True face of the treachery of the 2011 European Union Act now proven

Read the entire PDF file of the announcement by the Europe Minister last evening, linked here, or if time does not permit, merely consider this quote:

In my opinion the European Council Decision of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 TFEU with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro adopted under Article 48(6) TEU does not fall within section 4 of the Act and no referendum is required in the UK.

European Union Act

The European Union Bill, has received Royal Assent and is now an Act of Parliament and therefore the law of the land, further cementing the deep treachery of the Conservative Party in its complete betrayal of the people of Britain. It may be read from here.

Bill Cash on the EU yesterday in Parliament.

Full debate from Hansard here.

I have devoted, I suppose, almost a political lifetime to opposing every single thing that those noble Lords have put forward. I do not need to specify them individually; all I will say is that I regard them as having conducted a process that has led to the destruction of the European Community and, now, the European Union. One has only to look at what is happening today and to ask who is responsible for what has occurred. It has been a concert party—a concert party involving not only the United Kingdom establishment but, worse still, the European establishment alongside the United Kingdom establishment—that has led to the mess that the European Union is in now. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he came back from the European Council the other day, although we are glad that he felt obliged to deny that we would be involved in the Greek bail-out—having conceded, I am sad to say, that we would be involved in the bail-out of Portugal—he now has the opportunity, as the Prime Minister of this country, to go forward in the national interest and renegotiate the treaties, to get us out of the mess that those noble Lords, individually and collectively, have got us into......


.....but the real question is what is he—or, indeed, the Prime Minister—going to do to get us out of the mess that those treaties have got not only us but the people in Europe into? Indeed, young people aged between 18 and 25 in several countries are now suffering unemployment of 47%. It is absolutely impossible to accept that, and as I said in the 1990s, when this whole system collapses, it would not surprise me to see the rise of the far right and massive unemployment, destabilising the entire European Union, with the most devastating consequences for the international order.

The Bill now goes back to the Lords tomorrow so that the ennobled and secretive EU pensioners can have another go at preventing the country ever removing the EU yoke.

Time to investigate the EU links of the 90 Tory MPs who ousted IDS!

On 31st October 2003, this blog demanded  an inquiry into those 90 Tory MPs who ousted Iain Duncan Smith, normally known as IDS, from the leadership of the Conservative Party, which permitted Britain's submission to the EU, which has continued uninterrupted to this day, to the economic and moral ruination of our Nation!

§§§§§

Howard's EU Compromise with Clarke

According to the BBC's 'World at One' Programme the sell out by Howard on the EU takes the following form:-
Howard will not allow "his own Euroscepticism to lead him to be intolerant of the views of others."

Clarke stated that he believed that Howard will end the obsession with Europe. His advice is to get back to the centre ground.

Following the Clarke interview it was announced that John Redwood has also now ruled himself out. The Tories are now therefore finished as an anti-EU alternative for all British voters.

Sir Albert McQuarrie also on the programme added to his letter quoted below that some calling to account was required, preferably by a deselection of the 90 MPs who voted against IDS.

A Conservative Board spokesman was also trying to manufacture some form of pretence that in the event of no ballot the voluntary members would be given the chance to indicate their support. A completely ludicrous situation.

The BBC radio also reports that Ladbrokes was paying out on bets placed on Howard winning. A very unusual decision.

Letter from Sir Albert McQuarrie

The following letter appeared in today's The Herald:-

155,000 grassroots members versus 90 MPs

THE rejection of Iain Duncan Smith by the 90 MPs should not be taken lightly by the 155,000 grassroots members of the Conservative Party who elected him leader after a straightforward campaign. Who do these 90 dissidents think they are? If the party rules allow a minuscule number of members who just happen to be MPs to override the wishes of the party members, then the rules must be changed at once. What is the point in one man one vote if any result, like this, can be disregarded?
Two decisions must be taken at once. The Conservative board should be forced to cancel the result of this confidence vote on the grounds that those who elected the leader were given no opportunity to decide whether he should remain or not. Secondly, every constituency association made aware that its member was a party to disgraceful betrayal should immediately deselect that member for the next general election. Disloyal MPs will at all costs try to suggest they voted for Iain Duncan Smith knowing that the secret of how they voted lies within the walls of Committee Room 14. If the Conservative board does not decide to meet as a matter of urgency to deal with this matter, there should be an uprising of local party members with a demand that if the no confidence vote is accepted, the rules should be changed to ensure that only the party members can vote for a new leader no matter who the MPs attempt to put forward. The dissidents have put a further nail in the coffin of this great party. There is no confidence in their ability to dictate to us who we should have as a leader.
With friends like these at Westminster, who needs enemies? Blair and Kennedy must be rubbing their hands in glee as any hope of a Conservative government in the future has been wiped out by this disgusting act by people who have the effrontery to call themselves Conservatives.
Sir Albert McQuarrie, Kintara House, Mintlaw, Aberdeenshire.
posted by Martin at 10/31/2003 01:14:00 PM

The even bigger question for the entire country today, is just how many of the 90 MPS who voted to remove IDS, were in one way or another beholden, or eventually to be pensioned by the EU. Such pensions are contingent on continued support for the EU and its institutions, therefore in a very real way these people sold out their country for their own financial gain.

This very same thing occurred in the House of Lords in the past weeks, where the European Union Bill was neutered by Peers holding EU pensions, many of which remained undeclared, as already made clear and often repeated on this blog.

Such is the level of corruption in our system, brought upon us by Party Leaders not only in thrall, but apparently at the beck and call of Rupert Murdoch!

The EU pensioned peers who profiteer from their peoples' penury

Words sometimes fail one, therefore I will firstly quote those of Lord Pearson in the House of Lords yesterday, on the Third Reading of the European Union Bill:

§§§§§

I think I got as far as saying that three amendments were carried against this Bill which together emasculate it entirely and deny the British people any chance of a meaningful referendum on our relationship with the failing project of European integration, which they do not like.

The point I now want to make about those amendments is that they were largely proposed by noble Lords in receipt of a forfeitable EU pension, most of them undeclared, and they were all carried by the votes of noble Lords who did not declare their interest. I can but suggest that the Privileges Committee revisits this subject before the Bill returns from the Commons and does the obvious thing.

As the Bill now leaves us, there is one other regret that I would like to record. It is that the Government did not respond to a question about the background to this Bill which I put to them twice. The Government's excuse, no doubt in their mind when they designed the Bill, may be that the Bill should not have allowed us to discuss the EU's real defects: its common agricultural and fisheries policies, its wasteful and fraudulent use of vast sums of taxpayers' money and its entirely undemocratic and secret law-making process which now controls so much of our lives. The question I put was this: given that even our political class is beginning to see that the euro was and is designed for disaster- (interruptions, see link)

So, for the third time, I was hoping that the political class has come to realise what a disaster the euro is. Many of us predicted it. It is a disaster which is being visited on the hapless people of Europe, now particularly Greece, but soon on other countries too.

Why cannot the Government see that the whole project of European integration is equally misguided and dangerous? Surely they must admit that the euro was never an economic project; it was a purely political project that was designed as cement to hold the emerging megastate together. Surely they must admit that that cement is proving to be more explosive than adhesive, so-I have put this question twice to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, during our proceedings-why cannot they lift their eyes just a little further than the euro and see that the project of European integration is fatally flawed and should be abandoned, which would make this Bill irrelevant?
Even the EU's claims to have secured peace in Europe since 1945 are almost entirely spurious and wholly irrelevant today, so why cannot the Government and our political class see that democracy-
 
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord is stretching the rules of the House rather wide. If he carries on, I shall move the Motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Has the noble Lord moved that Motion?



Lord Richard: He said he would.
 
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: If the noble Lord will hold with me for another few seconds, I think that what I am saying is worth having on the record.

I was asking the Government why they cannot see that democracy is the only reliable guarantor of peace and long-term prosperity, and that the sooner we get back to a Europe of democratic nations, freely trading and collaborating together with all their powers returned to their national Parliaments, the better it will be for all the peoples of Europe and, indeed, of the rest of the world beyond. That is entirely in context with the passage of this Bill as it goes to the House of Commons, and as this is the third time I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the question, I would be grateful for his reply.

§§§§§

Needless to say, no reply was forthcoming from the Government!

These ennobled pieces of filth, should not only be subjected to an inquiry by the House of Lords privileges committee, they should one day be forced to face the full legal penalties for fraud as is applicable to ordinary members of society! The EU has bought our lawmakers, as is also the case, it would appear in Greece, see my posting of earlier this morning immediately beneath this one.

How Heath deliberately destroyed Parliament's sovereignty over legislation

The following quote comes from a briefing paper from Lord Kilmuir to Edward Heath in December 1960, sent to me today by Anne Palmer. It is hugely relevant in the light of the present state of the European Union Bill.

The research paper 10/79 may be read in pdf format from this link.

The section on the effect on majority decisions in the European Council to which Britain objected is discussed  as follows:


(a) The position of Parliament
It is clear from the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of Ministers could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on use even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land. There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-
Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council made regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgment on the legislative proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North America Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada; in this respect Parliament here has in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would have, pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.
It would in theory be possible for Parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers, even in wartime, that we have experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons.
Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable; we should have therefore to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the Statute of Westminster. In short, Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.

Thus unilateral withdrawal (not as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty) and simultaneous abrogation of all the European Treaties, is the only real means of avoiding the now imminent EU tyranny!

The EU Pensioners who betray Britain in the Lords.

A good Mail on Sunday exposé which should not have been missed by this blog yesterday, but was (for which my apologies), is linked here.

A halt to these pension payments from the EU would almost certainly follow the EU's collapse, now looking the most likely means of obtaining Britain's restored independence!

Lord Pearson of Rannoch - yesterday in the Lords!

From Hansard, linked here:

"The British people are not stupid. They are in fact much cleverer, much more patriotic and altogether nobler than their political class. They also work in the real world to earn the salaries to pay the taxes to keep us, the political class, afloat in the style to which we have become accustomed.....

The British people understand that what is happening to the people of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and other countries is entirely the fault of the discredited project of undemocratic European integration with its attendant euro. It is not just in this country that the public are moving against EU membership and their political class-and, therefore, I might point out, this amendment. I do not suppose your Lordships have noticed the very recent opinion poll in Norway. Norway has moved a long way: according to this poll, 66 per cent are now against EU membership, with only 26 per cent in favour. Opposition to EU membership is highest among people under the age of 30, with 77 per cent against and only 15 per cent in favour. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has reminded us, opinion is moving strongly in France, Germany, Finland, Holland, Austria-in fact, hardly anywhere in Europe is EU membership still popular.........

" ....the movers of this amendment and the people who oppose this Bill do actually want an integrated superstate of Europe run entirely by the political class, having destroyed the democracies of Europe-which was always the big idea behind the project.



The movers of this amendment and those who will support it are attempting to swim against the tide of opinion here and in Europe. That tide in the end will prove irresistible, so I oppose this attempt to do so."

European Union Bill Amendment designed to override Referenda

The following amendment has been tabled to the European Union Bill in the British House of Lords:

Clause 5
LORD TRIESMAN
LORD LIDDLE

Page 4, line 21, leave out from “indicate” to end of line 22 and insert—

“(a) whether, in the Minister’s opinion, the effect of the provision in relation to the United Kingdom is significant; and

(b) the grounds on which, in the Minister’s opinion, the Article 48(6) decision is in the national interest of the United Kingdom.”

The Clause of the Bill referred to is as follows:

If the Minister is of the opinion that an Article 48(6) decision falls within section 204 only because of provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(i) or (j) of that section, the statement must indicate whether in the Minister’s opinion the effect of that provision in relation to the United Kingdom is significant.

Subsection (1) (i) (j) state the following:

(i) the conferring on an EU institution or body of power to impose a requirement or obligation on the United Kingdom, or the removal of any limitation on any such power of an EU institution or body;

(j) the conferring on an EU institution or body of new or extended power to impose sanctions on the United Kingdom;

And so begins the final end to British Parliamentary Sovereignty!

From Hansard, linked here:

Bill presented

European Union Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary William Hague, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Danny Alexander, Mr Patrick McLoughlin, Mr Oliver Letwin, Mr David Lidington, Mr Jeremy Browne, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Mr Henry Bellingham and Alistair Burt, presented a Bill to make provision about treaties relating to the European Union and decisions made under them, including provision implementing the Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 June 2010 amending the Protocol (No. 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community; and to make provision about the means by which directly applicable or directly effective European Union law has effect in the United Kingdom.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 106) with explanatory notes (Bill 106- EN ).

11 Nov 2010 : Column 471

Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raised earlier with the Leader of the House my Committee's concerns at the extremely short time between the presentation of the European Union Bill and its Second Reading. The Bill deals with matters of enormous constitutional importance and it would be appropriate, within the terms of reference of my Committee, to guarantee that we are given adequate time to consider it. I would be grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you would be kind enough to take that point on board for the purposes of ensuring that, within the Standing Orders, my Committee has appropriate time to deal with the Bill.

Daily Express report on the totally flawed Bill is here!