Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Will Rubbish prove the 'Tipping Point ' for the EU in Britain?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Yet to speak, but not to be silenced!
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget; For we are the people of England that never have spoken yet. There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully; There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we. There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise. There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes; You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet: Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.
The fine French kings came over in a flutter of flags and dames. We liked their smiles and battles, but we never could say their names. The blood ran red to Bosworth and the high French lords went down; There was naught but a naked people under a naked crown. And the eyes of the King's Servants turned terribly every way, And the gold of the King's Servants rose higher every day. They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind, Till there was no bed in a monk's house, nor food that man could find. The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak. The King's Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.
And the face of the King's Servants grew greater than the King: He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring. The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey's fruits, And the men of the new religion, with their bibles in their boots, We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss, And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us. We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale; And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.
A war that we understood not came over the world and woke Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke. They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people's reign: And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again. Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then; Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men. In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains, We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains, We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought, And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke; And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.
Our patch of glory ended; we never heard guns again. But the squire seemed struck in the saddle; he was foolish, as if in pain, He leaned on a staggering lawyer, he clutched a cringing Jew, He was stricken; it may be, after all, he was stricken at Waterloo . Or perhaps the shades of the shaven men, whose spoil is in his house, Come back in shining shapes at last to spoil his last carouse: We only know the last sad squires rode slowly towards the sea, And a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords. They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes; They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies. And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs, Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet, Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street. It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first, Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst. It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best. But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet. Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.
GK Chesterton - 1874-1936
Britain's media silent on pro-Referendum Rally
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Hannan demands Cameron comes clean over EU
Friday, October 26, 2007
The Economist calls for a Referendum
Alerting the USA to the suppression of Freedom in the EU
Germany's Reform Treaty: A Merkel Mandate for a Euro-state
Press Statement from THE CAMPAIGN for an INDEPENDENT BRITAIN, October 23, 2007
Since the Treaty of Rome and European Communities Act 1972, Britain has ceased to be a legally independent nation. Majority voting in the EU Council of Ministers automatically applies to Crown, courts, Parliament and people "without further enactment" (see Clause 2 – 1 ECA 1972).
Successive treaties have extended the powers of the original Treaty. Now a larger overall treaty the "Reform Treaty" - has been proposed under the German Presidency, likely to be signed in a final version before the end of this year under the Portuguese Presidency.
On June 7, 2007, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, appeared before the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee to be questioned about the Council of EU Ministers’ meeting planned for June 21/22. The ESC meeting had been specifically planned to ascertain the proposals by the German Presidency for the forthcoming conference so that our government and people would have some knowledge of the new treaty. They were stunned to hear that no draft proposals for the new treaty had been received from the German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
On the evening of June 19, the British Representative in Brussels was handed the draft proposal from the German Presidency (Document 11177/07) for the European Council to issue a "mandate" or instruction for the imminent Intergovernmental Conference of the representatives of EU member states as to how they should go about establishing a "Reform Treaty". This document, effectively a German diktat, of 31 pages and two small print detailed annexes, was accepted en bloc at the EU Council meeting attended by Tony Blair on June 21/22 without any record of debate.
This then became what is now called the "mandate" from the Council to the Intergovernmental Conference for its detailed work of putting together a treaty incorporating what is already in force together with many controversial additions. Subsequent questions have revealed that the government had not received any prior draft of the proposals from the Germans before June 19.
Minutes of meetings by Select Committees of the House of Commons reveal that the terms of this Reform Treaty agreed on June 21/22, had not only been drafted in Brussels under the then President Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, assisted by officials of the European Commission, but were accepted en bloc by heads of EU governments, less than two days after their publication. This left no time for national governments to consult their colleagues and still less their departments of State since the proposals were only given to them at most two days prior to the meeting. It would appear that this text was produced by officials of the German foreign office assisted by those from the European Parliament and EU Commission.
On Monday June 25, Tony Blair gave a verbal report to Parliament neglecting to mention that a copy of the so-called "mandate" had been lodged in Parliament’s Vote Office and available to MPs from the morning of June 25, so most MPs and all the public were entirely ignorant of the commitment by the British government, and governments of all EU member states. It had become accepted as a mandate or instruction from the European Council. The Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) itself is the body which, in the rules and organisation of the EU, is responsible for its own agenda. The European Council has no formal powers to instruct it.
Very soon afterwards Tony Blair tendered his resignation to the Queen and a couple of days later both he and Margaret Beckett surrendered their seals of office and responsibility and were no longer directly accountable to Parliament and people for one of the biggest surrenders in British history. Tony Blair left office to the ringing applause of MPs whom he had recently agreed to disempower permanently from the control of many areas of this nation’s life.
When questioned last week during a meeting of the European Scrutiny Committee, Minister for Europe, Jim Murphy, confirmed that the mandate is complete, closed and will not be reopened. The obligations entered into cannot be changed. The Minister stated that the process now is for the Reform Treaty to be translated into legal language into the principal and many other languages of member states, covering some 300 articles and declarations.
In spite of this major and largely unknown departure from established practice, Angela Merkel got her way. The procedures of proposals into the new treaty illustrate central power which could hardly be seen as compatible with any democratic principle. Objections from the Czech Republic and Poland were ruthlessly rejected. Without support from one large member country, they were powerless to resist. Nations of Europe and beyond opposed the building of a Euro-state by force of arms between 1939 and 1945. The democratic voices of the peoples of Europe must now be heard and acted upon by all peaceful means to reject this EU Constitution/Reform Treaty.
The European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons published a report on October 9, 2007 (Ref HC 1014). This concluded that the provisions of the proposed "Reform Treaty" were, for all practical purposes, the same as the EU Constitution, rejected by the French and Dutch peoples and upon which almost all sitting MPs had, in their election manifestos, promised their electors a referendum.
Statement issued on behalf of the Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB), the cross-party coalition defending British sovereignty and freedom, by Dr Bob Spink MP, Chairman; George West, Edward Spalton and Nigel Spearing, for the CIB National Committee.
Has Parliament been bound?
Q179 Chairman: Can I ask that our legal experts go through the document because there are a number of uses of the word "
David Miliband: The point is that obligations
Q180 Mr Cash: You mean, despite the European Communities Act which actually imposes the obligation to accept all European law? That is why the argument is circular, Mr Miliband.
David Miliband: No, it is not because the rights that are extended to national parliaments have never existed before. Under this reform Treaty, stronger than the Constitutional Treaty, this Parliament has the right to contribute to the governance of the European Union. It has never had that before.
Q181 Mr Hands: That is an absurd argument, Foreign Secretary, that we have never before had the right as a Parliament to contribute to the governance of the European Union. That is what you have just said. Of course we have had the right to do that. As an elected UK Parliament, of course we have had the right to contribute to the governing of the EU.
David Miliband: Only through Treaty change. In the future, measures that have previously been adopted only by governments will now be open for national parliaments to have a say. I would have thought you would actually recognise that is a good thing, not a bad thing, we agree on that.
Q182 Mr Cash: We were there before 1972.
David Miliband: You were indeed there before 1972.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
France's Constitutional Dilemma
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Simon Jenkins in The Guardian
A view from America
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is stubbornly opposing a referendum on the treaty. This is a big mistake politically, and will cost him numerous votes at the next election in 2008 or 2009 unless he reverses course. The Reform Treaty is hugely unpopular with the British public, and the Conservative Party is wisely outflanking Brown by pledging to hold a referendum if elected. In a new Daily Telegraph/YouGov poll 69 percent of Britons surveyed called for a British referendum on the treaty, including 87 percent of Conservative voters and 70 percent of Labour Party supporters. A mere six percent of the British electorate agrees with Downing Street's assertion that "the new treaty differs substantially from the old constitution."
The British people have always been uneasy with the notion of further integration in Europe, and if given a chance to vote on this issue will overwhelmingly oppose any attempt to strip away more powers from Westminster. Invoking the defiant spirit of Churchill, the hugely influential Sun newspaper in London, owned by Rupert Murdoch and edited by Rebekah Wade, has launched a large-scale campaign in support of a British referendum, which its several million readers are enthusiastically backing. In addition, over a hundred thousand Britons have signed an online petition for a referendum launched by theTelegraph.
With a keen eye on the polls, Brown may ultimately give in to public pressure and agree to a popular vote. A hundred Labour MPs have already come out calling on Brown to reverse his position. If he does so, the Treaty will be thrown out, effectively driving a stake through the biggest threat to British national sovereignty and the Anglo-American alliance of our generation.A view from The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles blog, linked here is the following:
Monday, October 22, 2007
A paradox or a 'Constitution Crippler'?
Parliamentary supremacy is now, of course, subject to the law of the European Community. The UK and other member states, in the words of the ECJ in Van Gend en Loos (1963), "have limited their sovereign rights" and under section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972, EC Law is directly applicable in the UK without further need for domestic legislation unless specifically provided.
A basic constitutional doctrine underpinning parliamentary sovereignty is that of implied repeal, by which a later legislative act takes precedence over an earlier one in so far as the two are inconsistent. This has been swept away by s2(4) ECA 1972, which provides that all UK law, whether prior or subsequent must be construed so as to comply with Community legislation.
This has now been acknowledged by the House of Lords. In the second Factortame case (1991), Lord Bridge declared that since 1972 it is clearly "...the duty of a United Kingdom court... to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law". The statute in question in that case, passed long after UK accession to the EC, was repealed as inconsistent with Community law. Thus was demolished another cornerstone of parliamentary supremacy, the doctrine that Parliament may legislate on any subject whatsoever.
This Treaty therefore seems to me to go beyond what at first seems to be an amusing paradox a la Pirates of Penzance, and is instead a dagger poised to destroy the very basis of England's Laws and its constitutional democracy.If Gordon Brown initialed this document then already he may not now lawfully be able to continue in office with the same holding true for his Foreign Secretary. A Referendum cannot legitimise such a Treaty and Parliament itself will be acting unlawfully if it retains any portion of the section on the role of Parliament. This blog writer will await the EU's rewritten version with considerable anticipation.
Labour's manifesto promise
Friday, October 19, 2007
Brown to attend Rugby final!
Across the EU the people must be asked Yes or NO!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Mr Brown's Big Lie
EU Leaders betraying their electorates
According to a poll conducted by the British newspaper The Financial Times, 70 percent of those questioned in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain think the treaty decision should go to a vote. Another poll, in the right-wing Daily Telegraph of London, showed that 69 percent of British voters support a referendum.
In spite of the opposition, European leaders have vowed to push the treaty through, with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown telling parliament on Wednesday that he did not intend to put it to a national vote, insisting the treaty would not lead to a fundamental change in the way Britain is governed.
As Democracy Dies - One
Those who want the new treaty argue that it is just another step in the process of centralisation. But just because ordinary people are only gradually waking up to the drip-dripping away of their power does not mean that they should be denied a say in it. Some argue that a referendum would end up being a vote on the direction of the EU. But it should be. The EU needs to change direction, and its citizens want it to. The battleground is not Britain versus Europe, it is the elites versus the people.The irony is that, six years ago, EU leaders seemed to agree. In the Laeken declaration of 2001, they specifically asked for more transparency, democracy and subsidiarity (powers returned to nation states). What they got was Valéry Giscard d’Estaing..... As if to prove the point in its letters column in the same paper, beneath more gobbledegook from the shameless Foreign Secretary, we have this group of corporatists: Lord Brittan of Spennithorne Roger Carr, Chairman, Centrica Guy Dawson, Founding Partner, Tricorn Partners Paul Marshall, Chairman, Marshall Wace Asset Management Vijay Patel, CEO, Waymade Healthcare Stuart Popham, Senior Partner, Clifford Chance Roland Rudd, Chairman, Business for New Europe Bill Thomas, President — Europe, Middle East & Africa, EDS Rosemary Thorne, Non-Executive Director, Abbey National Lord Tugendhat, Senior Adviser, Lehman Brothers Lord John Kerr, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell .... recommending the Treaty with no mention of democracy but including this telling sentence: The business community has a lot to gain from a strong single market of 500 million people, with more effective institutions to police and enforce its rules. Lord Tugendhat for one is an ex-EU Commissioner, on a fat EU pension and as far from impartiality as it is possible to get. All their letter is perfect proof of the case put by Camilla Cavendish.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Brown continues to refuse an EU Treaty Referendum
Miliband, Fascism and Chamberlain
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Miliband in the 'merde'
However, today it emerged during Mr Miliband's questioning that if the UK does not agree to opt in on certain measures, there may be penalties - both constitutional and financial - for not agreeing to them.
"The red lines are about the right to choose," Mr Miliband told the committee. "For each and every measure the UK has a choice on whether to opt in."
The UK has five years to decide whether to opt in on certain measures as they are transposed from the current EU treaty to the new treaty. But under questioning from James Clappison, Conservative MP for Hertsmere, it was revealed that there could be penalties for not opting in.
If the UK decides not to opt in on a certain measure, the results could be that the new measure is dropped from the treaty - denying Britain the chance to opt in in future - or that the European commission could urge the UK to opt in on a measure, or the UK could be charged for not opting in following a vote by member states.
"If there are costs that are incurred as a result of opting out, we will bear them," said Mr Miliband.
As the panel became visibly frustrated over the course of the session, the chairman of the committee, Michael Connarty, eventually said the treaty was using bullying tactics in order to be passed and told Mr Miliband he was "shocked" he was trying to defend them.
EU Scrutiny Committee
Miliband's unsubstantiated bluster and the facts
Miliband claims reassurances on role of Parliament
Monday, October 15, 2007
Daily Mirror columnist turns on Brown
45 minutes for Treaty Discussion
Bruges Group Press Release
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Red Line threatened on Justice
Friday, October 12, 2007
Danes demanding a vote
Referendum Rally Update
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Brown to "initial" deal in Lisbon
Barroso shows his ignorance on Free Trade
"I think it's important and I can't believe that Britain can be open to the world and closed to Europe," he said.
The facts of course speak otherwise. Britain's wealth can only come from the GROWING economies where democracy is entrenched or developing, not in an EU whose leaders can mount a massive conspiracy against their own citizens such as the non-referendumable EU Reform Treaty.
Italy under Prodi will accept any humiliation
Telegraph demands 'Let people decide"
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Bruges Group on Red Line breach
JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS RED LINE BREACHED
Gordon Brown’s Government has watered down the UK’s opt-out on justice & security matters so that it becomes almost meaningless. Under the terms of the so-called Reform Treaty, the notoriously centralising European Court of Justice (which always agrees with those who favour taking power from the nation-state) will seize more power over Justice and Home Affairs. For purely cosmetic reasons the UK has managed to delay the EU’s takeover of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters for just 5 years. After this 5 year period, the UK has a right to opt out from any legislation on that area. However, both the general 5 year transitional period and the UK opt out cover only the legislation in force before the treaty becomes law (which is expected to happen on 1st January 2009). Additionally under Protocol 10 Article 10 (4) the EU by Qualified Majority Vote can force the UK to pay financial penalties for the opt out. Furthermore, a new article, 4a (2) in the Protocol on the Position of UK and Ireland (in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice) has been added to the Treaty protocol, giving the legal right to the EU Council of Ministers to put pressure on the UK to participate in the EU’s plans to control Britain’s legal system. This will lead to pressure for the UK to surrender more power in the following areas:
- Immigration and frontier controls (Loss of any pretence that we control our immigration policy)
- Judicial co-operation in criminal matters (Legal harmonisation)
- Minimum rules for the definition of criminal offences and sanctions (EU to control criminal law)
- Eurojust (structure, operation, field of action and tasks) (EU control over the fight against organised crime)
- Police co-operation (data sharing and training) (Britain’s policing to become like policing on the continent)
- Europol (structure, operation, field of action and tasks) (EU Police)
- Specialised courts (establishment of specialised first instance courts) (The undermining of Britain’s system of Common Law)
- Establishment of integrated management system for external borders (EU control of Britain’s borders)
- Mechanism for peer review of member states' implementation of policies in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) area (Britain’s legal system to become accountable to the EU)
- Measures to promote crime prevention (More EU control over policing)
Click on the links below to read the renamed EU Constitutional Treaty: