Thursday, December 29, 2005

Brown, Cameron and the Single Market

The following article by Anthony Scholefield was published recently in Eurofacts QUOTE Why the completion of the single market is undesirable as well as unobtainable The chancellor’s economic analysis demonstrates that Britain is damaged by the low growth policies of the euro-zone Gordon Brown has finally let the cat out of the bag. He now says that Britain’s low growth (low, that is, by international standards, if not by the standards of the EU) is due to the high proportion of trade which is carried on with the euro-zone. Yes, this is a statement of the blatantly obvious, but it is one which in the past has been far too embarrassing for Westminster politicians to acknowledge. In an article in the Financial Times on 13th October 2005 just prior to the EU-China finance ministers meeting, he declared: “For 10 years, Europe (sic) has grown at not only one quarter of the rate of China and India but at half the rate of the US. And while the whole world is affected by the trebling of oil prices Britain, exporting 50 per cent of its goods to the euro area, suffers more than most from low European growth. This year’s 1.2 per cent European growth is a wake up call we cannot ignore”. We note that Gordon Brown displays ‘unconscious narrow nationalism’ in that his definition of ‘European growth’ excludes Britain. He carries on in the same vein, excluding Britain from Europe by referring to ‘European unemployment approaching 10 per cent’. He draws the conclusion that with Britain’s growth suffering as a consequence of close integration with the eurozone, ‘european economic reform’ is the answer. His analysis undermines some basic EU ideas. ‘The change we need is quite fundamental. For decades, the assumption has been that Europe’s nations would prosper as economic integration at a national level was superseded by economic integration at a European level.’ ‘But globalization has brought challenges none of Europe’s founders could foresee. It is global, not just European companies and global not just European brands, that now dominate. So pro-Europeans must honestly say that Europe cannot succeed as a trade bloc looking in on itself. Instead, Global Europe must be outward not inward looking, focussed on external competition and adjust its social model to combine flexibility with fairness.’ So, Gordon Brown is finally man enough to conclude that Britain suffers because of low growth in the EU! An unbiased observer might conclude that the solution was to disentangle Britain from the EU and cease to promote economic integration. Instead, the Chancellor has decided to push water uphill. He identifies the sclerotic Brussels set-up as bad for Britain but he believes he can reform every aspect of EU policy - from labour markets, to trade barriers, to monetary and fiscal affairs. He does not question why Britain’s trade is artificially channelled to the EU by means of the Customs Union and some of his proposals seem quite fantastic, including his plea for the removal of labour market rigidities at the very same time as his government is concluding gold-plated pension deals with public employees and preserving an early retirement age. He also calls for a euro- area ‘symmetrical inflation target’ - a call which it is impossible to believe will be taken even half seriously by those ministers of finance who are actually in the euro. Finally, he joins David Cameron in calling for the completion of the single market, the ‘good thing’ all Westminster politicians can agree on because they evidently know so little about it (Cameron tells us in his website that the most important EU issue is the completion of the single market). The achievement of this goal is as likely as the dismantling of the CAP. The presumed benefits never been rationally examined while on the ground businesses complain that the single market at present is ineffective. Both Brown and Cameron should ask themselves the following question: If Britain suffers more than most from low European growth, why do they so ardently wish to complete the single market – a goal which can only have the consequence of increasing Britain’s share of trade with the EU and of consequently further reducing our growth potential? Britain has a permanent and large deficit in trade with the EU’s wonderful Single Market which can only be paid for by the surpluses earned from trade with the outside world. The reality is that a single market ruled by a unified set of complex and infinitely expanding harmonized economic regulations buttressed by a Customs Union with heavy protection for industry and agriculture and huge commercial lobbying is a guarantee of economic failure. But without offering the slightest shred of evidence, Brown (like Cameron) insists that an important part of the solution is the completion of the single market. But isn’t the single market idea precisely designed to increase the proportion of our trade with ‘Europe’? Surely even Gordon and David cannot believe a ‘successful’ single market would reduce that proportion ? But a reduction in that proportion is precisely what the national economic interest requires – and the Chancellor has implicitly come close to recognising this. Too bad his policies run in a diametrically opposite direction. UNQUOTE


Sunday, December 18, 2005

Crowing Chirac hits French TV to relish Blair's humiliation

The report of the French President's news broadcasts may be read from this link to Ireland Online. While the British press concentrate on the disgruntlement in the Treasury at the rebate deal and the likely cost in terms of reduced public services such as this in the Sunday Telegraph here and that in the Sunday Times linked here, none seemed to have brought home the real cost of Blair's treachery in personal terms. One billion pounds a year paid by the sixty million people in Britain is sixteen pounds sixty seven pence for every man woman and child in the country every year for seven years. In a reasonably sized town or city of lets say some 150,000 inhabitants that amounts to some two and a half million pounds a year for seven years. On a weekly basis that is forty eight thousand pounds less to spend on schools, hospital etc. etc every week for fifrty two weeks a year for seven long years. The same is proportionately true for every city, town and village in the country - imagine the sums involved for London, Manchester or Birmingham. All this apparently agreed by Blair without the agreement of his Treasury and certainly without the prior approval of parliament. What happened to representative democracy, will our elected MPs ever get the opportunity to approve this clearly self-serving sell out? Of course not, and yet the mainstream media insist the EU is a minority interest matter with no bearing on the important issues in peoples lives. This deal proves the reverse is the case. As more and more Britons discover each month, if you want value for the taxes paid down the years - and now for many years ahead, due to the incompetence or worse of their own political leaders- one good way to get it is to live in France or elsewhere in the EU, robbing the British treasury of yet more revenues from income tax, inheritance tax or even from their latest wheeze speed camera fines!

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Blair puts ambition before country?

A major disaster for any hope of the restoration of democracy across the continent of Europe occurred in Brussels last night. A new budget was agreed thus ensuring the continuation of the present non-democratic and increasingly totalitarian EU up to the year 2014. Co-incidentally that was the year I chose in my novel 'Millennium Blitzkreig' for the EU to fall to complete dictatorship . Choosing the nationalities of the main villains for that tale was always problematical - it now appears I got them wrong. This blog has always believed and set forth that the most likely way for the EU Constitution to be revived is for some nod to be given in a revised Treaty towards the lack of any democracy in the present structures. The only feasible way I can imagine that being accomplished is by the EU getting an elected President - given the powers of the Commission this will be a huge setback for the nation states and effectively hand the entire continent to an initially elected dictator who might never see the need of bothering to stand for a second term. Tony Blair, in attempting to justify his treachery over the British rebate this morning on Radio Four stated that Britain would regain respect in Europe - a possible guide to his own thinking and ambitions? The detail of yesterday's negotiations is well described in this Daily Telegraph report linked here.

Friday, December 16, 2005

German State Broadcaster relishes prospect of more rebate concessions

As Blair gets ready to once again pour more taxpayers' money into the EU the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle opens its website article crowing over the prospect , linked here as pasted below: .....Unusually I include the photograph ... Is it just me or is the otherwise superfluous hand doing a not too subtle imitation of a Churchillian 'V' sign?

Britain Claims Progress as Germany Leads Call for Rebate Cut

Britain claimed progress Friday towards resolving the European Union's budget row while Germany, backed by France and Spain, called for the British rebate to be slashed.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

France's farm subsidies

The Times today publishes a summary of some research into the payment of farm subsidies across the EU which does much to explain the French refusal to consider any early review of the CAP and their stated intention of vetoing any budget deal that tries to advance the date of the present agreement, agreed to by Tony Blair, which runs through to 2013. The article may be read from this link.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Poland reacts to Ambassador's 'joke?'

Reuters reports here on the e-mail that in humerous terms sets out a deadly serious negotiating tactic for this week's EU budget talks. Was it a joke - I doubt it, had it been it would never have been leaked given the recipients, and Jack Sraw's response seemed just too pat and immediate. IMO this was designed to act as a frightener to Britain's foot dragging EU partners. The proposal for a new fund by-passing the corrupt and inefficient Brussels system can hardly be considered as anything other than plain common sense - which is rarely very funny. Read on to the post below to see exactly what was said.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Leaked FO Email shows British EU Frustration

The Sunday Times today publishes a leaked email from Britain's ambassador in Warsaw. It makes an amusing read and is quoted here in full: From: Charles.Crawford Sent: 08 December 2005 05:36 To: KDarroch; Nicola.Brewer Subject: LOOSEN THOSE EU BUDGET TALKS - LET'S END THE MISERY


This Budget thing is already dragging on too long. So here is a draft speech for the Foreign Sec or PM to use next week to bring it to a rapid and successful conclusion:

"OK, partners, here is my Budget final offer (Puts a large naff kiddies alarm clock on the table).

We all know that the hypocrisy and absurdity of this process are passing any reasonable limit.

I am being asked to give more UK taxpayers money to an EU which for years can not produce properly audited accounts. Mon ami Jacques with the support of most of you is nagging me to give the EU more money while the refusing to surrender an inch or even a centimetre on the CAP - a programme which uses inefficient transfers of taxpayers money to bloat rich French landowners and so pump up food prices in Europe, thereby creating poverty in Africa, which we then fail to solve through inefficient but expensive aid programmes. The most stupid, immoral state-subsidised policy in human history, give or take Communism.

As for the new member states, we like you so much that we are proposing in the Budget a huge new transfer of funds to you on a scale which will give your people the greatest boost in 1000 years. I will be attacked by my scary new teenage Tory opposition for building roads and hospitals in Poland and Hungary, rather than in poor areas of the UK. We - unlike most other old EU MS sitting here - have opened our labour markets. HMG have created more jobs for Poles in the past year than the Polish Government. Yet not one of you nor a single newspaper in any of your capitals has expressed a single word of gratitude or appreciation for the UK position in all this. So much for solidarity.

Shame on you all. Enough is enough.

In a moment I will press the button on this vulgar clock, made cheaply and well in China. It will ring loudly in exactly an hour's time.

At that point I will ask everyone round the table whether they accept our current offer. Yes, or No.

If anyone says No, we end the meeting. The EU will move on to a complete mess of annual budgets. Basically suits us - we'll pay less, and the rebate stays 100% intact. My ratings will go up.

However, despite the rudeness and ingratitude of the new member states as expressed here today, we in London do want to help them So if the Budget deal does end in an hour's time, we will take action alone.

I have here with me a draft press release which says the following:

Following the failure of the EU Budget talks today because most EU member states refused to accept a generous, innovative new budget proposed by HMG, the UK Gov announces that it is going to set aside a good chunk of the money it was prepared effectively to deduct from its rebate under the current proposals, 5 billion pounds, to set up a new Strategic European Development Fund - the Mother of All Know How Funds, but on steroids.

This Fund will be accessible for those of the V4 plus Balts who agree to join its programme - if they all feel too humiliated by our lack of EU solidarity to join, that's great - we'll keep the money for ourselves. If only some of them join, that's great too- those who do will get proportionately more.

The Fund will cut out all the bollocky EU bureaucracy which comes with the current spending round, which means that for every pound we pay into the EU pot for Structural Funds for new MS about a [make up a suitable percentage] goes in sticky transaction costs, local and Brussels corruption, overhead and other rubbish, and so does not benefit the intended recipients.

The Fund will go for any sensible strategic development idea that comes along, with emphasis on R&D and Innovation, plus reform of the region's abysmal legal systems, the main Communist - era legacy problem in Europe. But if you want to build some new roads, that's OK too.

The Fund will be managed according to state of the art transparency and efficiency:

  • Internet procurement

  • 90% money spent to require matching private sector funds, so as to encourage new private investment on a vast scale
  • top-level auditing
  • explicit buy-in by recipient governments to compensate the fund on a 'triple damages' basis for any losses proved by independent auditors to be due to official local corruption, and to prosecute the people concerned

  • up-front urgent action by recipient partner governments to set up their own streamlined procedures and new laws to allow this money to be spent fast

  • oversight by independent all-party experts and bankers/business leaders in each country to ensure scrupulous honesty and agree national priorities

  • hard targets set for spending with regular public updates

  • hundreds of short-term fellowships to enable the brightest and best from these countries to see EU best practice in action in the UK
  • [Aside: PM Marcinkiewicz: you asked me recently to help with ELT in Polish schools - spend 100 million of the Fund on this, so that every kid learns English, plus save money by shutting down French and German language classes!]

  • and so on

    This Fund mean that the UK's money goes much further, much faster and much more efficiently into the regions concerned than it possibly could under any EU programme.

    Five billion pounds spent this way equals far more than 10 billion spent through the EU, by building in good incentives at every level to encourage openness, free enterprise, creativity and honesty.

    The Fund will give the UK and British expertise and the English language together a dominant economic, political and intellectual position in the most dynamic region of Europe for decades to come, forcing legal and business reform on a huge scale according to the purest Anglo-Saxon principles.

    And it will be incredibly popular in the countries concerned, since it will force the region's governments sitting shiftily round this table to be far more honest and accountable than they are at the moment.

    More! The roaring success of the Fund will set in motion the accelerating downsizing of all EU-level spending and a fundamental rethink of global aid philosophy. UK voters and voters all across the EU will love it because it spends their money well, plus highlights the wastefulness of what the EU is doing at the moment and cuts out completely the blathering European Parliament. Wider public pressure for reforms along UK lines will become irresistible.

    Basically, a terrific deal for the UK, for the modern European ideal of well-coordinated light-touch integration, and for the populations of the countries concerned.

    End of draft press release.

    We nonetheless remain willing to sacrifice all that in the interests of discredited, inefficient, socialistic, EU 'solidarity' - if that is what you really all prefer - to sign up for the latest offer for the Budget which is on the table.

    Over to you, mes chers amis!

    (Presses button on alarm clock. Silence. Broken only by loud ticking)

    I have a suitable alarm clock if that helps.


    Charles Crawford HMA Warsaw

  • Tuesday, December 06, 2005

    Neil Herron strikes another blow against injustice

    Press Release:Immediate
    The People's No Campaign
    5th December 2005
    "Campaigner's Speed Case Victory forces Northumbria Police to Change Evidence Procedures
    ...a case that has massive national implications"
    1.Failure by the courts to establish whether Police had followed correct procedures in attempting to contact the alleged offender
    2.Failure by the courts to ask any questions with regard to the evidence submitted by the this instance simply two letters were sent out by first class post
    3.Failure by the Police to establish any evidence as to the existence of the alleged offender.
    4.An absolute injustice , which is being replicated in tens of thousands of other cases across the country
    5.A victory, which can now lead to the re-opening of tens of thousands of other cases.
    6. An admission by Northumbria Police that they are to change their procedures.
    The case
    In attempting to tax his vehicle in July 2005 Neil Herron discovered that the V5 Registration Document had not been returned from the DVLA Swansea after it had been sent off some months earlier after notifying them of a change of address. It was also apparent that his driving licence had not been returned either.
    He immediately contacted DVLA who could not find them in the system, and they pointed out that a number of items do go missing but the blame may also lie with the Royal Mail who lose some 14million items of post a year.
    There is no requirement by DVLA to send items by recorded delivery.
    Neil Herron was advised to go the LVLO (Local Vehicle Licensing Office) at Gosforth to tax his vehicle and apply for a replacement licence.
    Although aggrieved at the inconvenience of a 30 mile round trip coupled with the fact that a replacement licence would cost £19 Herron complied.
    The replacement licence duly came back at the beginning of August and the events that follow have forced Northumbria Police, after a full internal review, to completely change their procedures in relation to the pursuit of alleged speed camera offenders.
    This change of policy was confirmed by David Heslop, Head of Criminal Justice at Northumbria Police, in a lengthy meeting at their Ponteland HQ on 1st December 2005, where, as a result of matters raised in this case, Northumbria Police were going to implement new practices, which would undoubtedly have national implications for all other camera schemes and Police Forces. It is expected that this new 'good practice' procedure will be adopted by all other force areas.
    This will mean an end to the outrageous injustice of people being convicted of a criminal offence in their absence and being fined and given penalty points, and will also force the Police to go back to proper investigative procedures in order to establish the identity of the driver of a vehicle committing an alleged offence.
    More serious implications will involve all of those previously convicted in their absence of 'Failure to Provide Information.' Many will be able to follow Herron's procedure and request that the case be re-opened under Section 142 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980.
    The implications relate to the finacial penalties and any hardships or consequences suffered as a result of the imposition of penalty points on licences. Costs and damages may run into tens of millions of pounds nationwide.
    There will also be the cost to the force concerned with regard to the DVLA correcting the licence (believed to be £250 - £300 per licence) and removing the penalty points.
    The People's No Campaign will assist with information and advice on this matter and has a legal team waiting to handle any cases.
    Simply e-mail or call 0845 147 2006
    or write to:
    The People's No Campaign
    12 Frederick Street
    SR1 1NA
    Herron's licence was returned with three penalty points and a £120 fine. He had no knowledge of any offence nor had anyone attempted to advise him that he had been taken to court.
    The licence had the convicting court code as being 2349 and the offence code MS90. The date of the conviction was 31.05.05 and 'date of offence' was 18.10.04.
    Immediate enquiries revealed that Herron had been convicted in his absence at Bedlington Magistates Court for 'Failing to Provide Information' with regard to an alleged speeding offence committed some 10 months previously.
    It appeared that the court had found him guilty in his absence and the only evidence that Northumbria Police had provided to the Court was the fact that a Notice of Intended Prosecution / Request for Information addressed to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle, the purpose of which is to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, had not been returned. A follow up letter received no reply and a summons was issued.
    The case proceeded on that basis.
    There were no further checks by Northumbria Police to establish whether Herron was actually still residing at the address, whether he was deceased, ill in hospital, abroad, whether mail was being removed or withheld or whether a dog was eating the post.
    However, it appears as though once a conviction is obtained all resources are thrown at contacting the person convicted in order to get the money. This was confirmed by Sunderland Magistrates Court who had been passed over details regarding collection of the fine, and they stated that electoral registers, phone companies and credit reference agencies were all used to find the person.
    Communications began with the Court and Northumbria Police and a complaint was raised.
    Herron then invoked Section 142 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980:
    142. Power of magistrates' court to re-open cases to rectify mistakes etc.

      (1) A magistrates' court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so; and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make.

      (2) Where a person is convicted by a magistrates' court and it subsequently appears to the court that it would be in the interests of justice that the case should be heard again by different justices, the court may so direct.

    The case was re-opened and scheduled to be heard at Bedlington Magistrates Court.
    The pre-trial review was heard on 21st September 2005 and the CPS lawyer never lifted his head and the Court Clerk appeared very nervous. Herron requested that the case go ahead in full and that a witness order be made to call the Chief Constable. The court clerk even went through the charade of ringing up for a court date, and this was given and confirmed.
    Herron however, received confirmation in the post a few days later that the case was being dropped.
    The letter from Northumbria Police stated:
    Dear Sir,
    I refer to the above summons against you.
    Enquiries have been made with the Officer in Charge of this case and in the circumstances I have requested the Clerk to the Justices to withdraw the summons, as you did not receive any documentation.
    I hope this information is of assitance to you.
    Yours faithfully,
    S Munro
    ASU Administrator
    What came out of the meeting with David Heslop however, was that Northumbria Police had already offered no evidence and had asked for the case to be dropped. The court therefore had gone through a charade.
    A Freedom of Information request to Northumbria Police revealed that there had been 8754 other cases tried at Bedlington Magistrates Court for 'Failure to Provide Information.' A request to the court as to the statistical breakdown of convictions and acquittals has drawn a blank response.
    A very serious question mark now hangs over those very Magistrates who will have convicted thousands of people in their absence based on nothing more than 'no response' evidence presented by the Police.
    The admission by the Northumbria Police Force that this has not been good practice and falls well short of their moral requirements allows all of those defendants to ask for their cases to be re-opened and potentially have their convictions quashed and the penalty points removed from their licence.
    Once this is replicated nationally the cost to the Camera Partnerships will run into tens of millions.
    Neil Herron states, " What happened in my instance was a massive injustice that should never have been allowed to happen. For a criminal case to proceed with the defendant 'in absentia' is an affront to the whole judicial process. Northumbria Police have at least had the humility to accept their endemic procedural mistakes and have undergone a full review and are going to implement new practices. They expect this will be raised at the next ACPO meeting and the practice be adopted nationally. They also accept that their behaviour in this instance has fallen well short of acceptable practice.
    However, what is just as serious is the fact that the Magistrates at Bedlington have simply being rubber-stamping cases and convicting people in their absence without ever asking the Police what efforts were made, other than using two first class stamps, to contact or establish the status of the alleged.offender.
    I accept that because of my profile as a campaigner my complaint was perhaps treated more seriously than anyone else who may have suffered a similar injustice, but our campaign will now assist anyone else that has suffered a similar fate.
    Perhaps by forcing the Police nationally to now look at the whole system of remote policing using speed cameras, which has driving a massive wedge between them and the public, we may hopefully now get back to them treating the public at large with the proper respect that they deserve, and I am sure that this will then be reciprocated by the vast majority of the law abiding British public who hold the view that speed cameras have very little to do with road safety and everything to do with raising cash."
    Neil Herron
    Campaign Director
    The People's No Campaign
    12 Frederick Street
    SR1 1NA
    Tel. 0191 ..........
    Notes for Editors:
    1. Neil Herron is Campaign Director for The People's No Campaign which has grown out of the Metric Martyrs and the North East No Campaign (defeated Prescott in last year's elected assembly referendum). The group also created the No Campaign against the European Constitution.
    Neil Herron along with Steven Thoburn were European Campaigners of the Year in 2001 with the Metric Martyrs Campaign beating Wim Duisenberg and his launch of the Euro Notes and Coins.
    2. The People's No Campaign is expanding to take on board all issues of unaccountable and unacceptable governance.
    3. Contact details for David Heslop, Head of Criminal Justice for Northumbria Police...01661 (Force HQ)
    4. Endorsed Licence and Northumbria Police Communications can be viewed here.

    Monday, December 05, 2005

    Blair & Brown - Blood Brothers in Brazen Betrayal of Britain

    Brown stands in Parliament and barefacedly halves his earlier electioneering growth forecasts reported here, while Straw follows to confirm Blair's budgetary and rebate sell-out to the EU- read here. Interestingly Blair's protege as EU President of the EU Commission immediately (according to the BBC literally within seconds of Straw's statement) condemned the proposal as totally unacceptable, in spite of the fact that it would cost British taxpayers some seven billion pounds with neither economic advantage nor reforming gain to the wasteful Common Agricultural Policy. Only a complete removal of New Labour can now assure the sanctity of the Thatcher Rebate, given Brown's reported endorsement of the package now tabled!

    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!

    Anti-English Discrimination

    A case has been put to the European Human Rights Tribunal as linked from here and quoted herewith: Brought by various men and women from England, against the Government of the United Kingdom. Principal: This refers specifically to the practice of "double voting" by Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales 1 who have the right to vote:
    • in their regional assemblies (parliaments) on national issues
    • in the United Kingdom parliament on issues affecting the United Kingdom
    when, the English have no such level of representation for their constituency Members of Parliament can only vote in the United Kingdom parliament. Additional (1): The government's majority resides in the Scottish and Welsh seats so this device of discrimination is considered to be means of the Labour Party (who have taken all governmental positions) to remain in power and enforce legislation on the English population against their wish as well as generally influence the affairs of England (making up 85% of the population of the United Kingdom) when the majority of the electorate in England did not support the Labour Party (less than 22% of the electorate supported this government). Additional (2): There is a lack of separtion of powers between parliament and government in the United Kingdom. A so-called whip system is used to encourage MPs to vote as directed by their political party as opposed to constituency interests. This party-based whip raises concerns of the undue and ongoing influence of the Labour Party over the affairs of state when this party is just a small private organization enjoying a direct membership of less than 1% of the population of the United Kingdom. As a result, the English electorate does not enjoy a free and fully responsive constituency representation but their wishes are compromised by the preferences of a single private group (Labour Party) which the majority do not support. 1 MPs from Northern Ireland could potentially make use of this device but since they do not have MPs who are members of the Labour Party so the Labour whips have less obvious influence here

    Thursday, December 01, 2005

    Another notable date for the EU's 'Decline and Fall"

    Incredibly enough the ECB, under the rule of Trichet, today raised interest rates across the economically failing and already crippled eurozone. Like a rabbit frozen in the headlights for what seemed an eternity, when movement finally came it was towards ALMOST CERTAIN DEATH.

    Bruges Group research on EU Criminal Law

    ANOTHER SLICE OF THE SALAMI How the European Criminal Code is being introduced by stealth

    One of the defining aspects of a nation is that it is free to set laws and restrictions with reference to its own peculiar historical cultural and legal traditions, without let or hindrance. Gawain Towler, however, in the third of the Bruges Group's Micro guides shows how recent developments in Brussels have thrown this into disarray. A technical decision made by the European Court of Justice has turned the constitutional development of all EU member states on their head. The Commission has taken upon itself the right to overrule the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and national parliaments in the field of criminal law by reference to judgements of the highly partisan and activist European Court of Justice (ECJ). In this way the executive and the judiciary have coalesced to destroy the balance of power within the European Communities.

    Environmental law has now become an area of criminal law under EU control. Areas that are left in legal limbo, but will become EU competences are: - Counterfeiting the euro - Non cash fraud (credit cards etc) - Money laundering through banks - People trafficking - Private sector corruption - Computer hacking - Marine pollution

    Areas of law currently being considered are: - Fraud involving EU funding - Intellectual property rights - Racism and Xenophobia

    By applying this precedent defining criminal offences and penalties no longer falls within the remit of national legislators but comes under the jurisdiction of Community law, which will have a direct effect, and prevail over, national laws, including, according to another decision of the Court, our constitution. Meanwhile in parallel with this judicial communitarisation of criminal law, the Commission has already launched, without the slightest mandate or legal basis, a project for a ‘European Civil Code’. This is preparing the destruction of national civil legislation in fields as diverse as contract law, liability law, family law and security law. Today we have a new European Union, the final destination of which is known to no one. The ECJ’s judgement has rewritten Treaty obligations and undermined the will of democratically elected governments, steamrollered by the unelected executive which now has an open ended jurisdiction. The Commission, using the ECJ as its battering ram, has demolished the division of power in the European Union, the bureaucrats are firmly in charge.

    Click here to read the full paper online

    or visit