The deliberate destruction of Britons' reasoning

Shirley Williams, or Baroness Shirley Williams, as the influential senior member of  the Liberal Democrat Party appears to like to be introduced on one of her frequent appearances on the BBC Question Time programme, when she bores the audience and the viewing public with her bizarre and now largely discredited ideas, was intimately involved while in the Labour Party during the deliberate destruction of Britain's state education system. 

The takeover of Britain's media by the self-styled journalistic low lives paraded before the Leveson inquiry, upon which the UK paparazzi & broadcasters are typically and pointlessly abuzz this morning, was another direct consequence and contributory factor in the accomplishment of the country's now almost complete dumbing down.

The Guardian has an early report of the voting in three by-elections held yesterday. Incredibly this same Labour Party, that first attempted to destroy the economy of the nation under Wilson and Callaghan, to be thereafter temporarily reprieved by Thatcher, then entirely seen off by Blair and Brown, gained the following votes:

Rotherham..........9,866

Middlesborough..........10,201

Croydon North..........15,898

Happily the Liberal Democrat party to which the former assistant to Anthony Crosland Shirley Williams now belongs was comprehensively smashed.

But what future can there be for Britain as an independent and prosperous nation, where there is such widespread ignorance on the causes of the people's present distress. Happily the reality of the awfulness of Cameron's Conservative Party MAY be sinking in, but we must await later tests in their own ignorant heartlands.

The Sullied march on!

.

The Bust Banks of the EU

So the IMF has forced the farce over Greece finally into the open. Repayment of funds already advanced to Greece will be pushed further back into the distant future with all aware that means never, the interest rate paid will be reduced to less than one per cent with the clear understanding that following the German elections this too will get ever closer to zero with actual payments of any installments a figment of fantasy.

So much for moral hazard!

In Spain the horror of Bankia continues to be treated as other than it clearly is, read some questions raised by the Wall Street Journal from here and various earlier postings on this blog as to how that situation was allowed to develop.

In Britain we have RBS, Northern Rock, Lloyds HBOS etc while France and Belgium so far share Dexia with others no doubt waiting in the wings. The entire Greek farce of recent years has after all been designed to protect German, French and other too big to fail financial institutions from the consequences of their own decisions.

First thing this morning I tweeted that we needed a collective noun for the kind of filth who have been involved in making these obscene and disastrous policy errors as follows:

Martin Cole ‏@IroniesToo

We need a collective noun for the members of the three main political parties who have sold off our democracy and their morals: #SULLIED??

On reflection #SULLIED seems rather mild

Blackmail is a crime

I have been wondering what could have possibly motivated Number 10 Downing Street last weekend to first retract the accusation that UKIP members were "....racist, mostly" and then some two hours later, and just before the TV station was to go on air with that retraction as its headline news, suddenly withdraw this apology and presumably hope that it might be handled as if it had never been given.

Looking back over all my long researches regarding the UKIP party I suspect that there is some material available to politicians or Governments which possibly somebody, somewhere is hoping to use to political or EU advantage. Such thoughts of course are not new, nor indeed surprising. As the posts on UKIP Uncovered reveal most political parties have pieces of the past that appear far worse today than they may have been considered at the time!

Ukip may need to clear the air on some such matters, but has much more important work in hand this side of the weekend, if our country is to begin to be retrieved. I will therefore only return to such matters on that other blog when more time is available.

Meantime the various dirty tricks brigades should perhaps best bear in mind the headline to this posting!

Tolerance as opposed to Political Correctness

Along the island chain that forms the rim of the Caribbean Sea, where the Leeward Isles meet the Windwards, lies the island of Dominica. At its northern end the small town of Portsmouth gives a clue to its naval past and normally safe and tranquil harbour. Inland is one of the few remaining, and I believe the largest reservations of earlier inhabitants of this region, the Carib Indians. I have embedded a video tour of Portsmouth at the end of this post for anyone interested in the town.

On market days the main street is lined with stalls selling all manner of tropical fruits and other produce of this very unspoilt and little visited island. The magistrates court is held on market day. Much of the crime is connected with petty theft and the production of illicit liquor. The people are poor as evidenced during my visits by the open drains either side of many of the roads. Punishment therefore takes the form of police beatings, the sounds of which cannot be missed by the throngs of shoppers and stall holders. When I visited the island, the country had a female Prime Minister, who was considered the Thatcher or Iron Lady of the Caribbean. The death penalty remained the ultimate legal deterrent, which could then still be appealed to the Privy Council in London. This then was the case in many of the former British Colonial West Indies.

In forming a personal view of their judicial situation, a first-hand knowledge of the circumstances of the people and the local economy are in my view essentials. Closed minded and untraveled liberals across Europe are not equipped and have consistently failed to offer viable alternatives. When material prosperity arrives in Portsmouth, magistrates' fines could then be imposed and lengthy custodial sentences afforded. Until then reality requires other remedies.

When we welcome people from the Caribbean to live in our own country they accept our alternative system of justice. We in turn in a spirit of true tolerance accept that they begin at a different starting point from ourselves with regard to customs of intimate and family relationships. Society seems to have no difficulty in that respect in so far as Islam is concerned.

UKIP's candidate in this week's North Croydon by-election, Winston Mackenzie, who is of Jamaican origin, yesterday came in for some criticism on Twitter for remarks he made in response to replies he gave regarding his views (perhaps I should say feelings) to society's attitudes and treatment of the  gay community. I do not know what he actually said, nor do I choose to defend it. Some of the reactions I read seemed to indicate a lack of understanding of how his views may have been based and how they were formed. A tolerant, as opposed to a politically correct society, would understand that and weigh those facts against the other qualities Winston Mackenzie may, or may not offer them as a candidate.

The EU - Will its Member States take on their people for its survival?

While the party of Artur Mas has suffered some losses it is to the benefit of a leftist separatist alternative party according to early results, read here.

Spain, having suffered for years from pressure from the Basque Country separatists now appears to be about to enter an even more difficult phase.

Further comment will be on this blog when the picture is clearer.

It is becoming an interesting Monday morning, with the final dawning of reality among the ranks of the Tories in the UK also grabbing headlines, read here.

Conservatives, UKIP and Racism

I cannot credit that Cameron has remained silent for a further 24 hours since his initial retraction of his "closet racism" accusation against UKIP!

It has driven me to return to some of my old posts on my blog UKIP Uncovered , such as this from April 2003, linked here, which I also linked from Twitter as it seemed so relevant for the debate presently underway following the disgraceful actions of the Labour Council and its employees and agents in Rotherham.

I withdrew as a candidate for UKIP for the European Parliament in April 2003 because of my own doubts regarding the party's stance on matters that today continue to be unjustifiably raised, in feigned agitation but real fear, by the party's political opponents. I continued my own internet blog following the UKIP affairs long after my withdrawal , and hopefully by constant prompting played a small part in contributing to what UKIP has today become - an inclusive and mainstream political party offering Britain its best hope for a prosperous outward-looking society with links all across the globe. UKIP may also have an outside chance of restoring our democracy trashed by the three main poltical parties, who continue to abuse our systems and institutions to this day.

Any political party might contain racists or other such bigots. My watching of UK and European politics for decades leads me to believe that in the UK the Tories and UKIP probably have roughly similar percentages of such dolts in their membership, which itself is probably exceeded by Labour. In all cases my guess is that across the EU these percentages are below the norm!

Cameron smears UKIP, retracts - then withdraws retraction

12h Krishnan Guru-Murthy ‏@krishgm

For the record : 16.45 Downing St said Cameron no longer believes UKIP mostly closet racists. 18.40 said no retraction of it after all 

The above tweet from the presenter of Channel Four News says it all about the workings of the brain of our Prime Minister, who is supposed to be on top of and in charge of the complex negotiations regarding the payment of billions of taxpayers funds to the EU during the seven years from 2014, plus many other complex matters affecting our national life!

Yet he cannot even make his mind up on a perfectly straightforward matter such as the disgrace  that would shame a totalitarian one party state that took place in Rotherham upon which I blogged and linked this time yesterday.

Cameron, for straightforward party political gain, some time ago asserted that the United Kingdom Independence Party was racist, because of their fight to retain parliamentary democracy and the sovereignty of the people of this country against the money grubbing and power seeking ambitions of the other three main poltical parties locked into the EU.

The outcry of the removal of three children by the Common Purpose Joyce Thacker, had reached such a level by yesterday afternoon (#UKIP was trending at second worldwide at one point yesterday) Cameron retracted his original racist slur against the political party of UKIP which is now clearly the greatest threat to his storm tossed coalition government of almost totally complete incompetents.

The media have not yet had time to investigate the sudden retraction of that first retraction, reported in the tweet above, which occurred just before the news broadcast was to go on air.

This blog has recently made several suggestions regarding the damaged reasoning capabilities of our PM, this appears the latest and a particularly extreme example! I will follow events during the day on Twitter, and also if warranted on this blog.

From defeating Nazism to becoming Fascist

So the cycle of authoritarianism, played out in the background to my life commencing in 1944, has arrived at its feared and increasingly inevitable end point. Children have been removed from their foster parents in England because their parents have made a considered decision to join a perfectly respectable and legally registered official political party - UKIP, read here.

Nigel Farage, the UKIP party leader, was interviewed on the fascists' propaganda state broadcasting machine this morning and typically asked  questions which could only have been formed within a seriously damaged and controlled reasoning mechanism.

The broadcast will probably be available in the BBC Listen Again or i player later today, or maybe not, as the Today programme often interviews UKIP before the recording facility begins on Saturdays!

Britain is governed by a  fascist one party state, controlled from Brussels, but masquerading as three different entities with supposed varying objectives. Surely this obscene action will make more ordinary voters aware of that fact!

MFF meeting likely to resume next Spring

EU leaders met well into last night discussing how they will spend billions and billions of Euros which they are never likely to gather. They resume at noon today and could continue this totally pointless exercise even in to the weekend, although most commentators believe a resumption next spring is most likely.

Of course austerity is the rule across Europe but the penny that money will not continue to flow to the bloated and corrupt EU as economic times get ever harder has not seemed to yet have occurred to the blinkered dumbshits who occupy the EU corridors of power.

It all seems a bit like the BBC where some 600 managers receive private health care and almost £1.4 million was spent shedding a DG who lasted just 54 days. There is increasing anger across the country at the bias of the broadcaster and the generally appallingly low quality of the output, if my twiiter feed is representative.

Incompetence, waste, vested interests and arrogance abound, particularly evident in both the EU and the BBC this morning.

Cameron should send his Alternate to the E-Council on the MFF

At 2000 hrs CET this evening EU leaders will gather in Brussels for the Group Portrait of the Special European Council 22/23 November 2012 (extendable as necessary) called to agree the Multiannual Financial Framework for the EU from 2014 to 2020.

IF PM Cameron values his neck, he will send his designated Alternate with the sole authority being to veto any agreement that may be presented or advanced. That in fact is his own sole authority on this vast spending programme, as designated recently by our own sovereign Parliament.

The EU should not be discussing the MFF starting in 2014 this weekend, it should be finding the funds to reduce the 128.5% of GDP rumoured on Twitter to be the present Troika estimate of Greece's 2020 GDP to the IMF targeted 120%. A matter not involving Britain!

Present polls in the UK indicate 56% dissatisfaction with the EU which figure is growing strongly. As blogged yesterday morning, it is widely recognised on the Continent that Britain is heading towards the EU exit.

No Prime Minister, who values his own neck, could possibly be sufficiently sure of the coming uncertain and dangerous events to commit the nation to a further seven years of funding the waste, corruption and incompetence that the EU now quite clearly represents.

A Happy Thanksgiving to all my readers in the USA. Rarely since the war have those Americans of European descent, had so much to be thankful to their ancestors for, in making the journey West, to escape the old Continent which once again seems bent on proving itself chaotic, essentially corrupt and ultimately ungovernable.

Maxed out Eurozone members meet into the night

Like a family of bankrupt spendthrifts the finance ministers of the Eurozone countries met into the night to fight over how they might start to pay off the massive debts and bailout obligations they have run-up over recent years.

The IMF in effectively blocking further advances by insisting Greek debt falls to 120% of GDP by 2020 means actual money transfers rather than vague promises will now have to be made.

Best not mentioned for the moment are the extra huge commitments run up by the ECB that future generations are almost certainly going to refuse to meet!

I will report again on this meeting on this blog when and if any real news emerges during the day

Highly Taxed? Youngsters today have no idea!

When I was young, and yes even middle-aged, descriptions of how hard things were during the war or childhoods of the elder generation became somewhat tedious and frequent thus becoming the subject of media comedy sketches.




The column in today's City AM, linked here, plus the return to the stage of "The House" on the closing days of the Callaghan Government (for which I have been lucky enough to obtain tickets) caused me to recall what "High Taxes' really means.

The top rate of tax at the end of the Labour Governments in the late 1970s kicked in at a fairly low income for a London commuter, with a mortgage and young family at a rate of 83%. National Insurance came on top, but worse still there was an investment income surcharge of 15%. Thus when my first wife's parents died and left her an inheritance which she placed on deposit (while refusing to inform me of the amount nor consequent interest,) I was left in an impossible situation, unable to declare the exact amounts upon which I was legally obliged to pay in excess of 100% of my personal income.

I left for the USA, returning when Thatcher was elected, then noting the wealth with which the Labour Ministers of the Wilson/Callaghan years eventually retired, few having been born into wealth therefore certainly tax avoiders!

Amazingly enough, eventually Labour was elected again, as I now presume they will be even after the combined Blair/Brown/Balls/Darling fiasco in which Labour again destroyed the fabric of our country!

My reply to John Redwood today - EU Referendums

Martin Cole

Posted November 20, 2012 at 6:21 am | Permalink

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

There is a fatal flaw to this proposal, one partly recognised and accepted by David Davis during some of his recent explanatory interviews, that of course being that none of the politicians who have guided the country into the present quagmire of the EU, are to be trusted to negotiate our way out.

An idependent negotiating team might be acceptableto the public, but would our present political class release the authority to independents who would quite clearly kill off the three main parties’ golden goose, which now quite obviously only exists to the professional politicians' benefit.

IMO Conservative MPs seeking to disentangle Britain from the quicksand of the EU, may only do so at this late stage, by biting the bullet and removing themselves from the Tories, as successfully accomplished by Roger Helmer MEP.

Europe prepares to enter a new post-Dunkirk era

The EU will meet this week to try to extract funding promises from its member states for the years 2014 to 2020. Opinion was unanimous on yesterday's Sunday Politics programme that they would be unsuccessful. Opinion was that the negototiations would drag into next year.

Eventually however the promises will be forthcoming, the money however can never be paid, for the national wealth, in general, no longer exists to make such wasteful and usually frivolous expenditures.

The deep corruption now evident in Britian's driving pro-EU party, the Conservatives, presently the senior governing coaltion party, could at long last drive the doubters of the EU in that party to pull the plug on the miserable, bankrupting and corrupting experiment the EU has become for Britain's institutions and democracy.

Our withdrawal process will no doubt be as harrowing as was the original Dunkirk retreat, inevitably causing similar resentment on the Continent. Unhappily Britain is presently stuck with a leader who makes Chamberlain appear competent, and no Churchill can yet be discerned on the horizon.

After the debacle of 1940 the occupied countries accepted the facts imposed by force and attempted to live with the consequences. No doubt similar attempts will be seen in the immediate future as brave faces are put on to suggest a new German hegemony was always the intention of the Common Market. Eventually Europeans will demand a return to national democracy, albeit not necessarily within the borders pre-existing the EEC. That is the main worry!

How deep is the rot in the Tory Party?

Last evening I tweeted the following:

Martin Cole ‏@IroniesToo

Were there any smart and savvy Tory MPs with South or SW English Constituencies they would this weekend be considering a switch to UKIP or ?

The final question mark left hanging in the air probably requires further explanation, other than the fact that I clearly ran short of the allowed number of characters.

Why particularly did I reference the South and South West constituencies? The answer is twofold, firstly in the PCC elections independents made their most striking gains, particularly the result in Kent and Surrey and secondly in these parts of England lie the largest number of "safe" Tory Seats where typically the complacency of the Conservatives will have been at its peak, and the approaching backlash will thus be proportionally severe.

To grasp the likely extent of the horrors regarding the Conservatives which appear likely to be revealed over the coming years may I suggest a reading of the posts on the McAlpine family on The Slog of the past few days, linked here and a thoughtful consideration of the likely results of the Royal Commission inquiry into Australian child abuse, also heartily welcomed in New Zealand, announced by PM Gillard last week, upon which I blogged here.

Whether blackmail of former Tory PM Edward Heath was indeed a factor in taking Britain into the democracy destroying EU, may seem a detail at present, as is the thoroughly suspect mechanism by which the totally inept Cameron appeared to obtain the party leadership thus ennabling the continuation of this same EU treachery even until today, in spite of its clear imminent collapse.

The Liberal Party began to restore their previous powers by early advances in the South West of England (remember John Pardoe), and the reaction against the EU treachery of Clegg combined with a general shaming of the Conservatives will leave the ever-rebellious SW England a tempting prospect for any new and decent political party to gain a foothold for the restoration of democracy, once again, it is to be hoped,  based upon decency within English public life.

December 2005 the seeds of the present EU Budget Bust-up

Germany and France stitched up the last EU seven year budget ahead of a full meeting in December 2005. Records are all over the internet and reactions can be read in many languages. It was a disgusting sell-out particularly by Britain's Tony Blair, the archives of this blog for that month may be read here.

I tweeted some excerpts from one post regarding the election of the shameless and stupid David Cameron to lead the Conservative Party, as he now seems to have been found out by the Tories who delivered such a snub to his party in Thursday's elections. I repeat it in full here, as it so well describes the moment of lost opportunity and reminds us where the blame lies.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Emerging from the fog

Any mariner knows the enlightening, energising and liberating sensation of relief engendered by the sudden emergence from a thick fog bank to good visibility provided by startlingly bright sunshine - particularly when reflected from previously threatening but unseen cliffs. Britain's post general election politics have been shrouded by the uncertainties of the long-winded Conservative Party leadership election, the non-event of the British EU Presidency and the doubts over Blair's security of tenure in Downing Street. The fog is lifting and the cold December sunshine will now shortly enlighten us all - on the EU Budget, the next Tory leader, the WTO and the Labour Party accession - fascinating times. A link to an IHT article that provides a good curtain raiser to the political roller coaster on which we seem likely to soon embark is available by clicking here. What a seismic change will be needed in British politics if the policy (and aparently principle) challenged David Cameron is elected leader of the main opposition party! How long then could the admittedly ill-informed and politically naive British electorate fail to notice that their two party politics had thrown up two empty shells to lead them? That real power had drifted elsewhere and to finish on the same sea-faring analogy: as the fog cleared, such that the dangers ahead could be seen by all - would they then find that there was nobody competent left on the bridge nor even at the helm to steer them clear? David Cameron leading the Tories.................. on what credentials? Only the votes of Tory Party members - then what worth they!

How long, I then asked, before British voters realised the fatal character flaws of the leaders of the two main parties? Less than seven years, seems is the answer provided by this Thursday's elections. It has been a wearisome wait and I am still not entirely convinced the lesson has yet fully sunk in!

81.8% of voters in Manchester Central twig the TREASON

Our elected politicians, in many cases aided and abetted by publicly paid officials and civil servants, have sold out our country and its democracy.

That is the message of low turnouts in yesterday's vote practically everywhere!

There is no longer any point in people voting

My reply to John Redwood, Voter Disillusion

Martin Cole

 

Posted November 16, 2012 at 6:27 am | Permalink

 
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

“The extent of activity that is undertaken without paying tax or done through barter and other systems will act as some dilution to the anger.”
Like running Amazon, Google or Starbucks in the UK I presume you mean, personally I doubt it AND it is NOT just frustration across Euroland from what I observe.

This particular statement in your post is particularly true for the UK:

One of the oddities is the electorates tend to blame their national government and politicians rather than the EU government and the Euro scheme.

Examining the circumstances, particularly as they relate to England, it is not odd at all!

EurActiv publishes list of influential EU British citizens

When the truth behind the EU is finally revealed, as I feel the protests all across Europe yesterday indicated to me it finally soon will be, I tust the traitors such as these who have fleeced the people of Britain for high living, perks and pensions on the Continent, will eventually be brought to book. The article is linked here.

Australia's 10 year Royal Commission will shake Britain's Establishment to its foundations

An Emigrant ship arrives in Fremantle 1946 

The British public has only recently become aware of what was going on under their noses for centuries. This Mirror report of a couple of years ago bears witness to that fact, read here.

The Royal Commission announced by the Julia Gillard, Australian Prime Minister yesterday was reported in New Zealand as likely to take up to ten years, an Australian report is here.

So while the political classes in Britain are clearly in a blind funk about the facts now being revealed, the truth is en route to being determined, for the tentacles of the corruption will inevitably lead back to our shores, from which the victims were forcibly removed.

Defrauding of Britain's taxpayers by Luxembourg & Holland

The active involvement of Britain in the massive financial confidence trick that is the existing European Union was effectively brought to a close yesterday afternoon in the Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House in Westminster at a meeting of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. Read here. (The absence of full and proper reporting by the British press is perhaps an indication that the authorities are aware of the gravity of this situation).

Almost concurrently news of a claim for back taxes from France against such companies also became available and the massive manipulation of the gas market on which this blog has been posting under a general heading of "Bacton Interconnector" also hit the newswires.

It is astounding that the Coalition Government's Treasury Team has not been investigating and called a halt to the scams revealed by the PAC yesterday. These would mostly have been instituted under successive Labour Treasury teams under Brown and Blair. For a start from yesterday we have proof that Luxembourg and Holland have been effectively defrauding Britain's taxpayers, most likely with the knowledge of British ministers! How can George Osborne, supposedly desperate for every penny of tax revenue, have long ignored this deceit?

The rip off of British taxpayers by energy giants in Germany and France will eventually also have to be put under the spotlight, if our present weak government has the courage to remove us from the web of lies and deceit that have bankrupted our nation during the past 40 years.

Investigation of the influence of perverts in the higher reaches of government should also now be expedited, for if blackmail can indeed be proven as a tool used to obtain our membership of the original Common Market, this could affect the size of the amounts of damages which we should now seek! Hence the BBC and North Wales matters are not the total distraction from this grave matter of treason and corruption that they might initially appear.

Was Ed Balls sudden removal from last evenings debate in the House of Commons perhaps an early  signal that the Labour Party is becoming aware of the hideousness of the crimes they perpetrated against our nation under Blair and Brown, with Balls presumed full knowledge and the perhaps active participation of all their Treasury teams?

Incompetence across society

A Commons committee of maggot MPs will today look at multinational company transfer pricing.

What a waste of time and misunderstanding of the workings of the world. I was heavily involved in transfer pricing in  bringing crude oil into Europe during the sixties and seventies.

The Companies task is to maximise profits to shareholders. The tax authorities of all countries have the task of maximising their revenues. At the interchange in Britain now lies HMRC under the treasury. If revenues have not been maximised the fault lies with incompetence or corruption by those within or by those who control HMRC. Eventually responsibility lies with Parliament themselves, those same oaths who will be asking the questions today.

The Companies are the only ones who appear to have been doing their jobs properly, they will be laughing up their sleeves at these simpletons all day today. Just as they seem to have been doing for years.

Our universities turn out dick heads, its beyond time the voters noticed!

Busted BBC - We are all only a few mouse clicks from FACTS

Entwistle has gone as DG but toadlike Patten remains. The BBC has become fat, lazy and shoddy like the Chair of its Trust, because it knows it is already surplus to requirements.

The truth on any story is available to us all most simply from our home laptop computers, very often on the web pages with back-up links as supplied by Wikipedia. Here are a few examples to set you off on your own search for the hidden secrets of our joint past and present reality.

Genetics/Neanderthals
Despatches from Turtle Island with host of links to explore myths of various specialities
Civilisation spread across the Mediterranean from West to East: Link
Pytheas the explorer
I Galigo Creation Myth from Indonesia

Poor old Entwistle, forced out for showing all the qualities for which he was picked for the post; but just quite too obviously. Poor old BBC Newsnight team, taught to bend, twist and manipulate facts to fit the very odd BBC view of the world, night after night, AND in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, now villified for following their masters' presumed desires just too dishonestly!

Academics have prospered by following the examples of their teachers and propagating lies from one generation to another for generations. Now the internet proves, for all who care to seek it, that in many areas the truth is otherwise! Is this why generations of new university entrants have their brains and enquiring instincts deadened by a rampant and encouraged drink and drugs culture, in order one supposes that they can lead their lives in dumb servitude as we see all across the media and further evidenced by the rampant incompetence and ineptitude at virtually every level of public administration.

Want the truth then go online, soon they will probably try to shut it down. Stop paying your BBC licence fee if you want to hope for a return to truth in broadcasting. Get the facts on the filth that are our political class, there is much of it there, however hard they struggle to keep it hidden!

Anne Clwyd Hansard Point of Order 19th June 1996

The Hansard record on the 1996 Point of Order by Anne Clwyd is linked here and contains this summary of the outrageous cover-up effected in Parliament by our supposed representatives and protectors of our democracy and freedoms:

Ms Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

Further to the point of order that I put to you this morning, Madam Speaker. I understand that Mr. Speaker Weatherill's ruling of 17 February 1992 blocks the early-day motions that I attempted to table last night relating to the North Wales police and child abuse. I should be grateful if you would reconsider the position, because it now seems that one cannot table a motion or a question for oral or written answer; one cannot speak in a debate or, probably, even introduce a Bill drawing on the experience in Clwyd. One cannot raise the issue in a Select Committee or a Standing Committee either. A wall of silence will surround the passage of the Government motion later tonight.

I cannot defend that in my constituency. My constituents were involved, and there are things that should be done before that motion is passed. We should have had a debate in the House on child abuse, and the Secretary of State for Health should have made a statement on the Utting review. This morning a Welsh Office Minister tried to convince me that the Jillings report was defamatory. That is rubbish. What are they trying to hide?
Finally, I want to expose the fact that 25 years ago there was a report on Bryn Estyn, one of the homes involved in the Clwyd child abuse case, but it was never published because the Home Office suppressed it. We cannot close down debate in the House of Commons on an issue as important as child abuse. 

Oh yes they could, it seems, and for more than 16 years during which they could continue with their own perversions or covering up those of others!

Just as the BBC is unfit to broadcast so the real truth becomes more urgent

Labour MP Ann Clwyd told Channel 4 News last evening that, despite the retraction of one allegation by a victim of the north Wales care home abuse scandal, the new police investigations are appropriate.

I have tried to tweet the video and  review it this morning but have been unable so to do. Perhaps that is still possible from within the UK. I suspect attempts are underway to silence her. The following is quoted from a BBC report linked here:

Ms Clwyd told the Commons she was "heavily involved" with the inquiry when assisting constituents who had been former home residents. "I took witness statements from four of them and I can't describe the horror of what they described to me," she said "I felt very emotionally upset about what they had to say. "I would ask that the Jillings report be published. I saw it, I wasn't supposed to see it - it was shown to me, I saw it at the time. "It was subsequently pulped by the then Clwyd County Council because they were afraid of the attitude of the insurers. "I would say please get the Jillings report published because it shows... rape, bestiality, violent assaults and torture, and the effects on those young boys at that time cannot be under-estimated."

I believe there are published records in Hansard to which she tried to refer over the interruptions of the Channel 4 news interviewer; I will try to track them and post them on this blog when I can.

Sadism, homosexuality and other abuses in English Society

Of course it is not just in orphanages, care homes or Borstals across the land where defenceless children are left in the hands of complete strangers to be treated as these sometimes callous brutes see fit.

There are also all the independent boarding schools as well. I suspect it is from these latter that the culture of secrecy and sadism is first developed and has been allowed to fester for decades, more accurately probably even centuries atthe upper and senior levels of the British Establishment!

I moved on from my own boarding school experiences, leaving at the earliest opportunity to go to sea with the Mercant Navy at the age of sixteen. I thus was able to put what I will now describe behind me, with the only lasting affect of which I am aware being a hearty loathing for a certain type of my fellow countrymen.

The photograph above which I lifted from the web, is of Winterstoke House of Taunton School in 1962. The perpetrators of the events I describe here are seated either side of the Matron, they are to her left, Housemaster "Jock" Hansom and to her right his Assistant "Spud" Murphy. None of the boys pictured were involved, as what occurred took place during the mid nineteen-fifties. Here is a photoshop of these adults (the Matron was in no way involved and was new):

 Hansom liked to beat with a cane as often as he could and twice to my own experience and knowledge, the entire house of some sixty boys, one after another, bare bums, with an almost ritual spread-eagling over a chair.

One such was undertaken on the eve of an inter-house diving contest, which Winterstoke boys were all compelled to compete in, without swimming trunks, he could thus admire his handiwork of purple wheals before each would stand, full frontal as modern parlance has it, to raise arms in the required pre-dive stance.

The Assistant Housemaster once assisted with such beatings in his own room,  because of the numbers involved.

Mental torment was also employed by Hansom with particular relish. One incident I particulalrly recall was when my French Master said he would report me to my housemaster for misbehaviour in class. This would always incur 6 strokes of the cane with pyjamas down after evening prayers. Hansom liked to extend the waiting period for such punishments as long as possible. Before announcing the victims for a particular evening he would run his eyes over the assembled boys, relishing the fear of those knowing they were awaiting such punishment. In the case of the French master's report, a man whom I had once liked, respected and whose subject I had previously enjoyed, this nightly torment of anticipation continued for several weeks.

To bring it to an end, I finally requested an interview with this teacher, and queried whether he had indeed reported my misbehaviour to the brutish Scot, Hansom. He confirmed that he had and seemed amazed that punishment had been delayed so long. It was finally delivered shortly after that interview.

Eventually the boys of Winterstoke rebelled. We burnt or cut up our brown house ties and demanded change. All house prefects were sacked, a new house captain appointed and otherwise no changes were made. Several years later Hansom and Murphy were still in control and for all I know probably both retired with honour and fat pensions. More amazingly of the sixty odd boys I seem to be the first to have publicly raised this kind of systematic masochism. Search the web and among pictures of billiard rooms and rugby fields all appears as if sweetness and light prevailed in Winterstoke in the mid to late nineteen-fifties rather than the reality of brutishness and fear.

Are some of those boys still, as nigh on old men, yet living in such establishment induced fear to this very day? Is that what all this is about?

How much else is similarly kept hidden across British society, the present scandals again frantically being covered up indicates it is likely common and pernicious.

The sixties film "If" touched on the symptoms, but left unanswered the question as to why would exposure to such nastiness in one' s own youth then lead to an urge to inflict the same on a new generation?

Perhaps if more people were prepared to be open about such things, at least those responsible might be held to account in their lifetimes, Hansom, Murphy and others who maybe were watching such ritual punishments, by now must all be dead - burning merrily  I trust!

EU corruption continuing unchanged 10 years on.

There follow some images of a Daily Telegraph report from a decade ago, on corruption within the EU Budget and accounts. Noteworthy is that it was written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard regarding Marta Andreasen both still resisting to this day. As too of course is this blogger, who retains such items having suspected that with changing media ownership and the present concentration of media interests, digital records of what was supposed to have been written can be changed. Others may wish to follow this example if they think certain records are worth preserving as they first appear in these even more uncertain days!

A Europe where only Germany may issue ultimatums

The mind set of Prussia was clearly in view as Merkel stomped around Europe yesterday afternoon and on to London in the early evening.

A speech to a packed European Parliament was peppered with 'musts', 'wills' and warnings of the dire consequences of what would be the consequences if the German way of seeing things and ensuring they were then thus done did not prevail, see one report here.

Thereafter in London, following some time with the reasoning challenged British Prime Minister, Merkel then rather let her triumphalism run away with her as she issued a dire warning to the people of our country that no "ultimatums" would be acceptable from Britain, adding they would not be happy alone in the world. Read a brief BBC report on that statement from here.

This blog will resist the temptation to add any further immediate remarks!

William Cash MP Speech and Defeated Amendment

Yesterday Parliament moved further in removing the rule of law from the citizens of our country. This is from the pdf of the Official Report by Hansard, linked here (report continues in Column 817)

5.32 pm
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): I beg to move
amendment (a), in line 10, leave out from ‘and’ to end
and add
‘whilst welcoming the Government’s desire to seek safeguards for
the UK, calls on the Government in respect of Regulation (EC)
No. 1093/2010 to use its best endeavours to ensure that the
proposed changes in the voting rights in the European Banking
Authority are not adopted, to use its veto in respect of European
Union Document No. 13683/12 so as to ensure that the powers of
the Governing Council of the European Central Bank are not
unlawfully delegated to the Single Supervisory Mechanism without
an amendment of the treaties and/or to refer that matter to the
European Court of Justice for adjudication of that proposal.’.
I am deeply troubled by the wording of the motion.
In my judgment, it simply does not make sense to state
that the House should welcome
“the Government’s decision to remain outside the new supervisory
arrangements while protecting the single market in financial
services.”
We acquiesced in to the Lisbon treaty, the Labour party
agreed to the transfer of jurisdiction over the City of
London to theEU,whichwaswrong—the Single European
Act was never remotely intended to produce such a
result—and, furthermore, views I have received from
the City clearly demonstrate that it does not believe that
the proposals in the motion will protect the UK or a
single market in financial services.
There is another massive issue about the rule of law
in Europe. The Foreign Secretary, in his speech to the
Körber Foundation conference in Berlin a fortnight
ago, said that what bound us together in the EU and the
reason for the Government wanting to remain part of it
was that it
“has helped to spread and entrench democracy and the rule of
law across Europe.”
The tragic reality is that the EU does not subscribe to
the rule of law. On 17 December 2010, Madame Lagarde
said about the first bail-out fund, the European financial
stability mechanism:
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks
and really rescue the euro zone.”
Germany and France themselves broke the stability and
growth pact. Furthermore, both the Government and
the Attorney-General are clearly of the view that the
agreement on the fiscal compact was unlawful, but in
reality nothing has been done—hence my call for the
legal reserve on this matter, although the legal reserve
issued before has never been implemented.
The Government know that the proposals referred to
in the second part of my amendment are unlawful. The
Council of Ministers’ own legal adviser, in a lengthy
opinion which I have seen and which the Government
cannot dispute, states that there will have to be an
amendment to the treaties if the powers of the governing
council of the ECB are to be delegated to the single
supervisory mechanism.
The legal opinion says on the proposal amending the
EBA regulation, in effect, that in terms of the EBA’s
dispute resolution powers there is no justification for
treating the ECB differently from banking authorities
in non-eurozone member states by exempting it from
those powers. To do so would be a clear breach of the
principle in law of non-discrimination.
As to the proposal giving the ECB prudential oversight
of credit institutions in the eurozone, the legal opinion
states that in establishing the single supervisory mechanism
the councilmust respect the legal framework for decision
making within the ECB set by primary law—that is, the
treaties.This framework does not allowtheECB’s governing
council to delegate decision-making functions on banking
supervision to a subsidiary body such as the SSM.
There is nothing in the legal base for the SSM proposal,
in article 127(6) of the treaty on the functioning of the
European Union,whichwould permit secondary law—that
is, this draft regulation—amending the rules laid down
in primary law. There is no question about it and the
Government know that.
Non-eurozone member states are not entitled to
participate in the ECB’s decision making, so they can
have no formal decision-making role in the SSM as
conceived. Furthermore, the law on banking supervision
in the EU will be made up of directives to a significant
extent. This is a requirement of the treaties. That means
that the ECB cannot propose one-size-fits-all legislation
on banking union. Rather, it can propose legislation
which allows for differences in national transposition.
We simply cannot countenance a situation in which
there is a wilful breach of the rule of law and where the
dysfunctional European Union vaunts the rule of law,
yet deliberately breaks its own rules. This is precisely
what led to the kind of constitutional crisis that we have
seen in our own history when Governments from the
Stuarts onwards claimed a divine right to rule but then
broke the common law. This is the primrose path to
constitutional disaster not only for the United Kingdom,
but for Europe as a whole. I hope the House will
understand my concern, as I suggested back in the
1990s that this would happen.
I hear what the Minister says but I cannot understand
why and how, given comments that I have received from
the City of which I am sure he is aware. Those in the
City make it clear that the single market would be put at
risk by an imperfect single market in financial services
in which rules differed by level of membership of the
EU. Furthermore, they say:

(A more readable version will be available from Hansard shortly)

See also on this topic my tweets of last evening, on the now almost complete degradation of the Conservative Party.

Former EU Commission President Prodi foretells "Grave Difficulties" for Britain

There is a wide-randing interview with the Italian politician, Romano Prodi, (whose own legacy to his own country incudes the present EU appointed PM,) in the pro-EU online website EurActiv, linked here.

The main section of the report on Cameron and Britain is quoted below:

"I do understand Cameron because his country is different from others. It is coherent with the Cameron doctrine that they do not want to take more part in the budget," Prodi said, noting the importance of the financial industry for Britain. "But they will become less powerful and someday they will be in grave difficulties," Prodi predicted;

 'Cameron will not stop Europe. He will simply get out of the room' 

Speaking of Cameron, the former Commission President warned: "He will not stop Europe. He will simply get out of the room in which decisions are being made." Since Britain's veto on the EU's fiscal treaty in December last year, senior EU and politicians now seem to accept that Britain should be left to cuts ties from the rest of the continent.

Turning to Greece and grave difficulties already in hand, a two day general strike starts in that ground-down and mortally wounded country today, as its villainous political class seems set to further strangle its citizens to gain a few more months of being able to collect their own danegeld!

Do EUsceptics condemn Europeans to Divisions?

Ten years ago to counter unbelievable pro EU bias in the writings and reports of the Financial Times newspaper, I spent many hours arguing the case against the non-democratic and already obviously potentially tyrannical federalist EU monster. The following images are of a post in respone to a query put to me:

 "What options do you offer to  Europeans other than a return to a divided past"

Typical EU Bullshit on the EU Budget

France 24 is presently broadcasting in English, "Talking Europe", a load of rubbish from a French MEP, the head of the European Parliament's budget committee. It will no doubt be repeated and eventually be available on that station's website. I urge my readers to view it. A fine example of the garbage disseminated is this response to a question posed regarding possible winners and losers between those wishing a freeze (a cut of course was not mentioned,) and those seeking increases in that budget, was that all of Europe would be the winner as the result would be a compromise and as such everybody wins.

Can one really continue living and breathing and simultaneously have to hear such crap? One day the ability to suppress anger when hearing such nonsense will surely become too great! Later the same guest describes the future of the "brainwashing" (blog editor's description) Erasmus programme and extols the wonders of a baby born in Scotland to parents from Spain and France. Such unions have been underway since prehistory, but this highly paid, pensioned and subsidised moron credits the EU and its "tiny" budget for such unions.

Ten years ago I contributed a long post about Europe not having to become divided without the EU, in response to a query from a German gentleman called Fran on a forum run by the FT (well before it openly demonstrated the closeness of its parent group's views  Pearson with the German group Bertalsman, as it did last week). I will paste those three pages on this blog later today or tomorrow, it is even more valid today!

Was Europe Minister MacShane's criminal mindset a job prerequisite?

Former Minister for Europe for the Labour Party is now being investigated by the police for possible criminal charges. Evidence already laid against him which has led to his suspension and resignation from Parliament seems sufficient to send ordinary members of the public to jail.

A more interesting aspect of this everyday story of greedy politicians engaging in day to day fraud and deception is what connection might exist between the necessity for any Minister for Europe in a UK Government to be up to his neck in deception, distortion and who knows what else and his day to day theft over an extended period?

While Minister for Europe, at what became the FCO propaganda office for the EU during MacShane's tenure, he received a letter detailing the lies and trickery dated 19th March 2005, from Anne Palmer, it may be read in full from the archives of Ironies, linked here. I quote its concluding paragraphs:

The EU will disintegrate, whether before the EU constitution is ratified or not remains to be seen, but it will end in terrible bitter conflict. The fault will fall on all those that did not dare to spell out the true meaning of the requirement for a European Constitution.
 While we are busy reducing our forces, the army, navy etc, and while we are eagerly following all EU Regulation re competition, etc, other Countries are not. While we are disarming and reducing our forces, others have conscription and rearming quite strongly. To me it is déjà vu, the 1930’s all over again. All of our Members of Parliament, will have to decide soon, do they want to govern this Country, to actually earn the money the people pay them, or do they want to go down in history as the government that has given this Country away and continue to have laws and an alien constitution foisted upon us, which nothing we can say or do can alter or block them. Or, do we obey our own Constitutional laws we have had in this Country for hundreds of years, even though we have had to fight to keep them rather than be ruled by others in the past, and which we are duty bound to fight to protect and keep. The myths you speak of Sir, are your own, especially ”The Constitutional Treaty is not only a simplification of the existing forest of interlocking Treaties, but encapsulates many of these British themes”. As Minister for Europe, you appear to have forgotten the meaning of a “True Brit”, that is your loss sir, not mine. My solemn oath of allegiance remains to the Crown and this country for all time coming. Yours faithfully,
 Anne Palmer

The chaos that is now unfolding across Europe is partly down to MacShane and all the others like him. That is his and their greater crime. The above letter and the entire archives of my blogs and earlier writings, along with the superb arguments tirelessly presented by Anne Palmer and others like her down the decades, hopefully will eventually serve to prove that these despicable political criminal classes knew exactly what they were about!

My post to John Redwood today - Parliament's will

Martin Cole

Posted November 2, 2012 at 7:18 am | Permalink

 
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Quite obviously so, I am surprised it has to be so fully and carefully spelt out. As I wrote yesterday on my own blog post on the topic:

“Coalition Cabinet Ministers should heed the voices of the elected representatives of the people of Britain, who after years of submission have finally broken the shackles of whipped fear and favour and spoken loudly for the oppressed.”

An alternative to Britain leaving the EU

Jeremy Warner has an article in the Daily Telegraph this morning arguing that Britain should not rush to leave the EU but should let its crisis play out to the bitter end, that may be read from here.

When I personally started campaigning against the obvious evil intent of what became the EU, towards the end of the last century, I argued (indeed my novel predicting its demise in 2014, so presumed) that Britain could again fill its historical role in helping restore democracy and decency in the aftermath of tyranny on its continental mainland.

Viewing the situation in 2012 things do not appear so simple. How are we to ensure the restoration of democracy in a parliamentary system and constitutional monarchy comprehensively trashed by the double dealing duplicity and downright dishonesty of recent decades? That alone seems a task of such scope and complexity that worrying what might play out in the politics of the other 26 desecrated ex-sovereigns clearly appears a task too far.

Yet we won through in 1940 when the odds must indeed have appeared as daunting! Therefore I will offer one suggestion, which had its roots in my posting of this time yesterday. An EU wide, nationally run, truth and rconciliation enquiry could be tasked with determining the double-dealings behind the EU's establishment and bringing to justice the guilty parties who so sought to benefit.

Decades ago I suggested the EU could be run on a system of Swiss direct democracy tied to internet voting. That of course sunk without trace, it being the direct opposite of what the elites had in mind, the results of which are so gruesomely obvious today. Perhaps such a system could be investigated concurrent with the bringing to justice of those responsible for the present mess.

Any who believe such moves are likely, or even remotely possible, I fear are living in a dream world. Britain must at first therefore go it alone. As we bring our own EU plotters and traitors to trial, other countries may follow our example and eventually restore democratic governance in what were once their own sovereign states or the fragmented remnants which by then may well have appeared.  That may be the time when we can try again for a European trading community, in the interim let's make a start at trying to restore relations with the Commonwealh whom we have recently treated so shabbily!

In every case for each former EU nation the first task will be to destroy the fantasy of transnational altruism on which the EU is based! It is a false face designed to disguise the greed and opportunism based upon national socialism which is the underlying reality lurking behind the EU!

Contributions from William Cash MP and Kate Hoey MP to Cameron's defeat

5.10 pm Hansard Link

Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): The Labour party—the Opposition—will of course vote with us this evening, not the other way round. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) correctly pointed out, exactly the same happened with the Maastricht treaty. The amendment proposed so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is absolutely right. It deals not just with the mechanics or the technicalities, but with what is really going on under the surface. The real questions are, “Where is the money coming from?”, and “What is the object of this multiannual financial framework?” I have been to many conferences in the past year in my capacity as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—in Cyprus and Denmark, and, before that, elsewhere—and I have attended similar conferences with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington). They are living on another planet: that is the real problem. The main feature of that big landscape is where we are today. This is part of a picture that must be dealt with. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is conscious of that. He knows that Mr Barroso’s speech calling for a federal Europe, which was made only a short time ago, has put us at a crossroads. We cannot continue to assume that what was being considered before that date still applies. We are now on a different journey. They are on one planet, and we are on another. We have to make a stand, and that is what this is all about. A letter dated 18 December 2011 from the Prime Minister and from the Prime Ministers of several other member states, included the following passage: “European public spending cannot be exempt from the considerable efforts made by the Member States to bring their public spending under control.” We are cutting here; we need growth. They are not cutting, but increasing. That is the point.

Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con): I know that my hon. Friend has a great deal of empathy with the private sector. The private sector is the engine of growth in our economy and it becomes more efficient every year, but does my hon. Friend agree that in Brussels the only thing that increases is the appetite for our money?

Mr Cash: Absolutely. It is impossible to make any public expenditure—including our contributions to the whole of the public sector: health, education, local government, the lot—unless the money comes from reasonably taxed small and medium-sized enterprises. Yet the whole of the Commission’s paper—which is at the heart of the 2020 strategy and at the heart of why the Commission is asking for this increased amount of money, which it calls an investment for growth—contains only one reference to small and medium-sized businesses, in one line. That is the problem we are up against. We cannot give money to the public sector unless we get it from private enterprise on a reasonably taxed basis. The Prime Minister’s letter continues: “The action taken in 2011 to curb” 31 Oct 2012 : Column 314 —“curb”: that is the word he uses— “annual growth in European payment appropriations should therefore be stepped up progressively over the remaining years of this financial perspective and payment appropriations should increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.” The situation was wrong then, and it has got worse since. That was in December 2011. We are now in October 2012, and we know what the picture is, and it is getting progressively worse. That is why we had to call for a reduction rather than merely what the Prime Minister describes as an “increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.”

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Will my hon. Friend take some support from the fact that on 20 June our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told this House he thought reductions in the EU budget of 20% were “highly desirable”?

Mr Cash: Absolutely; that is a very good point indeed. I would like to dig a little deeper into what this money is supposed to be used for. It is all set out in the papers laid before the House for the purposes of this debate. They talk about turning the EU into a “smart”—whatever that means—“sustainable and inclusive economy” delivering “high levels of employment productivity and social cohesion.” How on earth are they going to achieve that given the measures they think will produce growth? Almost every single aspect of what they want to deliver is based on increasing grants and subsidies, but not on asking where the money is coming from. The money comes from our constituents. It comes from the taxpayer. It does not grow on trees. That is what they do not understand. Therefore, the entire strategy on which this multiannual financial framework is based is nonsense. It is an Alice in Wonderland fantasy, as I have repeatedly said when I have had the opportunity to meet the other 27 Chairmen of the national scrutiny committees. I have noticed that there is increasing awareness, too. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was with me only a few weeks ago, and he noticed the degree of response I was getting from the other member states’ national chairmen. They understood that they were in deep trouble. The money does not grow on trees in Spain; that is why there are demands for independence from Catalonia. The money does not grow on trees in France or Germany either. The fact is that it has to be found. Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman and I have significant differences about what this country’s approach to the EU should be, but does he agree that the important thing at this moment in time, with every EU member state having to make public expenditure cuts, is that the EU itself should make cuts? That message should go out from both sides of this House.

Mr Cash: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think this is just a cynical move, even though there is an element of that. As I find when I go to meetings with those in the presidency, there is a recognition: they know they cannot go on spending money that is not there. That is the truth. That is all this argument is really about. It is about the big landscape of whether, like Mr Micawber, we can just hope something will turn up. It will not; it has to be built through real growth policies. Unfortunately, the report the European Commission produced only a few months ago shows it has not got a clue how to generate that growth. I was also deeply disturbed to see that the amazing report by the European Parliament calling for all these increases was welcomed by the vice-president of the European Commission, Maroš Šefcovic. He said the MFF was “an investment budget” for delivering growth in “the entire EU.” He condemns himself outright simply by endorsing the 150 pages of unadulterated rubbish that came out of the European Parliament in its interim report.

Mark Reckless: Even for those in the House who are genuine Keynesians, if our goal is to stimulate the economy is it possible to think of a worse way to spend money than the way the MFF sets out for the EU?

Mr Cash: I absolutely agree. The real problem is that their answer is to give more money to the public sector and to ventures and projects that, as the Court of Auditors report shows, increasingly fail. The trouble is that the European project is a failing project. They will not recognise that, so what are they doing? They are saying, “We are going to go off and have a federal Europe.” Well, let them have it. They can have their federal Europe if they want, but we, in this country, cannot possibly be part of it—that is unthinkable. The Prime Minister knows it is unthinkable, and my genuine belief is that he will come to discover that it would be better to veto this and to ensure it does not go through, because he has already been presented with the crossroads. The crossroads was presented by Mr Barroso, and the crossroads is being presented by the other member states. There is no turning back. We therefore have to say no. We say no to this, we say no to the illegal banking regulations that we have just been looking at and we will be saying no to the proposals for any new treaty. If we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is and actually say that we will not accept this, we will be serving the national interest. 5.20 pm

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): I support the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless); as a signatory to it, I am delighted to do so. I am also delighted that members of my Front-Bench team are, for a change, on the same side as me and my hon. Friends the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), among others. It is nice to see so many people in the Chamber. We sometimes say, “This shows Parliament at its best.” If this amendment is not passed tonight, we will be showing Parliament at its worst, because a lot people here will not be doing what they really want to do. A lot people here, on both sides of the House, will be doing what their party has asked them to do. I believe, fundamentally, that the issue of Europe has reached the point where party is not as important as the issue. I genuinely believe that we, in this Parliament, are way behind the public on the question of Europe. I am pleased that things seem to be moving in the direction of the Labour Members and the Government Members 31 Oct 2012 : Column 316 who see things as I do. Many of us have worked together on this for many years, going back as far as the time of the Maastricht treaty, when the same pressure was applied by the Labour Whips to vote on it as is probably being applied to Government Members now. I do not believe that the public would understand the nuances being used here. I refer to the weeny words of the Minister, who was not prepared to give way to me for some reason—I do not know what I have done to upset him—on the issue of why the Government could not support the amendment. He said that it was because the amendment did not contain any criticism of my party when it was in government. We have made criticisms of my party when it was in government—I have done so, as have my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North and various others. Many Labour Members and many others within the Labour party did not support the rebate being removed.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): Many of us have been critical of the giving away of the rebate, both publicly before the last election and since. The Government make much of that event, but I have said to them in this Chamber, “If you feel so seriously about it, why haven’t you demanded it back?” They have had two and a half years to do that.

Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Tonight, we have an opportunity to make it public that there is a united Parliament, for whatever reason and motive. The reality is that we are a united Parliament and we are saying, “We do not want one penny extra spent. We want to see a cut in what the European Union is spending.” I want to see more than that. I want a referendum on our relationship with Europe. I want an end to this nonsense, which we keep putting up with. We could make a decision tonight that says, “We do not want to see an increase—we want to see a cut.” However, come the end of the process, by majority voting, we could be outvoted, no matter how many diplomatic skills we use. I am sure that many hon. Members think that they could do better if they were negotiating, but no matter how good our negotiating skills we may not get what we have asked for. My view is that we should veto at that point and then, when we are sent our bill, we should say no and tell them that we will send what we agreed. We should tell them that we will not send them an increase.

Coalition seem unaware of Tsunami heading towards them

The Guardian, in its report of the defeat of the Government over the seven year EU budget up to the year 2020 last evening, makes this statement:

Downing Street moved to reach out to the rebels by dispatching William Hague to declare that the government would "take note" after 51 rebel Tories – plus two tellers – joined forces with Labour to defeat the government by 307 votes to 294, a majority of 13.

The topic on which the Coalition Government was defeated was the main plank of successive governments' foreign and economic policies for over forty years. Those policies have led the nation to bankruptcy, social collapse and mass pillaging of the country's main assets, the proceeds of which have been delivered overseas.

The intention of the Government had it won last evening's vote was for the taxpayers of this nation to continue to pay increasing danegeld to the EU up to and including the year 2020.

A truth and reconciliation process always looked necessary for the country once it had extricated itself from the nightmare in which it is now entwined in the EU.

Coalition Cabinet Ministers should heed the voices of the elected representatives of the people of Britain, who after years of submission have finally broken the shackles of whipped fear and favour and spoken loudly for the oppressed.

Procedures for High Treason, on which I posted yesterday, would make a "truth and reconciliation procedure" seem very moderate in light of all that appears to remain uncovered in so far as the EU and its imposition upon this country is concerned!