Caught Between Regulations - Hastings Fishing

The fishermen of Hastings, in England's "Sussex by the sea" have launched their boats from the shingle of the beach just off the town's centre since the eleventh century.

Not for much longer however, as one such explained to a BBC reporter on an early morning Radio 4 programme this Saturday. The sea here is ideal for cod but the netting of such fish, under one EU regulation forbids it to be landed, whilst another now forbids it to be thrown back.

Whatever way he decides to act, to keep it or throw it back, to eat the fish himself or offer it for sale to be eaten by others will open him to charges. Thus the EU wins in every way, it obtains its prime objective - control of the still quasi-independent individual, and secondly state employment for "completely controlled" and thus mindless bureaucrats,  these being the "sole" aims of the monstrous EU organisation.

Who might be ultimately behind such insanity is clear, as revealed in this (supposed tongue in the cheek) article on doing business with Germany, linked here, which I tweeted yesterday and contains this presumably satirical but to me accurate insight:

Germans are known for valuing diligence, thoroughness, education, manners, and structure. An old German idiom says “Ordnung muss sein!”, loosely translated into “there has to be order!” This almost proverbial desire for a sense of order goes hand in hand with a willingness to be regulated. Overall, Germans also tend to be very risk-averse which is owed to their history.

Thus regulation becomes the objective with the results now seen in Hastings, where the fisherman had delivered his complaints to the British Fisheries Minister, adding that on the present basis he would be unable to retire until he reached ninety-six.

The British Fisheries Minister, Richard Benyon, is of course completely and absolutely powerless. After all the two traitors Edward Heath and Geoffrey Ripon gave all our fish and rights over our seas away decades ago, while barefacedly lying to our Parliament at the moment that they were so conspiring! 

Why do taxpayers, by their votes, continue to give their hard earned cash to the Conservative Party heirs and ongoing beneficiaries of this treachery, whom as in this case and as can be seen, have no useful functions to perform whatsoever? 

I feel sure that publicly funded members of the Conservative Party consider that taxpayers owe it to the great, great grandson of a former Tory Prime Minister to endlessly provide income to such heirs for zero duties performed nor responsibility shouldered. Is it therefore any wonder that David Cameron, another typical product of Conservative nepotism, is so determined to keep Britain locked within the elitist, tyrannical and totally over-regulated EU? (Read of that continuing "tease" yet again from the Express this morning, linked here, is Cameron merely game playing with such a crucial issue at a time of grave economic peril, as a cat with a mouse?).

Notwithstanding all that, why on earth did the Fisheries Minister Benyon even travel to Hastings at taxpayers cost? Presumably to gain some sea-air, far from his Newbury constituency, and so fill some otherwise empty hours, which must hang heavy round his neck, with such a pointless post to fill.

Was Edward Heath blackmailed into putting the UK under German control within the EU

Archbishop Cranmer's blog has a high reputation amongst its peers. It seems odd that a comment such as the following to one of his postings has remained obscure since 12th March 2009:

Sir Edward Heath was exposed as a traitor, working for German Intelligence (the Abwehr from October 1937 to July 1944, DVD autumn 1944 until his death.
Some say Sir Edward also worked for the SD -  although there is reliable reporting that Sir Edward met Reichsfuhrer Himmler in 1937 at Nuremberg and it is known that the Reichsfuhrer wished to recruit him, probably to spy on the Abwehr, rather than us, there is no evidence that
Sir Edward became an agent of the SD or joined the SS) in a specialist financial intelligence journal, the International Currency Review, in October 2005, which is normally sent to the British and German Governments, neither of which has denied the intelligence.
It was subsequently confirmed, not long before his death, by that nice (albeit formidable and at times quite ruthless) man,GeneralOberst Markus Wolf, of the DVD, also the Abwehr, then HVA (Stasi), in a private meeting at the Reform Club.

The matter comes to mind at present as it daily appears more likely that the present incumbent at 10 Downing Street also seems of a character where circumstances of his past and character flaws of the present throw into question his motives in recent policy decisions and appointments, see various blog postings and links from the past week.

The same commentator to Cranmer later curiously asserts the following:

The intelligence has been accepted as accurate by MI5, DIS, MI6 and GCHQ,
as well as the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office, although all six are committed to a cover-up.
The government's strategy apears to be one of no comment, in the hope that memories of the 2005 report will fade.

That certainly seems to have been the case in so far as Archbishop Cranmer's blog seems concerned. Surely if the point being made were true, and such high-powered organisations were cited as knowing that to be the case, were it not so the comment would have been removed?

If Heath as Prime Minister was working for the Germans when he took us in to the EU as Prime Minister, is it not unreasonable to query whether payment or blackmail has kept us within the disastrously failing construct by our rotten politicians having been similarly manipulated ever since, even perhaps to this very day, where all three parties maintain we must stay trapped within, even at the moment of its fairly obvious soon arriving self-destruction?

Cameron is clearly not Prime-Ministerial material - What got the Tories here?

It is difficult to think of a precedent for the deep humiliation to the office of British Prime Minister, in which David Cameron effectively placed himself and his authority, during his appearance at his own creation, the Leveson inquiry, last Thursday!

This post, the first of this weekend on this particular topic, is an attempt to look back and try and make sense of the disaster now about to take place and how the Conservative Party, architects of most of the EU Treaties propelled the nation into such economic jeopardy.

Before David Cameron, the immediately previous Old Etonian to lead the party and hold the highest political position in the land, was Sir Alec Douglas-Home, read here, who was a compromise choice as party leader, but as quoted from the above link, had held offices giving him vast experience with which to fulfill his duties:

...in the government of Harold Macmillan; assumed the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (28 Jul 1960 - 21 Oct 1963), criticizing the Soviet expansionism and supporting the U.S. in the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962); following the announcement of Macmillan on his plans to resign (10 Oct 1963), Douglas-Home was persuaded to stand up for the leadership as a compromise figure; acting on Macmillan's advice, Queen Elizabeth II summoned him to form a government (18 Oct 1963), but he requested time for consultations; after another audience with the Queen (19 Oct 1963), he was appointed Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury; became the first person to disclaim his peerage (23 Oct 1963) in order to be elected to the House of Commons and won a by-election becoming MP for the third time (MP for Kinross and West Pertshire, 1963-1975); was elected Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party (11 Nov 1963 - 2 Aug 1965)...

Home was deemed a failure as PM in the aftermath of his election defeat, although historians have tended to treat him more generously, (and the margin of loss was considerably less than that predicted, especially by those following TW3!) The former Lord Home, was the last Tory leader to be serrupticiously appointed by the Tory Party grandees, so we can only imagine the intrigue and "behind closed doors dealings" that had been underway in that selection process.

What then followed, however, begins the long trail to the disastrous leadership selection processes which have led to the utter shaming of English Conservatism, the new "pink" version of which, David Cameron has this weekend become to typify.

Home's replacement was Edward Heath, whom his Wikipedia entry reveals, was as well qualified for the post as the necessarily de-peered "Sir Alec", there were though, even then, question marks about "Ted" Heath. I recall discussing such with my father, which (particulalrly on this present weekend, with the potential collapse of the European Union hanging over us, plus the added enormous benefit of hindsight) appear much more significant today, at this historic crisis point, than they probably did then, especially those raised in this particular section of the Wikipedia report on Heath:

"In the summer of 1939 he again travelled across Germany, returning to England just before the declaration of war.^{[citation needed]}

World War II

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Heath spent the winter of 1939–40 on a debating tour of the United States before being called up, and early in 1941....^"

I was already fascinated by politics when Heath became party leader in 1965, and remember favouring him over Reginald Maudling, which can surely have been only as a result of the media coverage at that time. I canot recall Britain's stance towards Europe as regards to our fading Empire and the emerging Commonwealth as being a leadership issue in that contest, although it was then only some five years since Macmillan's Winds of Change speech in South Africa.

Decolonisation was proceeding at rapid rates as can be seen from the map on Africa below, and Heath had, of course, already been Macmillan's chosen negotiator for Britain's entry to the Common Market, as eventually, regrettably only temporarily, vetoed by President De Gaulle of France. It can therefore be noted as strange that more was not made of Heath's position on Europe when challenging for the leadership. An ominous silence on the major issue of our age, which thereafter continued within the Conservative Party for decades, all leading to our present dire straits!

At this point it seems worthwhile to highlight the questions raised by the the Leveson inquiry so far, particularly perhaps to suggest a re-balancing in the key questions for module 4 of the investigation, which if the EU does disintegrate, will find it difficult to ignore the much bigger question than routine or everyday press/political interaction, namely to consider what went on behind the scenes of our country's deep involvement in, and domination by, the non-democratic Popperian Tyranny that is the EU.

Ironically such an EU collapse could perhaps recast the Murdochs as the heroes rather than villains between politicians and the media at Leveson! How stupid will Major's complaint to Leveson this week then appear, that Rupert Murdoch had endeavoured to get him to change his European policy! That too in a week when the British Fisheries Minister admitted to Parliament, see here, that not only did he not know who owned the "quota" to Britain's fish (namely the right to land and sell it, surely the most basic sovereignty of all, apart from defence, over our seas,) but worse, that he had apparently been actively prevented from obtaining such information upon the ownership of our quota!

I would also suggest the Leveson inquiry should consider the treatment of other established parties such as UKIP (and to a lesser extent Veritas, in which I was personally involved and where the BBC apparently had the power to prevent candidate based, equal access to Party Political Broadcasts by a new entrant in a General Election campaign, notwithstanding there seeming to be no statutory authority for their wielding such power as the Chair of a committee made up by representatives of their supine fellow broadcasters!)

Have the larger political parties through their stranglehold on government and closeness to the press been also able to see off the arrival of upstart competition?
Were they indeed able to determine between them that continuation of Britain's membership of the EU was an overriding national interest, and thereafter use the resources of the state to hinder political parties whose policies went in the opposite direction, as has been rumoured, not only within UKIP for years, but also as once mentioned in The Spectator by Lord Tebbit? Perhaps we can look forward to the latter, together with the other giant figure on the opposite side, Trevor Kavanagh, appearing at Leveson in July!

I will continue with this review of the modern Conservative Party and what it is already becoming clear are the events and manipulative power plays that resulted in its possible betrayal of our nation, over the course of this weekend.

40 years since Nixon cut the final currency free from Gold!

I heard Nixon's radio broadcast in a limousine when leaving Tulsa airport, having just landed from Europe. I guessed at the time this would prove the end of the Western world as I had known it until then! Had I also known the consequences would take some forty plus years to finally arrive, then maybe I would not have worried so much in the interim.

Three years ago this summer I blogged on an English traitor, Edward Heath, of whose venal scheming, we are also only now beginning to understand the full consequences! Linked here, I repeat that post for its historical implications, herewith:

§§§§§

How Heath betrayed Britain and Nixon the USA in 1971

The Margaret Thatcher Foundation has obtained the papers on Edward Heath's betrayal of the country under the Freedom of Information Act and they may be read from this link. I find this section of the secret minutes on the conclusion of the meeting between Heath and Pompidou on 20th and 21st May, 1971 particularly interesting:




Quite clearly if only the aspects affecting "vital national interests" were to be determined by unanimity, everything else, including all the day to day matters of routine governance, would be handled on the basis of qualified majority voting, exactly as we are experiencing to our enormous cost to this very day. Note how the reference to majority voting in the French is excluded from the English text and the curious spelling of "process" a good hint as to the mother tongue of the writer. (procès in the French are legal proceedings rather than process in English which generally means a series of actions or events).

Amazingly enough we are also today finally experiencing the end result of Nixon's decision to cut the dollar free from the Gold Standard, effectively releasing every other paper currency in the world to seek its own proper value when controlled by venal and self-seeking politicians - namely zero. The Nixon announcement also in 1971 may be viewed on YouTube.



Abandoning Bretton Woods some Bugaboo in 2008!

Labels: Heath, Nixon

§§§§§

Note also the penal import taxes announced by Nixon!

Some have been arguing on this anniversary, that Bretton Woods was as good as dead anyway, in my mind, however, even as all the other currencies floated, if the US Dollar stayed tied to gold, then the link through that reserve currency was tenuously maintained - when everything hangs lose and discipline disappears all across society - why then you get riots, as in London last week!

How to define "Vital National Interests" in an "Ever Closer Union"

In the posting immediately beneath this I have pasted the "Secret" document agreed by the Prime Minister and traitor Edward Heath with the French President Georges Pompidou in May, 1971. Referred to is an underlined proces verbal ("procès verbal" perhaps in French?) which is commented upon in that same post. Let us, for a moment, make the now clearly false assumption that Edward Heath actually had Britain's vital national interests as his primary concern back in 1971, how might they then have appeared to him from outside the six member state Common Market and with Britain as a leading power and democracy within both the Commonwealth and EFTA? The list of priorities will of course vary according to one's own political standpoint and rather than risk becoming involved in controversy over a matter of opinion it must surely be possible to state, without risk of contradiction, that such a list prepared in 1971 would be considerably longer and far more extensive than any similar list prepared today. Before considering the consequences of that fact consider the reported actions of a later Tory Prime Minister John Major. Some time ago I read from a source believed to have close contacts within Britain's security services (unsurprisingly enough I am not now able to find the source) that during the John Major premiership the intelligence services were instructed that the major political parties had determined that continuing British membership of the EEC (EU or whatever) had become a matter of "vital national interest" and consequentially parties pushing for withdrawal should be penetrated and were thereafter legitimate targets for hostile state interference. The proof that vital national interests are eroded as the "Union" broadens and further entangles hardly needs proof, consecutive Treaties have clearly eroded unanimity and advanced the multitude of majority votes. Eventually and inevitably members of such a union will cease to have any vital national interest as the Good of the Union becomes the rule. The EU, in my view, assumed it had reached that point several Treaties ago. But what of democracy? Applicant nation states to the EU are required to be democratic, the EU and its institutions make much of claiming to be democratic, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Disregard for a moment anything within the Lisbon Treaty and consider the chosen means for its ratification and introduction. Nothing could be more dismissive of individual rights nor democratic process. The vital national interests of all the member states are to be destroyed with the independent powers of their parliaments, via which the people would have retained the rights to periodically change their rulers, all that is to be trashed. On any list of Britain's Vital National Interests prepared in 1971, few would surely have excluded democracy and the sovereignty of parliament. Yet all the agencies of the State from the Queen to the Courts to the state broadcaster mouthpieces of the media are all deployed to obscure these facts and suppress from the public consciousness the outrage that the promised referendum on this Lisbon Treaty is being denied. If Parliament remains Sovereign, how are the electorate to elect MPs who are prepared to enforce such sovereignty in the face of the totalitarian tyranny of a post-Lisbon EU, when no such candidates have any realistic prospect of selection let alone election? How can independent parties prosper when the main parties are funded by the unaudited evil empire itself? "Vital National Interests" themselves no longer exist, for they have been crushed in the false belief that the "interests" of the Union trump all else for the greater common good and therefore take precedence - yet it is only through nation states and their independent parliaments that our rulers can be unseated without bloodshed - as ever Karl Popper's defining difference between democracy and tyranny!