Friday, January 18, 2008
Labour MP group to table referendum amendment
Thursday, January 17, 2008
EU Parliament shenanigans.
Russia's actions against British Council
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
Updated Consolidated Lisbon Treaty in English
EU Parliament as lawbreaker
French Deputies vote on Democracy's demise
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!
"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:
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."
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Referendum protest in EU's pretend parliament
Britain's rebate sold for Blair's ambitions!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
MEPs protesting Charter signing to be fined
Towards Europe's next bloodbath?
How can the EU be stopped?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Death for democracy - "Bloody Misery" for pampered Parliamentarians
EU destroys rain forests for biofuels
Saturday, January 12, 2008
President orders EU Commission to avoid conflicts
Friday, January 11, 2008
LIBOR jitters and small businesses fears
The EU renews its vows to citizens
Czechs to send Treaty to Constitutional Court
EU Minister's Speech to the LSE
Police State &House of Commons -EU Scrutiny Committee
Press reaction to Portuguese Perfidy
The Red Lines Confidence Trick
Open Email from a Blogger
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Part Two Lisbon and Velsen (towards a police state).
Anne Palmer's thoughts on parts of the Treaty of
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
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
5) On Monday February 9th 2004 Mr Blair announced an overhaul of
6) Viscount Simon (14th 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
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
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
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 ‘
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
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
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
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 18th 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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Pictures of the Treaty signing ceremony at Velsen here
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.
Judgements of the Court of Justice case C-77/05 and case C-137/05 United Kingdom of
Slovenia prevents Portugal's Government from honouring election pledge
Europe's shame to float over Canberra
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman over EU Treaty
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Is Portugal to hold a Treaty Referendum?
Ask the EU Lawyers why the EU acts illegally
The First Council President
Can Sovereign States be bloodlessly destroyed?
Restoring an Absolute Momarchy
Monday, January 07, 2008
French Constitutional Revision
Legal analysis of the EU Treaty
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Brown bullies pathetic Andrew Marr
Death throes of Democracy
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. ===================================
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Primacy of EU Law
EU Treaty Referendum
Irish Government Challenged over EU Reform Treaty
Friday, January 04, 2008
Democracy - Ring any bells, Gordon?
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?