Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Friday, 24 April 2009
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
You may remember reading in the Daily Papers, for the newspaper headlines on 1st April screamed out, “EU says our naval bases should be controlled by Brussels” and “Now all of our forces are put at Europe’s disposal” which nudged me into looking into and making sure this was not an April Fool’s Day joke.
I found a UK Agreement or Treaty, and then went looking for an EU binding Directive on the matter and yes, there it was in all its glory in the Official Journal of Journal of the European Union C 321/6. 31/12 2003 with signature of the people that have signed it on behalf of the Nation State. I noticed that the dates at the beginning of the Agreement, was 2003, and when printed, 2009. Noted also was that the contents of the Agreement became ‘active’ when all had signed it.
Here is the first paragraph that meets the onlooker: “Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context (EU SOFA) Brussels, 17 November 2003”. Which had been presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, March 2009.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from Article 17 from the Treaty on European Union mentioned in the paragraph (Consolidated version Article 42). for your ease,
1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities.
6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfill higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.
THIS may explain why our Government has altered over the years our forces and equipment to fit in with the European Union’s needs, which is not in the interests of our Country or in the safety of our British Forces or our National Security. Our Government says and makes sure we know that it is they that will decide whether they will cooperate and it is their national decision that will decide whether to take part, but can they now after implementation of this EU Directive? Or the Treaty ratified at Maastricht? Even without the Treaty of Lisbon? Who stands the cost of the secondment?
Article 188R. The Solidarity Clause. A new article in ‘Lisbon’ which introduces a new and wide-ranging “solidarity clause” which compels the Member states to act together in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack”, which we, as an independent and once sovereign Nation have always done-though by asking any sovereign state first if they would like assistance.
This “Agreement” document regarding our forces appears not to be the same as regards our involvement with NATO, where some members have not taken part in all conflicts. The Solidarity clause in the previous paragraph and article 17 from the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on Union=signed and ratified by the Conservatives) make clear the commitment made by the Nation States. Those countries that joined the Union after Maastricht, accepted in the joining all the previous EU Treaties.
I now ask you, if you have seen any of this printed in any News Papers? Has any British Politician that YOU have voted into power told you that they have accepted this Agreement or explained its contents to you? There are many constitutional implications as regards this matter, which for now will have to be left to another day. Anne Palmer 17.4.2009.
For more information see: Official Journal of Journal of the European Union C 321/6. 31/12 2003.
Also: UK Agreement.
Monday, 20 April 2009
As the Governor of the Bank of England he sailed this country of ours through some turbulent times and always kept an even keel – to use some nautical puns. Because he was such a steady and unflappable person he earned his nickname “Steady Eddie”.
According to the obituary column in the Daily Telegraph, Lord George who passed away on Saturday aged 70, was considered to be a Euro-sceptic even though he did not give an opinion, he did not show any enthusiasm for the euro project and was critical of a ‘one size fits all’ interest rate.
We may not have it exactly in words, but I personally suspect that we have a lot to thank Lord George for saving us from the dire euro fate that has been inflicted on other EU countries and seen inflationary pressures in the eurozone countries as prices were rounded up.
Sadly, cancer took him at the age of 70, which did not give him a very long retirement. He will without doubt be remembered, his place in history is already embedded.
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Friday, 17 April 2009
The EU and its acolytes have this peculiar dream that the ideas and aspirations of more than half a century ago can solve today’s problems, so its no wonder most of them go around with their heads in the clouds. On the other hand, considering the words of Arnold Toynbee from those early days of this federalist fiasco, to which he said: “We must deny with our mouths that we do with our hands.” There is also a sinister aspect too. If their plans for Europe were so wonderful why the need to tell porkies about it? Why the need to deceive and deny?
All those who support the EU project constantly try to debunk the warnings andpredictions of the Euro realists amongst us, yet over and over again we in the EU-sceptic camp are proven right and their flat denials proven wrong. If I had a real British sterling pound for every time I have given a warning about something the EU is planning, only to be denied by a Euro fanatic, I would have wealth in abundance equal to that of an EU Commissioner.
One EU denier, a chap by the name of Collis Greton, who is an old adversary of mine from the days when the Birmingham Post, under the editorship of Nigel Hastilow, used to be a decent morning newspaper. We often challenged each other on those pages about what the EU was about, and of late Collis has been following this blog.
Picking up on my posting about French fishermens blockade against the mad EU inspired CFP, he has put a posting on a web-site called ‘Trumpeter 4 Europe’. He states:
“Useless Ukip’s Walsall based Derek Bennett writes in his latest blog “history seems to decree that we British are born with an inbuilt dislike of the French” but continues with the observation that one has to admire them for “standing up for their interests.” This in response to “those bolshy French fishermen blockading the ports in protest over the EU’s “mad” fishing quotas”. Followed up with the cry “why can’t our fishermen have the same guts?
“Dislike of other nationalities is not inbuilt but learnt through life’s experience and peer influence. No wonder many far right Conservatives among others are attracted to useless Ukip at European Parliament elections. And little wonder Bennett’s party is so frequently associated with the BNP.”
Hmm, this just goes to show how little people like Collis understand what is going on around them, no wonder the old deceivers such as Arnold Toynbee could pull the wool over their eyes. UKIP and the BNP are nothing alike in any shape or form whatsoever. The BNP is a rather unpleasant political party with a very dodgy background and some less than savoury characters within it ranks. It is, just like the old Nazi party in Germany that so ruthlessly massacred millions of people, is a left leaning party – hence the reason it attracts the foolish and gullible from the left of the political spectrum. On the other hand, UKIP, which may have an attraction to those of the moderate right, such as myself, draws to it people with a collection of varying political views. Within UKIP’s ranks are those who have given up on Labour, the Liberal Democrats and, of course, the Conservatives over their pro-EU stance. Those who say we should have a coalition of ideas can find it in UKIP – we have joined political forces to fight against the EU imposing its undemocratic will upon us.
Collis goes on the say:
“Mad” EU fishing quotas Ukip would have you believe are ruining the industry, not over-fishing or changing environmental factors. The fishermen out of short-sighted self interest claim there’s plenty of fish and these draconian quota measures are unnecessary. The science tells a different story and it is science data on which the quota system is based. The fishing community pain is shared equitably.”
He very conveniently failed to mention exactly how the fishing quota works, which rather than preserving fish stocks the CFP is an ecological disaster zone. Fishermen are given a species quota, when they trawl their nets and pull up fish they are not allowed to catch it has to be dumped, dead, back into the sea and they have to go off and try somewhere else, over and over again until, after a lot of effort, they finally catch what the EU allows. In their wake they leave a sub aquatic disaster of dead and rotting fish on the sea bed – this then is the EU’s way of preserving fish and Collis and he EU chums wonders why we call it mad!
Whatever those of us who study the ways of the EU say about it, and whatever warnings we give, there is this tiny rump of pro-EU flat earthers who are trained to deny, deny and deny again.
In what can be described as hilarious, or even insulting, this pro-EU web-site states that Prime Minister Ted Heath was “patriotic” when he took Britain into the Common Market because it was in our interests. Now you can see what we are dealing with. In fact Heath confessed to lying many years later when at that time he denied that we would have laws made for us by people we don’t elect and lied when he said there would be “no essential loss of sovereignty”. The EU now makes around 70 to 80 per cent of our laws and the loss of sovereignty is massive. Harold Wilson also lied during our one and only referendum in 1975 when he said the “threat of a single currency had been eradicated”, again proven wrong, and since then the pro-EU side don’t seem to know when to stop telling fibs – in fact you have to wonder if they could even recognised truth if it came up to them and slapped them in the face with a wet fish!
They denied an EU police force – we now have Europol, they denied that we would have an EU army - we now have the EU rapid reaction force. They denied we would have an EU constitution which was almost correct thanks to the French and Dutch voters, but is back in the shape of the Lisbon treaty, and no doubt they will deny that the EU will be able to order our British armed forces to go to war on the EU’s behalf too when more news of this gets out. This is something that this blog will be covering next week thanks to some dedicated research into the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties by a pro-British anti-EU campaigner, who, unlike Heath and other members of the EU Taliban, knows the true meaning of the word ‘patriotism’.
The road to Hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions. The road to a federal states of Europe is full of all the things that were never going to be but somehow are – and the EU zealots will conveniently forget they ever denied.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Pop into the green calculator a few details such as the type of car you drive, gas and electricity bills, and hey presto up pops the total the additional amount the Government are screwing you in so-called ‘green taxes’ which don’t actually do anything other than make you poorer and the EU, via our subservient Government, richer.
This calculator comes with a warning, it may upset you as there are scenes of graphic and extortionate tax extraction!
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Monday, 13 April 2009
Sunday, 12 April 2009
Friday, 10 April 2009
The trouble with blogging is there is always pressure on you to keep putting posts on your blog. If you don’t, those who are inclined to take a peep from time to time at the ramblings of Bennett think you have given up and that your blog has become static – which is the last thing I want for this blog. The problem is – life gets in the way when there are many other things to do than prattle on about what interests you, which in my case is my obsession with saving our country from being swallowed whole by the European Union.
It is due to being busy with other things which has kept me away from this blog for the last couple of days, one of which was a quite enjoyable event last night (9th April) in Rugely, Staffordshire.
The Stafford UKIP branch, which is run mostly by Roy Goode and Malcolm Hurst, with the help of Ellis Stones, organised a fund raising dinner with Neil & Christine Hamilton as the guests of honour. Neil Hamilton had to sing for his supper and was the after dinner speaker for the evening. He was introduced by the Earl of Bradford, both men were old friends from their days in the Palace of Westminster. Richard Bradford in the Lords, before Tony Blair screwed things up and mangled their Lordships house and tried to fill it with his New Labour cronies, and Neil Hamilton in the House of Commons before the incident with the Harrods boss and the advent of the man in the White suit. For both of them there have been some dramatic shifts in their lives since. However, both men have resolutely pulled through the personal disasters that have beset them in the years since and have come out of things remarkably well.
Neil Hamilton, in his entertaining talk, said that he had joined the anti-Common Market campaign back in the sixties in the days when Harold Wilson was trying to negotiate our membership. Obviously put off by Wilson’s Gannex mac and clouds of pipe smoke, De Gaule said ‘Non’. Neil Hamilton then said that he was against Heath negotiating our membership and he also campaigned in the 1975 referendum for Britain to withdraw.
On the whole the evening was a good one, everyone went home replete as there was no shortage of food, the plates were piled high and the wine flowed. Neil and Christine Hamilton sold a few of their books and signed them for those who purchased them. Although the evening was part of the campaign, it was like a night off for most of us – but now its back down to business, there is an election coming up on the 4th June and we have to ensure UKIP does well – even better than in 2004. That my friends, can only be done if you go out and are not distracted by the hubris and deceit all around, don’t be tempted to vote for some of the less than savoury political parties just because you want to shock (which includes the Tories, Labour and Lib Dims who have lied through their teethes for years about the EU) – get out there and vote for the UK Independence Party in your droves – it’s the only way you are going to send a clear message that you want out of the EU.
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
“Dear President Obama,
Please answer me this, what sort of reaction would you expect from the loyal citizens of the United States if one day you stood before them and stated: 'I intend to destroy the sovereignty of the US. I want to see the Dollar replaced by a currency that is under the control of foreign bankers who will set the interest rate for the US. I intend to make the Senate and my own Presidency subservient to this foreign power whose laws will override those of this country and whose constitution will become the constitution of the US. Finally, under the laws and rule of this foreign power hundreds of thousands of none US citizens will have equal rights to come and live in our country and to take the jobs of American workers – we will not be allowed to prevent this'?
What sort of response would you expect from such a statement? One can only presume, to put it in the mildest of terms, it would not be a favourable one – you may even be branded as a traitor and demands for your impeachment to take place.
So, why do I, a loyal British subject faithful to my Monarch and my country, ask such questions of you. The reason, Mr President, is because in effect the above scenario is the fate you are promoting to fall upon my fellow countrymen and also that of the peoples of other nations in Europe too.
When you spoke in Turkey and said that you wanted that nation to join the European Union. In reality, for those of us living in the UK, it is fact that we do have that very same ‘foreign power’ which can and does inflict a control over us similar to that described above. By promoting Turkish membership of the EU you were giving your consent that the once independent nations of Europe should be subservient to a foreign power whose laws are above those of the individual nations . You were in reality giving your approval for millions of Turkish people to have free movement across all of the EU with the undermining of Europe’s nations and the jobs of its people.
If you dare not promote such a thing for the American people, then why do you promote it for those of us who are struggling with the concept that eventually our nations will be no more, our currencies and our identities gone, and have inflicted upon us this new vast power, the democracy of which will be suspect and its constitution as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty?
There are ever growing numbers of us in the UK and all across Europe that are campaigning for our nations to break free of the EU – this will happen as the only way the EU has managed to get its way so far is through deceit and by denying democracy. I urge you to please come out on our side, the side of freedom and respect for the sovereignty of nations. It is past time the experiment that is the European Union is closed down – please support that view and the freedom of the people of Europe to preserve their nations, customs, currencies and identities which to them is of equal importance to the identity of the people of America."
With that in mind, although Lord Hoffmann who made the press recently for speaking out about the roll of the European Court, was right recently to make the stance he did against the Human Rights legislation that currently blights our legal system and infects our daily lives, his warnings sadly has little chance of stopping the avalanche that is the EU from rolling down on high and obliterating all our laws before it.
Speaking at a lecture to other judges, Lord Hoffmann said that he supported the European Convention on Human Rights but stressed that he did not support the institution that applied the law. He warned that the European Court in Strasbourg had gone beyond its remit and was using this legislation to create a “federal law of Europe”.
He warned that the European Court considered itself to be the equivalent of the Supreme court of the United States, ‘laying down a federal law of Europe.’ He also questioned the court’s ‘constitutional legitimacy’ and reminded that its judges were elected by a committee chaired by a Latvian politician (Boris Cilevics) and our British representatives were ‘a Labour politician with a trade union background and no legal qualifications (Lord Tomlinson) and ‘a Conservative politician (Christopher Chope MP) who was called to the bar in 1972 but so far as I know never practised’.
The judge rounded off his comments that our legal system had evolved over centuries of constitutional struggle and pragmatic change. He also stated that how the decisions regarding how our laws should be improved should be made in London, either by our democratic institutions or by judicial bodies integral to our own society. What the judge did not point out, however, was for these wishes to be carried out the only way it can be done is for the United Kingdom to leave the EU. If that is what you want too then you will have to vote for it on June 4th by voting for the UK Independence Party and say ‘No’ to EU laws.
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Friday, 3 April 2009
(following the Hall-Woodward-Bulow approach) (£ bn)
RBS Good Bank Bad Bank
(good & bad) 1,o12 1,012 -
Toxic assets 325 - 325
Derivatives 993 - 993
Equity in other bank - - 114
Total assets 2,330 1,012 1,432
Deposits 899 899 -
Debt securities &
other non-deposit 452 - 452
Derivatives 971 - 971
Total liabilities 2,322 899 1,424
Equity 8 114 8
& equity 2,330 1,013 1,432
Capital ratio 0.34% 11.25% 0.56%