of Rights. It opens and ends as follows: Two things are striking as you read through the oral evidence presented to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The first is the measured calm of the majority of your witnesses and, indeed, of the majority of the committee, in the face of the most serious attack on personal freedom and privacy ever mounted during peacetime in this country. British democracy is on the brink of being changed beyond recognition, yet nothing seems to disturb the equanimity of your proceedings. Even allowing for the well-mannered traditions of parliamentary committees, the lack of urgency and of a sense of crisis seems remarkable....................... Finally, I want to say something about the phrase 'rights and responsibilities' used by Jack Straw and Gordon Brown in respect of a new bill. This springs from the telling belief among ministers that rights are somehow in the gift of the government and that they are entitled to require people to sign up to a list of responsibilities in exchange. This is arrogant nonsense. The citizen's responsibilities are defined by common, civil and criminal law and ministers display a constitutional impertinence by suggesting otherwise.

Stop their pay!

MP = Mendacious Parasite? Why should we pay them now they have voted by a substantial majority, with the Conservative Party front bench abstaining, to renounce our sovereignty. Read Christopher Booker's column of today, here, a quote: In fact, for years there has been no better illustration of the humiliating impotence to which Parliament has been reduced than this "scrutiny" charade, whereby MPs perfunctorily consider the endless flood of EU laws that they cannot influence. On Thursday, for instance, there was much excitement over the discovery that the manufacturers of an anti-depressant drug, Seroxat, could not be taken to court for concealing evidence that it might drive people to suicide, thanks to a glaring loophole in the law. But the reason this law was so ill-drafted was that it emanated from the EU bureaucracy, as health minister Dawn Primarolo tacitly admitted. Thus the British Parliament no longer has the power to amend it. The only way it can be changed is for Ms Primarolo to plead her case with our real government in Brussels. This was only one of thousands of new laws each year which have supposedly been "scrutinised" by MPs. Why should they notice the loopholes when they no longer have any power to change the laws? If Mr Miliband argues that this is what MPs are paid for, his own logic suggests that they should no longer be paid for a job they cannot do. MPs conceded as much themselves on Thursday, when Bill Cash moved an amendment to reverse the provision of the treaty which gives EU law primacy in every respect over the will of Parliament. Only 50 MPs supported it, including 41 Tories - against the wishes of their party's leadership. The rest were happy to accept that the Parliament to which they belong should no longer rule this country.