Monday, 30 March 2009
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Friday, 27 March 2009
Mr Hannan’s attack on the Premier was quite impressive, and without doubt a joy to watch as Mr Brown sat and squirmed during the attack, but in reality the harder hitting speech against Gordon Brown came from the UK Independence Party leader, Nigel Farage MEP – he really tore into him.
Both MEPs mentioned the British jobs for British workers fiasco, but Nigel hit home with Gordon Brown’s lack of prudence. As the Prime Minister sat and sheepishly grinned Nigel reminded him that he has “destroyed” private pensions, he has sold off a vast chunk of our gold reserves at a knock-down price costing the British taxpayer £billions, he rammed through the Lisbon treaty days after the Irish ‘No’ vote without giving the British people their promised referendum and he rounded off by saying that Gordon Brown had apologised for slavery and just about everything else, so when was he going to apologise to the British people for what he had done to them.
The sad point about this is, although Dan Hannan and Roger Helmer are two very EU-sceptic MEPs who, like Nigel Farage and all UKIP activists want Britian to leave the EU, this gives a false impression that the Conservative Party is somehow or other an EU-sceptic party. Sadly, the real truth is, apart from Hannan and Helmer, all the other Conservative MEPs are pro-EU to varying degrees as are the Conservative leadership, as can be proven by Cameron’s appointment of the rabid Euro-fanatic, Ken Clarke MP to the Tory front bench in Parliament. The Conservative leadership all want Britain to remain in the EU which means that Britain, under a Conservative Government, will continue to lose its freedom and sovereignty and its painful slide into EU serfdom and total obliteration as the new supreme EU undemocratic government takes over.
If you want to judge for yourself who made the better and more powerful attack on Gordon Brown in the European Parliament, then click onto the links below.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
So, my goodness, wouldn’t it be great if the people of Britain had a written Constitution, the very first written constitution this Country has ever had, everything set out in one paper? Doesn’t that sound absolutely lovely and in our life time too? But then, maybe the people will start to wonder what can be behind this Government that has only ever done things that they want, that will benefit THEM, come on—they have ignored the millions of people that wanted a referendum on that treacherous Lisbon Treaty that is incompatible with our Constitution so WHY should this Government remember suddenly the people that voted for them and pay their wages? Surely it is all too good to be true?
However, see clause 61 of the Treaty of Magna Carta, for the people may not accept the Lisbon Treaty anyway and it is ready and waiting to be used again. That is what Magna Carta is there for Magna Carta does not need ‘modernising’ it may well be used to save Britain from being taken over by the EU even yet. The people are fed up of voting and paying MP's that can no longer do the job of instigating our laws; just incorporating laws made by foreigners that are not in Britain's interests will not suffice any longer.
One of Sir Edward Coke's greatest contributions to the law was to interpret Magna Carta to apply not only to the protection of nobles but also to all subjects of the crown equally, which effectively established the law as a guarantor of rights among all subjects against even Parliament and the King. He famously asserted: "Magna Carta is such a fellow, that he will have no sovereign. "END of Quote.
This then means, that if 'put' comes to 'shove', then Claus 61 Magna Carta can be legally used by all the people, not just by 25/4 Barons.
No new written constitution can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government's own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that clear. A snippet here for you
"Again, the theory of sovereignty means that no Parliament can bind its successors, and this inability of Parliament to prevent any law from being later altered or repealed by a Parliament means that, in principle, no scheme of constitutional change-Bill of Rights, devolution, even, perhaps a written constitution itself* - can be entrenched - made secure against any or easy amendment or repeal-in the legal order. The recent schemes by proponents of Scottish devolution and some form of a Bill of Rights demonstrate how difficult (perhaps impossible) it is to reconcile formal, legal entrenchment (as opposed to 'political-moral' entrenchment) with conventional sovereignty".
Magna Carta of course is a Treaty between the people and the Crown and Parliament may not alter it. See also the people's Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9. To get round this however, the Government believe they have come across the one thing that would get over the obstacle that is in their way. Give the people a referendum whether they want, for the very first time a Constitution written especially for them, the people of this Country. Will the people 'smell a rat'? Or, will the people jump at the chance?
Today’s people, sadly, have not been taught about Magna Carta etc as I was in my school days. In voting to accept a new written Constitution and any new Bill of Rights, who would dare to ignore the voice of the people? That is also why we were never allowed a referendum on Lisbon.
This is a government that is prepared to give the EU our National Security to ‘oversee’, (never before in the History of this Country has this Country allowed foreigners to have anything to do with our NATIONAL Security- to give secrets away, where our forces were and how many, its strengths and weaknesses etc, might have been a hanging offence in the last war) Our remaining territorial Seas and Oceans for the EU’s Motorway in the Sea? Shall Britannia always rule the waves? To make us REAL citizens of the EU not just the 'pretendy' citizens of Maastricht. etc, etc. The people, as the Government is beginning to be aware, will not allow this to happen if they can help it.
I have no doubt that Mr Straw has already got a written Constitution, included in it a new Bill of Rights. I rather suspect the people WOULD be given a referendum on whether they would like to have this Country's first written Constitution. What Mr Straw will NOT tell the people is that in voting FOR IT, they may also be agreeing to getting rid of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights we already have. Or, will Magna Carta remain, doggedly, stubbornly as it was always intended to be? For Magna Carta holds the key to being used on an overbearing Government in the same way it was once used to very good effect over an overbearing King. Also not explained fully by Mr Straw is that in creating a new Bill of Rights and written Constitution that the people would vote on may destroy in a ‘yes’ vote the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9, which holds the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown to which British Governments and the rest of us swear by. MP’s perhaps think they would not be violating their oath of Allegiance to the Crown or Country by ratifying the EU Constitutional Document if there is no Oath to swear to. Violation of the Oath of Allegiance is the very essence of treason.
Magna Carta is a TREATY between the people and the Crown; this is why Parliament has to get the people themselves to agree to 'do away with it.' Ah yes, by stealth probably, without telling the people why.
Can it be altered in any way or repealed at the moment by government? For a recent quote, I quote the late Lord Renton when he said (Lords Hansard 20th July 2000) My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may mention one point in relation to his fascinating speech. He suggests that we should amend Magna Carta. We cannot do that. Magna Carta was formulated before we ever had a Parliament. All that we can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta.”
Earl Russell replied,” My Lords, the Noble Lord is of course correct in relation to present legislation. However, 17th century Parliaments treated Magna Carta, in its 1229 version, as being an Act of Parliament. I spoke loosely and I hope that the Noble Lord will forgive me.”
For those that tell me that there are only four clauses of Magna Carta left, I have over one hundred recent quotes from Hansard where arguments have been won or lost as the case may be, from Clauses that have been allegedly repealed. I would argue that one couldn’t win arguments by using a quote that has ‘been repealed’. The Law Lords also used Article 61 not too long ago-regarding the Treaty of Nice-an article that had allegedly been repealed.
I believe that in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty (which binds us all) in which our Government if ratified by all 27 Countries will be giving away the Royal Prerogative of Treaty Making Powers (Article 47a) which may not be used to impose unconstitutional legislation. How then can our elected Government control, having given it away through a Treaty and placed it in the hands of un-elected, unaccountable people we cannot remove and most certainly are not bound to the British Crown by a solemn oath of allegiance as our own Government are. Will these same un-accountable people eventually use the Royal Prerogative for war making? How can we prevent them? Is this a violation of their solemn Oath of Allegiance they all make to their Queen and Country. In overriding our Bill of Rights will they get rid of their Oath of Allegiance to the Crown and conjure up one made to the State, or perhaps even direct to the European Union?
In ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon, and the transferring of the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making powers, it becomes obvious that it was not in their gift to do so because only the Government used it on behalf of the Crown. Did it hope in allowing the Parliament a ‘say’ on war making powers, it too would allow the EU to make decisions on our Country going to war? Perhaps dropping the title “Royal Prerogative” before hand and then maybe it might not seem so bad when it is eventually passed to the EU to use through or after the Treaty of Lisbon
There is a great deal more than one could imagine to the thinking behind Mr Straw's suggestion for a new Bill of Rights and a written Constitution. There is far more to it than I have written about here for I have only just scratched the surface. If there is any doubt about the importance of making the Oath of Allegiance, no elected Member of Parliament may take up their seat if they do not make the Oath of Allegiance. Violation of that Oath is the very essence of treason, perhaps the greatest betrayal of all. Certainly others in the past that failed to keep their Oath have walked the long walk and lost an important part of their body. For now, March 2009. I understand the New Bill of Rights is to be ‘on hold’ although there is, I think to be an ongoing debate about it. I hope to up-date this after I have read through the Green Paper.
Monday, 23 March 2009
Going on these figures one third of those working are, through generating wealth and paying their taxes, keeping the other two thirds in the lifestyles they have become accustomed to.
For the one third working in the private sector all the pressure is on them. Those unemployed or living on a pension or some sort of disability allowance their incomes, although not generous, give them the basics they need without the stress and strains of commuting to work and having the boss jumping down your throat. Those working in the public sector are generally doing quite nicely, thank you. No worries when it comes to seeing the value of your pension plummet through the floor thanks to the Government raiding it, or through the economy going into freefall and your pension with it. No, for this sector their pensions are safe and assured as are their incomes. No pay cuts for them, no worries about redundancy or having holiday entitlements cut, just life as normal.
But what about that one third who work in industry, who run small businesses, the army of self employed tradesmen and those who deal with the public in shops and stores around the country? These people are the wealth creators who pay for the other two thirds of the population and there are no privileges for them. Their jobs and wages are not secure for life, their pensions have been wrecked and their savings, if any, no longer generate any real interest for them.
Yet it is these few who keep the rest. It is this one third who are the most abused and put upon in the whole of our society. The self employed and those running businesses that employ people are treated like potential criminals by HM Revenue and Customs who can mount sudden raids on their businesses at a moments notice. It is this sector who the Government expect to carry on uncomplaining as they get squeezed. These are the people who get moaned at if they struggle to meet the needs and demands of the public sector – in reality these are the Cinderella’s of our society today and life is getting harder for them as everyone else gets the “bailouts” and the “handouts” while they just cope with the flack that comes their way with nothing from the state, not even a thank you.
If that one third decide enough is enough, what will the other two thirds do then? No doubt they will call them selfish for denying them the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Friday, 20 March 2009
Do our Politicians really know what they are doing?
Our Government makes the point that there are different systems in the UK (Devolution) so what is the point in THAT if the EU is to take an over-all control system.
The UK Papers says, 25.18 In conclusion, the Government considers that the Commission would be "unwise" to attempt to carry forward an immense single project covering the whole of the subject matter of the Green Paper in a single stage and recommends that the Commission should divide the work into separate and manageable areas, giving priority to those parts that are likely to be achievable and to bring demonstrable benefits to citizens. The Government also recommends that serious consideration be given to exploring the need for, and the possibility
of achieving, an instrument harmonising choice of law rules in matters of succession (excluding administration and distribution of estates) and that if progress could be made in that area, it might be possible to build on that achievement in other areas covered by the Green Paper.
However, this is the latest message from the EU parliament. On 16th November, MEPs voted overwhelmingly (450 to 51) in favour of a report by Mr Gargani of the Committee on Legal Affairs, asking the European Commission to draw up a Community legal instrument relating to private international law on successions and wills, as already called for in the 1998 Vienna action plan, the programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters, adopted by the Council and Commission in 2000, the Hague Programme of 4 November 2004 for strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, and the Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union (p.3-4).
Death and the dying have nothing what so ever to do with the intrusion of the EU into wills and succession. Reading the UK paper makes clear that our elected, and paid by you and me Members of a British Parliament and Members of Her Majesty's Government cannot stop or prevent any of the tiniest bit of EU legislation from taking over and governing our once sovereign Country. All of this, the governing of our Country by foreigners-all of the legislation passed is not and none of it has been for all these years, in the interest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All of it is strictly against our Common Law Constitution. ( See Declaration 17 Lisbon). It is time to get out and get out NOW. Also see HERE.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Even the pro-EU BBC are having to reveal this fact as can be seen on this video on You Tube which is well worth taking a look. UKIP leader, Nigel Farage MEP, is also featured I the video towards the end.
Some additional information, posted after John made his comment (see comments)can be found in the BBC Politics site, and the full poll can be downloaded here. In addition the poll results are below, take a look at number 4 which the BBC did not mention in the broadcast – I wonder why?
The poll was conducted for BBC2's Daily Politics programme by ComRes. They spoke to 1,004 voters between the 13th March and 16th March.
1. The current economic crisis has made me more likely to support Britain joining the Euro
2. Britain benefits overall from membership of the European Union in terms of jobs and trade
3 Britain should leave the EU but maintain close trading links
4. The British people should decide in a vote before Britain transfers any further power to the European Union
Before you click on this link to a 2006 EU document on creating a European identity, consider these facts. When Britain joined the Common Market, without consultation or a referendum in 1973, we were told that we would not have laws made for use by people in Europe or that we would lose, at that traitor Prime Minister Heath put it, any “essential sovereignty”.
Here we are, years on, and we have lost the majority of our sovereignty and EU law overrides UK law – it will become even worse if and when the appalling Lisbon Treaty is ratified and enforced. Now take a look at this and you can see that the EU’s aim to create an European identity is all part of creating one nation called the United States of Europe. When politicians and pro-EU bull-shiners tell you the opposite, then you in turn tell them to stuff their lies and deceit up the Treaty of Rome, which contains the words: “Ever closer union”. People warned Heath about that then and he denied it had any meaning, well take a look at THIS and you can see for yourself.
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
“This clause is taken from the failed Constitutional Treaty. It only regulates what would already have been possible in the past, since no member state would have been obliged to stay in the European Union against its will. The new provision (Article 49a TEU) only makes this option visible and provides a procedure for an ‘orderly retreat’. It foresees negotiations, but in case these fail, the member state can leave the Union two years after notifying the European Council of its intentions. The voluntary withdrawal clause can thus be seen as a safeguard against unconsidered moves by national governments (e.g. in case a government comes to power after promising to leave the Union in the election campaign, it would at least have to wait for two years, if negotiations fail)” (That paragraph is taken from CEPS Policy Brief number 147 December 2007)
On Europa, it clearly states that, “After joining the European Union, countries remain members by choice. The Treaty of Lisbon includes a voluntary withdrawal clause, recognising that the member states may always withdraw from the Union if they wish to.” From another site, “Did you know that the Lisbon Treaty includes a clause specifying (for the first time!)? a process for leaving the EU? With this in mind, shouldn't people who want Britain to leave the EU support this treaty?” (Cheeky!)
I have stated previously that once Lisbon has been ratified by all 27 States and has become “live” I doubt if any Country would be able to ‘withdraw’, because I have no doubt at all that the EU would be ready to implement most of the ‘articles’ in the Treaty it has waited so long to implement. Remember, “The currency of the Union shall be the Euro”? Our Government has signed up to that – there is no clause in that Article which states, “Only after the UK has let the people vote “YES” or “NO” in a referendum”.
Gradually, over the years, Britain’s Administrations have been chipping away at our own Common Law Constitution. For instance, where we once only allowed British subjects/nationals in our Parliament, police, forces, justices, etc we have signed up to “there will be no discrimination on nationality” which is contrary to our own constitution. We cannot close our borders and we may have to fill in forms to go on holiday, or to work abroad-giving many details as to who we are, where we live etc, maybe finger printed, or eyes scanned. We are spied on, prosecuted for many things, prevented from doing things that were once the ‘norm’ like smoking in public places. Is drinking alcohol the next? Chocolate? Cakes? Sweets? Many things ‘invented’, perhaps to take details, fingerprints for the Data Base and money from people to fill the gaps left because Government or EU need it far more than we do? Yet the only people that are free to come and go will be illegal immigrants and we have seen the queues waiting to cadge a free lift while we pay yet again for our Journey.
Our Government has signed up to the constitutional Lisbon Treaty, but it has got a withdrawal clause, a get out of jail free clause. We have a “RIGHT” to withdraw. This kind of gives the people a ‘safe feeling’, a ‘warm feeling’ when we are ‘loaning’ or ‘sharing’ our sovereignty over another new area-we are not transferring sovereignty, we are not “losing” it forever because we can come out of the EU, see, it says so, it is written in the Treaty. For the very first time, voluntary withdrawal is written into an EU Treaty.
This withdrawal clause is like a safety valve to save people, pro-national people from blowing their top, so that Governments can always refer to it, to ‘reassure’ people. I do not know whether our government really believes what they tell the people; believes how they interpret the Treaties, or even if they have actually read them? One MP that actually signed the Treaty of Maastricht was reputed to have said that he hadn’t. Remember also an MP likened The European Charter of Fundamental Rights to the Beano Comic? Another MP, that the EU Constitutional Treaty was “Just a -idying up exercise”? Did government tell the people exactly what they are doing and what these Treaties were about and they wanted and were proud to be part of the making of history? Or did they deliberately lie to the people as the late Edward Heath admitted on TV many years later, that he lied to the people in 1972-75? Or did they just ‘mislead’ the people because they too wanted the European Union to govern this Country and make all our laws fit in with the continental system of Corpus Juris? To eventually become real citizens of the European Union as the Government has, according to the Royal Website, made The Queen a citizen of the European Union?
In the Treaty of Lisbon, they have even given the powers the elected British Government Ministers themselves use on behalf of the British Crown- The Royal Prerogative – allegedly for Treaty making, to the European Union. (Art 47a, “the Union shall have Legal Personality”) I did not see anything in the Treaty to say the Royal Prerogative may not be used for war making-or sending our troops into battle. Did you? There is no point in having an EU Army if the EU cannot command it. Ah! Did I hear you say the Queen (Crown) is Commander-in-Chief of our Army? What about our Navy then, who Commands Her Majesty’s fleet? Did not Her Majesty ‘review’ her fleet not so long ago? Where is part of it at present? In the EU navy after Somalia pirates and will be so, we are told, for twelve months.
I very much doubt the withdrawal clause was ever meant to be used. It is like a comfort zone, it is like putting food in a freezer. We are not going to use our own sovereignty for a long time perhaps, but it is “there” even though it is out of sight, it is there. We have frozen our Sovereignty, it is still there, we haven’t annulled it, nor repealed it, and while it is still there, we must still be a nation State. Right?
In the mean time, knowing our sovereignty is still there, frozen, we can go ahead with the EU’s Regions, EU Police, Army, Navy, all our food GM food, welcome Codex Alimentarius, mandatory vaccines, actually welcome anything the EU wants to do.
Sadly however, we all know what happens to food that has been frozen in the fridge for too long. It is just the same when some one else has been using our sovereignty when we ‘loaned’ it to them or ‘shared’ it, even friends think something on loan for 30-40 years is theirs forever, to use. Actually the EU is busy ‘planning’ for the next 50 years that seems like forever to me. Will our MP’s still expect us to vote for them? Be paid for governing us? Will we just be Regions of the EU? No Crown as head of State? No British Constitution because our own MP’s and Government have destroyed it bit by bit? How does the “Comfort Zone” feel now eh? Oh, I forgot, we can always repeal the European Communities Act 1972 can’t we? Or is that too another Comfort Zone? Is that just “THERE”? I suggest that our Government withdraws the very constitutional Treaty of Lisbon before all 27 Nation States ratify it, and put it to the people in a referendum as they should have done in the first place. Rather that than what may or will come after.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Although both the Conservative and Labour parties have taken us ever more deeper and deeper in to the EU mire over the years (the Lib Dims would have loved to added to the mess had they been given a chance), there is one political party which the blame really and truly rests with, which is the Conservative Party as it was they, under the leadership of Ted Heath, who took us into the Common Market and signed the Treaty of Rome. All without a referendum or consultation of the British people.
To get us in Heath stayed deliberately silent on many major issues, such as the giving away of our fishing water, and he deliberately lied when asked about the loss of sovereignty and if any Common Market laws (now EU laws) would override British law when he said no.
So, here we are, thirty six years on since joining, several Conservative Prime Ministers and leaders (especially since 1997!) later, and nothing has changed. Heath’s successor today, David Cameron, is still being deceitful with the electorate and his own party members.
As we all know he made the promise during his leadership campaign to take the Tory MEPs out of the rabidly federalist EPP group in the European Parliament within weeks of becoming leader, a promise still being being talked about but not honoured, and he is also being deceitful about the EU too as proven in a reply to UKIP Councillor Alan Wood.
Alan wrote to David Cameron’s office and asked:
Dear Mr. Cameron,
The Bruges Group regularly send details of their meetings, and developments in the EU.
The latest is a horrifying catalogue of future policy takeovers by the EU. The are copied below.
By 2010 it is possible that you will be Prime Minister of just England and Wales and have no real power. Why are you so keen to be Prime Minister when the EU will have most of the powers?
I cannot possibly support the Conservative party under the circumstances that you wish to remain in the EU. Do you have any intention of changing your mind on this, the only real issue that matters in politics today?
Alan received a reply from Cameron’s office and in the first few lines he was informed of the Conservative Party’s stance on the EU. The reply written by Cameron’s correspondence secretary, Anna Biles, stated: “We believe it would be wrong for Britain to leave the European Union. The EU does much that is worthwhile.” So, abandon all hope any traditional Conservative who forlornly still believe their Tory Party will save them from the EU mess their party got them into in the first place. Those words were also deceitful too, there is nothing worthwhile that the EU does.
The misleading statements go on in this letter: “Britain has an enormous amount to gain through co-operation and free trade in Europe. That is why we want Britain to be a positive participant in the EU, championing liberal values.” We are outvoted and not allowed to champion anything, added to which the EU wouldn’t know what “Liberal values” were if they came up to it and slapped it in the face.
However, for even more deceit read on from this letter:
“So we opposed the EU Constitution in principle, and that is why, now it has been brought back in substance under a different name, David, and his colleagues, are working so hard to hold Gordon Brown’s Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats to the election manifesto pledges they made to voters and get the referendum on the Lisbon EU Treaty we were all promised.
It is also why we have pledged that a Conservative government will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any new EU Treaty that transfers competences – essentially EU legal language for powers – from the UK to the EU would be subject to a referendum of the British people. This is because we strongly uphold the principle that people should have freedom and control over their own lives, and it should no longer be possible for Governments to hand over power to the EU without the British peoples’ explicit permission.
We are optimistic that with a firm view of our national interests in mind and a clear vision of Europe ’s proper priorities – global competitiveness, global poverty and global warming – we can succeed in reforming the EU so that it is fit for the twenty first century. It will not be fast. It will not be easy. But we believe it can be done.
This part then contains two of the biggest lies yet, they have to be lies as surely anyone with a minuscule of knowledge how the EU works would know that the Treaty of Rome cannot be amended – David Cameron would be derided and laughed at for even mentioning it at any EU get together – he would probably be told in French to stop being a silly little leader, to stop buggering around and do as the EU says, as all of our leaders have been ordered to do so in the past.
But even more worrying than that, is the comment about holding referendums on any future treaties after the Lisbon Treaty has been approved. The question has to be asked – what treaties? If and when Lisbon is fully ratified there will be no more treaties, the Lisbon Treaty is self amending and from then on no further treaties will be necessary for the EU to grab power and get its way. This letter is full of lies, lies and damned lies.
They say a leopard never changes its spots, and the Tory Party that lied its way into the Common market is still lying its way into a fully federal and possibly fascist EU. The only option on June the 4th will be to vote UKIP. Don’t mess about with the Tories, they are still intent on betrayal and a vote for any racist or one of the other silly little parties that are suddenly springing up will be a wasted vote, they will do nothing but split EU-sceptic votes far and wide which will play into the EU’s hands. And don’t sit at home taking a so called moral stance by not voting, the EU won’t care, you will be branded as one of those too apathetic to vote and you will just be helping to put another Europhile Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat or Libertas pro-EU bum on on a seat in that sham parliament. Voting UKIP is the only option.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
In an article for politics.co.uk, the leader of the UK Independence Party, Nigel Farage MEP wrote on Tuesday 10th March 2009:
Libertas launches in the UK this morning and it's going to be interesting to find out whether people understand the basic point about Declan Ganley. He's not against the European Union, far from it. He's very much a supporter of the project, just wishing to change very slightly the direction it's going in, that's all.
There's a rather bewildering assumption that because Declan campaigned so successfully for a No vote in the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that he's therefore against further integration, ever closer union and the rest of the federalist claptrap. We in UKIP stood alongside him in that campaign and thoroughly admire what he achieved. However, we're also very much aware that he's in favour of much of what makes up the European Project. It's really just the Lisbon Treaty he doesn't like.
Ganley starts from the same place that I do (and therefore his analysis, at this point, is obviously correct). The European Union is responsible for some 75 per cent of our laws, the aim of the grand project is to move power away from the people and place it firmly in the hands of a technocratic class of bureaucrats and there's very little or no democracy in the way that it functions. We both agree further that something about this needs to change. However, what it is that should change is where we diverge and this is where Declan and Libertas fall into error. Essentially, the same error the Conservative party has itself fallen prey to.
They both believe that, while the current situation is dire, matters can and will be improved by working from the inside, by attempting to change the direction of the juggernaut. Libertas is running on the idea that a few more elections, say an elected European Union president, will solve matters, that the voice of the people will be heard. The Tories seem to think that, well, it's difficult to know what the Tories actually intend to do about anything or, indeed, whether they would do anything if they themselves could make up their minds. We're still waiting for them to leave the EPP, something Cameron promised would happen in months, not years or weeks - that promise being what swung his election to the party leadership.
But however well-meaning this all is, however nice it would be to be able to believe that any of us could change the direction we're being moved in, this simply isn't possible. We're not being offered any choices on how the EU is going to work in the future, how it is going to develop. There are no opportunities to force or insist upon our own blueprints either. The parliament does not have the power to initiate legislation: that stays very firmly with the Commission. We are faced with only two choices. We accept the way the EU is, the way that decisions are made and the drive to creating a federal superstate. Or we reject that vision and decide to leave.
You'll recall that they didn't listen to the French or the Dutch in the referendums on the constitution. Also that they're not listening to the Irish on their referendum on the renamed and repacked constitution (now called the Lisbon treaty). They won't listen to calls for reform, for changes in direction, from inside the parliament either. The basic policy idea of both Libertas and the Tory party is flawed: they are arguing for negotiations with people who will not negotiate.
This is how we get to my and our position in UKIP. These changes that people desire are simply not possible while we remain within the Union. We have to leave and to cooperate where we wish and need to but for the rest of it simply become an independent and sovereign nation once again.
Nigel Farage is the leader of the UK Independence party (UKIP).
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
In this article he stated that spread betting companies have reported a huge wave of short euro trades in the last couple of weeks, which is leading to speculation that a “significant correction in the currency will come in the next few months.”
Garry White explains: “Investors take out short trade when they expect a currency to fall.” It seems, according to Mr White who has been observing the situation, that the futures traders are expecting the euro will fall against the dollar.
It seems that although the eurozone came into the recession later than other economies, the EU’s policy makers had been too slow to act placing the EU’s currency at risk. Many people have been predicting that the euro would not survive turbulent markets and would be put under extreme pressure at such times as this global economic downturn. We now all wait with baited breath for the collapse of the euro, which was the only thing inevitable about it.
Saturday, 7 March 2009
British politicians ever since have tried show that they too have had special relationships with the American Presidents they have encountered. That image has always been promoted to the British people and we have been told that we are allowed to see secrets which the Americans would not entrust to the other nations of Europe, especially the French. However, with one or two exceptions such as the Regan and Thatcher era, do we really have a special relationship with the Americans these days and does Obama really give a s#*t about Gordon Brown, the British people or our economy?
If the exchange of gifts between the two leaders is anything to go by during Gordon Brown’s recent visit, then the special relationship is on the rocks. Gordon, having beaten the others in the dash to visit Barrack Obama, was the first EU leader to visit the new President. He went, as is the way of these state visits, with a gift for the new President. He took a very special gift indeed of an ornamental pen holder which had been made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet. The President’s desk in the Oval Office was made from the timbers of the Gannet’s sister ship HMS Resolute. A lot of thought had gone into that gift.
What then did Mr Obama give to our dour Prime Minister to seal the special relationship? A box set of 25 DVDs of classic American films – so much for the special relationship.
So, what does this say to the British people? To this blogger it says we are alone in the world as a nation and it’s time to start looking after our own interests. The American President and his people are not really that bothered about Britain or the rest of Europe, they are more interested in their own plight – what goes on outside of the USA is of little concern to them.
The American nation has always been inward looking and to some degree isolated from the rest of the world, that’s why they have always said “London, England” or “Paris France” when talking about foreign cities in case these places were taken for granted to be on American soil. They will not be that bothered about the our financial centre in the City of London or if the British economy goes into a state of collapse, they will be looking to save American jobs and to defend American interests while we will still be pandering to the EU and pumping £billions into it which we cannot afford. The EU itself will continue to treat us with a mixture of contempt and irritation. Contempt with our leaders who are at the EU’s beck and call, and irritation when the British people get bolshy about EU interference in our lives.
The state of the world now dictates it is time to leave the fifty year plus experiment that is a United Europe. It is time to let the Americans go their own inward way and time to begin to make amends with our real friends in the British Commonwealth. We abandoned them when we flirted with what we thought was a glamorous bit of Continental stuff who, in reality, has turned out to be a harridan of EU federalism. Britain has to look to itself, to our interests and our future.
Friday, 6 March 2009
We all know that famous quote, those who fail to learn from histories mistakes are doomed to repeat them, if that’s the case then this incompetent Labour Government has doomed us all by the mistake of printing money.
In an announcement made yesterday the British people were told that the Bank of England was to introduce “Quantitative Easing”, in other words printing money £billions of it. As they announced another cut in interest rates they also announced that the bank will be printing £150bn in newly-created central bank money on corporate and government bonds.
When national banks begin to print money history shows that hyper inflation follows. We saw this in Germany in the 1930’s and in more recent times in Zimbabwe as Robert Mugabe’s administration falls to pieces.
According to a lead article in the business section of the Daily Telegraph, Friday 6th March 2009, it stated: “The Bank is embarking on this policy to stop the economy – already in the deepest recession since the 1980s – from tipping into depression.” Lets hope and prey that the right measures are being taken, but this bloggers instincts are warning that now the printing presses are rolling it won’t be too long before we will all be millionaires, sadly, as in Zimbabwe, a note with a million written on it may buy you a cup of tea – if you’re lucky.
Whatever happens in these strange fiscal times we’re in for a bumpy ride – hyper inflation here we come!
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
As Heffer pointed out, at times of pressure such as this global fiscal crisis will “bring into play tensions between idealism and nationalism”. It is hard to predict what exactly will happen as this recession get worse and the numbers of unemployed, home repossessions increase and great hardship begins to hit the people all across the European Union area, what will happen then.
Simon Heffer, who is a writer of much respect who never fails to take a swipe at the EU, predicts that the German’s will get increasingly unhappy about propping up the rest of the eurozones economies and having to use its money to bail the less prudent nations out. He concludes: “As for the rest of Europe, it must choose either to devalue and end the pretence of economic strength, or persist and risk the breakdown of individual governments.”
However, there are countless scenarios which could come about as the natives of Europe become jobless, homeless and restless. We have already seen rioting in Greece as the people there feel frustrated and powerless, this could explode all over Europe, the French revolution could look quite tame in comparison.
There are those who will see this as the beginning of the end of the European Union and hope that the nations currently tied, unnaturally, together begin to take an every nation for itself policy and begin to bail out of the eurozone, which is the preferred option, but we must never forget that the EU’s leaders are never hesitant to turn a crisis to their advantage.
The long standing anti-EU campaigner and UKIP supporter, Torquil Dick Erickson who was the first to alert us to the introduction of the EU system of law,Corpus Juris, has in recent times been warning of the Euro Gendarmarie which is already up and running in some member nations. What a perfect opportunity this crisis could be for the EU to bring out its militarised police to use whatever means at their disposal to quell unrest all across the EU, including the UK. We could even see the EU using its army, otherwise known as the ‘Rapid Reaction force’, working alongside the Euro Gendarmaria to bring any unrest under control. The EU could even rush through emergency powers and create a EU wide form of marshal law – all this would mean British subject rampaging in London and other major UK cities could face the might of armed and uniformed French, German and other European militarised forces. Combine that with some of Stalinist Labour’s laws such as the Civil Contingencies Act and we have a very scary prospect ahead of us.
Such a scenario could, rather than destroying the EU, actually give it the power and legal status it has been quietly gathering for the best part of fifty years. As the cover on the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy states: “Don’t panic”, keep calm and just carry on as best you can, and whatever you do - don’t fall into the EU’s trap.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
I have just had a chinwag with another UKIP member about Robin Page’s accusation, which was part of his irrational rant in the Torygraph yesterday, that UKIP had secretly come out in favour of GM crops. As confirmed by this other member, this was a blatant lie.
As I wrote in the posting on this blog, ‘Of the same ilk’, this issue was debated at the UKIP conference in Bournemouth last year and around 60% of the UKIP members present voted against GM crops. For those who think UKIP have gone soft on this issue because Robin Page, who did not make the effort to attend what was one of UKIP’s best conferences yet, and who could not get his facts correct, then this confirms that UKIP is opposed as ever to ‘Frankenstein foods’.
The general reaction since Robin’s outburst is what a silly man he is, if he wasn’t selected as a UKIP MEP candidate because he could not bother to get his paperwork in on time despite having an extension afforded him, then that was his own silly fault – few seem to have any sympathy for him.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Robin’s problems regarding the selection process for the European elections are of his own making. It is sad to see a man who was so well liked both making an utter fool of himself and playing into the pro-EU hands of the Tories, Labour and any other ant-British groups who support the UK’s enslavement to the European Soviet.
You can read Nigel’s reply on the UKIP WEB-SITE.
It was sad to see Robin Page announce, so publicly on the pages of the Daily Telegraph, his resignation from UKIP. Robin has always been someone I have admired since first encountering him at the 1996 Referendum Party conference in Brighton where he gave one of his typical irreverent talks on the EU which had the full attendance of his audience.
Over the years since, as a UKIP conference organiser and past member of UKIP’s National Executive Committee, I have had some contact with Robin, especially when asking him to speak at our UKIP conferences, and it was a great privilege to have known him. However, because of his fit of pique that the rules could not be bent especially for him regarding his late application to apply for his name to be put on the UKIP MEP list, I feel he is quite wrong to make the statements he did on the pages of the Telegraph, which as a Tory supporting publication made sure he was given a prominent place to wail his grievances.
UKIP, under the strong leadership of Nigel Farage, is working hard to expose the damage done to the UK through membership of the EU. It was Nigel Farage who created outrage in the cosy world of the EU Parliament when he exposed the past misdeeds of Jacques Barrot at the time France was proposing him as a Commissioner. It is UKIP MEP’s who constantly vote against the EU directives which are responsible for the closure of our Post Offices and the introduction of such EU inspired lunacies of having to drive in bright daylight with headlights on. If UKIP is so cosy with the EU then why are its MEPs so hated and reviled within the EU Parliament? If it is a gravy train which Robin opposes why did he want to get on it?
Had Robin taken the time and trouble to attend the UKIP conference last year he could have voted on the motion regarding genetically modified crops which, despite him complaining was done in secret, was decided by the membership. He stated: "The grassroots of UKIP are good people," so why are you betraying them Robin? I thought that being a down to earth countryman he would not be the sort of person to suffer from silly tantrums and go storming off because he could not get his own way, as another sun-tanned TV personality once did – but it seems Robin Page is of the same ilk.