Hang in shame, or stand proud - Men of Britain, just be truthful - please?........

Couresty of An Englishman's Castle comes this interesting study.............

If only scientists could settle the climate change question just as easily................

An Australian riposte..........

Readers will probably be aware that David Cameron wrote to Julia Gillard, his Aussie counterpart, to congratulate her on her decision to introduce a carbon tax.

Courtesy of Edward Spalton comes notice of this open letter to David Cameron:

"30 July 2011
 
Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London  SW1A 2AA
UNITED KINGDOM 


Dear Mr Cameron,
 
It is reported that you have written to the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. Julia Gillard MP to give support to her government's proposals to implement a carbon tax.

It is strange that you have felt it to be your business to interfere in the internal politics of another country, particularly as the matter is yet to be debated in our parliament and is a proposal that polls indicate to be very unpopular with the Australian people.

You should be aware that Australia is a completely independent and sovereign nation and that it has been around a hundred years since Britain dictated policy in this country. Furthermore, you must know that the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy requires a government, particularly a minority one, to have a mandate to introduce any law which has the potential to dramatically increase our cost of living. In your words as quoted: an 'ambitious package'. In fact, because of the specific promise made by Ms Gillard at the 2010 election, it can be said that the Australian government has a mandate NOT to  implement a carbon tax.

You, yourself, sought a mandate by way of a referendum by the British people before implementing change to your electoral Act. If you did feel yourself compelled to meddle in our politics surely it should have been to suggest that the Australian government follow your own example in seeking the will of the people on major change?
 
Yours sincerely

 Philip Benwell
 National Chair
 Australian Monarchist League"

We DC, what say you................? Bearing in mind of course that you, personally, don't believe in giving the people a voice and that the only reason you agreed to a referendum on the voting system was to stop your pet poodle from slipping his leash?

Closing the 'Net'? (2)

Readers will no doubt have read the first post in what has turned into a  two-part series, in which I wrote about suggestions that the internet should be 'controlled'.

During the course of the debate in Parliament on aspects of sovereignty during the 'Referendum Bill' some MPs made the point that it is Parliament that should make the law, not judges. As not a lot of people listen to our Parliament anymore on the basis it is but a 'toy parliament' - the real one being in Brussels -that debate was probably wasted. It would appear that recognising this fact, some 'learned' judges have decided to make a ruling, one that has serious implications for we proles.

According to this website a recent ruling in the Court of Appeal means:

"The significance of this ruling is that if you live in UK, every time you click on an internet link you must have a license for every page you open. This is the case for every link you follow on the internet, any link people send to you by email, or any link you find on Twitter or Facebook."

As Professor Lionel Bently, Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property, Cambridge University, states:

"there is something fundamentally wrong with a legal regime which renders the innocent acts of many millions of citizens illegal."

 I have yet to read the ruling, so it may be the following comments are misplaced and therefore invalid, but it would seem that what the Newspapers Licencing Authority have introduced is a form of censorship and if we are to have a free press - free in the sense that journalists should be able to write that which is true; and free in that what they print, whether on paper on post it on the internet, is for public consumption and thereby it is the public's right to disseminate that information in any manner they wish. But hey, what the hell do I know?

And we are a free people? Spheroids - it seems we are no more free than those living under any other dictatorship, democratised or not!

A lost cause?

Exploiting the Coalition's promise that any petition securing 100,000 signatures will be 'eligible' for debating in Parliament, the Express has launched a petition for a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union.

Captain Ranty is exhorting his readership to sign the petition, however as one of his commenters states:

"I'm afraid, Captain, under their rules, this is as much of a non-starter as all the other wastes of time that are spun as wonderful new ways of "opening up democracy". Any petitions that get over 100k get shoved on a list for a backbench committee to "look at", and after "consideration" and "checking" by the relevant govt department, the committee may propose that the petitions be put it forward to a debate in the House but the government isn't bound to look at the proposal or discuss it anyway. It is entirely symbolic! ....[.....].....Anything that the people want but the LibLabCon and their corporate money masters don't want will not get anywhere. They will be classed as "Offensive, joke or nonsense e-petitions" on the basis that they are provocative or "extreme" in their views. Of course, we would then get the "government ignores electorate" situation, but then that's no different to the way things already are."

That commenter is perfectly correct when he spells out the procedure to be followed to which any peitition must adhere. It is also worth repeating that any such petition is only 'eligible' for debate in Parliament - there is nothing in the Coalition 'manifesto promise', or on the Directgove website that says otherwise.

As I have posted previously, for any referendum to be held on this subject requires strict limits placed on both sides of the argument - equal funding, equal air-time, etc. That won't happen as we all know, coupled with which the EU will do all it can (knowing them, legally or otherwise) to influence the result. It is worth repeating from my previous post:

"To fix wholly and solely on an “in/out” referendum is to declare the chosen means of fighting to an enemy who will have the advantage of making the dispositions of his far superior forces of money, influence and persuasion well in advance and of fixing the time of the engagement to his best advantage. It will not be a fair fight. Most of it will take place long before the immediate campaign before the poll – without rules and with all the advantage to big money and entrenched influence."

It is my intention to sign this petition, if only to see how the government wriggle out of not holding a debate - and even if it is held, a pound to a penny the vote would have a three-line whip imposed. I just wish that those pushing for a referendum on our membership of the EU would just stop and think because as and when a referendum is held, it will be a once in a lifetime opportunity and there needs to be a level playing field - especially bearing in mind that the ultimate decision on whether the referendum is held will be in the hands of our elected representatives.

Because of EU membership; the effects of the ECHR; the unrestricted influx of immigrants, it is obvious that our society has been - and is being -changed with dire consequences to the extent that the indigenious polulation feels like a foreigner in their own country. Nothing illustrates this more than this heartfelt post from Calling England - one that I just wish I had written!

Defending the 'Union'

A post has appeared on The Conservative Blog with the title "If Ukip won't defend the Union, who will?", mentioning that Nigel Farage has endorsed the creation of an English Parliament and asks the author of a post on Independent Home whether Farage is attempting to 'hoover up' the English Democrat's votes.

The break up of the United Kingdom began with Blair's policy of offering Scotland and Wales limited devolution, a policy I am sure was followed in order to gain him the landslide general election victory he achieved in 1997. In common with most politicians who have 'bright ideas', little did he realise what a Pandora's Box he had opened - actually he probably did in his zeal to aid the EU in their grand designs! Plus he knew

The problem is now exacerbated with what are, probably, justifiable calls for an English parliament, calls that would cement a form of 'federalism' into UK politics. Were that move to be made now, whilst we are still a member of the European Union, it would accomplish the EU's regionalisation agenda for them. After 14 years of devolution, how could the process be undone? Having released the 'genie from the lamp' and found him rather 'independent of thought', our political leaders are faced with a dilemma to which they know not the answer.

Of course, were the Scots and Welsh to accept a similar situation to that of the USA, then they could have the autonomy they seek, however I doubt whether that would be acceptable to Alex Salmond - who I believe harbours complete independence via membership of the EU (and I won't enter the debate about 'independence' under EU rule!)

Of course, there is the question of who needs to be 'governed'? We are perfectly capable of 'governing' ourselves in local matters, locally; and really only need an administration centre to handle national matters which have been sanctioned by the people. Farage seems to belong to the 'Carswell school' in believing that we still need politicians to regulate our lives - if he didn't, would he too not be advocating true devolution and a tad of "Referism"? Still, presumably once a politican, always a politician.......?

The practise of administering a nation's affairs are quite simple really - the trouble is that we have politicians who think they can but don't realise they can't and won't let the people try.......

Just saying.....................

Moore or less

Douglas Carswell waxes lyrical over the op-ed article by Charles Moore in today's Daily Telegraph, commenting that he believes Moore 'is on great form' - yet Carswell has reached the point where I believe that what he thinks no longer matters........

Moore's article is headed "Our leaders have lost faith in the powers of their people", to which statement one has to ask him just when, over the last few decades, did our political leaders show they ever did have faith in the powers of their people? The agenda of our political leaders has been nothing but one of dictating to those they are meant to represent and serve, regardless of what the people wanted.

Moore also writes that:

"This is why the Big Society notion floats rather aimlessly in the air. David Cameron is right that social bonds are best created by voluntary groups rather than the central state, but the concept lacks the underpinning of self-interest."

Cameron may well be right in his views about social bonds, but the problem is one that Moore does not acknowledge; namely that because of the policy of multiculturalism social bonding is negligible. As I have written previously multiculturalism does not promote social bonding, rather social exclusion from another's ethnic grouping. The ironic aspect of Cameron's Big Society with its promotion of social bonding is that it is the Islamic community that seems to be using it to its full potential.

On aspect of Moore's article and one that again he chooses to ignore comes here:

"They reflect the preoccupations of the elite rather than the aspirations of the multitude. Spending on overseas aid should not be “ring-fenced”; large subventions to the European Union, let alone assistance to the euro, should not be paid; outrageous levies on energy bills to pretend that windpower will save the planet should stop. Governments should not be prevented by international institutions and treaties from implementing policies designed for the people who elected them. “Human rights” and employment law should not make it impossible to sack people or punitively expensive to hire them."

The fact that Moore can write that the preoccupations of the elite outweigh the aspirations of the multitude only lends weight to my assertion that we do indeed live under the rule of democratised dictators. The greatest condemnation I have for Moore is that he too is unable to admit that governments should not be designing anything for the people who elect them - governments should be implementing that which the people desire!

Moore also writes that modern governments across the Western world seem to be frightened of the people they govern without apparently realising the reason why that is so. That there is a growing aversion to all that our present clutch of politcians exhibit cannot be beyond doubt. If politicians are becoming frightened of the people they have ruled, then it must be due to the fact they are becoming more aware of the punishment that most surely awaits them!

EU public consultation on smoking directive

The European Commission, Health and Consumers Directorate-General, has issued a report on the public consultation on the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC).

From the report we learn that:

"The public consultation generated over 85 000 contributions, which illustrates a great interest in EU tobacco control policy. Citizen contributions accounted for 96% of the survey response. Almost 2/3 of the contributions were from just two Member States: Italy and Poland. It is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the outcome of the public consultation procedure."

Later we are then told:

"The public consultation drew a wide response from citizens: 82 117 responses in total. While it is encouraging to see a great number of responses, it should also be noted that this volume appears to be a result, to a large extent, of several citizen mobilisation campaigns that took place in some Member States."

From that last statement it would appear that the EU don't appear to like the citizen responses that have been received and I also believe we can all guess, when the recommendations are published, that which will follow. Needless to say, as far as I can see, there does not appear any acknowledgement of a most important democratic principle; namely that what the people want is all that matters.

But hey, that last point is not what the EU was invented for - is it................

As Pontius Pilate did.......

Via The Albion Alliance, a rolling news service of EU 'outpourings', we learn that the waters of the EU are safe enough to bath and swim in. That may be true, but the first thing I noticed, when in Minorca a few years ago, was the sewer pipes from all the hotels leading out into the sea.............

It would seem that it has escaped the minds of the EU that any country with a modicum of common sense has already 'washed it's hands' of any involvement with that body - and that the water used came, no doubt, out of a tap!

Just saying................



Afterthought: Cyprus? Cyprus is two countries - there is a Turkish bit which is not part of the EU, remember?

Investigative journalism does exist

and that it comes from the Telegraph is not surprising, not surprising in that we are not talking here of 'the' Telegraph but the Derby Telegraph. Prompted with a 'feed' to the Deputy Editor by Edward Spalton, Campaign for an Independent Britain, the Derby Telegraph has produced a piece of 'investigative journalism', an art lacking by its more famous namesake.

Government ministers were either so inured to corruption that they didn't think it mattered - or they just did not know about a matter of public record which would show that they or their senior civil servant were negligent. There is, of course, the possibility that they are determined, as a matter of policy, to favour mainland EU suppliers as part of a deliberate programme of de-industrialising Britain - a policy which would weaken our ability to survive outside of EU membership.

To recap, it will be recalled that Siemens of Germany has been awarded the contract to supply new passenger train carriages, yet as the Derby Telegraph explains, the bid by Siemens is invalid. This all stems from an EU Directive, namely Directive 2004/18/EC - and Article 45 of that Directive, one which covers the personal situation of the candidate or tenderer for any contract. For readers who follow that link it will be seen that reference is made to a European Court of Justice ruling - and in particular Article 3 of that ruling on the subject of corruption - which can be read here. The astonishing, systematic corruption in which Siemens has been involved provides ample grounds for cancelling the contract - and on the subject of systematic Siemens corruption, go read the Derby Telegraph.

As Edward points out in his email to me, his colleagues have brought these facts to the attention of national newspapers without arousing a response - which lends credence to the argument that the national press is not 'free' as it is so dependent on the politicians for its livelihood that it dare not write anything critical of the hands that feed them.

As we see by the day, there is much that is in need of transparency, the problem is that transparency does not go hand in hand with political lying - and we all know which political aim is the more important where they are concerned!

Electoral Reform Society

A few days ago I noticed on Twitter a plea from the Electoral Reform Society asking for more members and after a few moments consideration I thought, Why not?

I have just received an email confirming that my membership has been accepted, the text of which I reproduce:

"Thank you for joining the Electoral Reform Society, it’s great to have you on board.There are big problems with politics in Britain; a disengaged and dissatisfied electorate; under-representation of women in parliament and a Medieval House of Lords - to name but a few. We look forward to working with all our members to build a democracy we can all be proud of."

They got the first example right, however if they think that the next two most pressing problems with our democracy are the under representation of women in parliament and a Medieval House of Lords, then I relish the opportunity of becoming involved in any debates that may be held.

That there is only one form of democracy for which I hanker is, I believe, now well known - and it sure as hell does not include the Electoral Reform Society!

Democracy on their terms

"Let the people think they govern and they will be governed."

William Penn (1693)

With the birth of the Coalition came various promises, one of which was that any petition that garnered 100,000 signatures became eligible to be debated in Parliament. In their programme for government, the Coalition state (page 27):

"We will ensure that any petition that secures 00,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament. The petition with the most signatures will enable members of the public to table a bill eligible to be voted on in Parliament."

Note the words "will be eligible" and "a bill eligible to be voted on" - in other words, if the high and mighty that pose as elected representatives wish to ignore said petition, they will. Anyways, a new website to enable petitions to be submitted electronically has appeared, the introduction about which Douglas Carswell waxes lyricial - well, he states that it is no bad thing.

Carswell proposes Direct Democracy and on their website the 'by-line' reads "shifting power from the state to the citizen". Indeed the "About Us" section proclaims:

"Based on the book Direct Democracy, the localist papers, and The Plan, the Direct Democracy campaign aims to shift governmental powers back, from Brussels to Westminster, from Whitehall to town halls, from the state to the citizens.  Power would be dispersed among communities, through localism and through referendums. Britain has been heading in the wrong direction. The British People are giving up on politics and politicians. Direct Democracy aims to restore meaning to the ballot box, freedom to the citizen and dignity to Parliament."

Do not, dear reader, be misled by that statement about restoring freedom to the citizen as it is apparent that that is far from the intent of Carswell or his fellow politicians. On that point, consider the existing petition system as explained on the Parliament website:

"Generally, MPs will present all petitions they receive from their constituents. However, MPs aren't compelled to present petitions and doing so does not imply that they support the action the petition is calling for."

To return to Carswell and his remarks, as quoted by the BBC, note that he says:

"Now we could be forced to explain why we can't have the death penalty in a civilised society."

Did you spot the use of "we" - now we could be forced to explain......

So, MPs do not have to accept a petition forwarded to them and Carswell still wants Parliament to be the supreme arbiter of what can and cannot happen in this nation.

If ever anything demonstrated that we live under a democratised dictatorship then the fact that an MP does not have to present a petition from a constituent confirms that fact. I would also suggest that the Direct Democracy website should be retitled "Direct Democracy By Dictatorship".

Thursday 28th July 2011

One could say that posting will be a tad light until Friday, late afternoon - my apologies......

And the people get to decide - what exactly?

"Freedom is the emancipation from the arbitrary rule of other men."

Mortimer Adler (1902-2001)

So we are informed, the beauty of our democracy is that every 4/5 years, on average, we have the opportunity of changing our government if we disagree with that which they have done during their term of office. On each occasion we are presented with a choice between the incumbents, who inform us that, forgetting their mistakes, they have the cure to all our ills; whilst likewise the alternative, potential, governments inform us exactly the same thing - and on each occasion we fall for this political confidence trick.

Think back however far you wish; how many times has the government of the day introduced and enacted a law which was not in their manifesto - and if it was, has been 'tweaked' to include elements that were not included in said manifesto promise? (the smoking ban springs to mind which encapsulated the proposal that venues would be able to provide areas for both, or decide whether to opt for smoking or non- smoking?). What, in effect, the people of our nation vote for is a period of dictatorship, one practised by those who continually inform us that they are our elected 'representatives' - in which case should they not be proposing, or enacting, only those laws that those they represent actually want, or for which they ask/demand?

Presently, governments decide how much money they want and promptly take it from the pockets of their taxpayers - likewise local government. Governments decide when - and with whom - they intend to engage in acts of war, again purely on their decision and with no consultation with those they are meant to serve. Governments decide how - and to what degree - they intend to limit our freedoms, in the name of national security, or other spurious reasons. Governments decide how our children are to be educated; what type of healthcare we may have; what our foreign relations should be and with which nations; what type of law and order under which we have to live; and what is 'acceptable' behaviour, to name just a few powers that they consider they possess.

In the words of the song: "Is that all there is? If that is all there is, then lets keep dancing [to the politician's tune],lets break out the booze and have a ball" - which, if we are to believe that which we read, some of us - recognising the futility of our political system - have already done. To break this cycle of dependency on our political elite; and to paraphrase the words of another song (not a good video as out of sync); "there must be a way to be happy, happy with somebody new, but I can't find the way......" - and the reason we can't find the way is due to the dictatorship and 'mind-conditioning' which is currently practised by our political elite.

Conditioned as we are to the dance of the politician's tune, unable to find another way, we have become dependent on someone to rise from amongst us, one who will lead us to a 'better land'. Muffled Vociferation has a video from Pat Condell, one in which he argues that violence is not the answer to the ills the people suffer. As I have commented on her site, "....were those in the 'Resistance' during World War II guilty of violence in their attempts to overthrow the Nazis? What chance was there then for due democratic process? When the political process is 'managed' by those in power to 'freeze out' the voice of smaller parties; when all democratic means fail, is violence to effect that change, wrong?".

That there is a better way must, by now, be beyond doubt. The problem that those of us who recognise the dilemmas facing our nation lies with which is the better way to change the minds of our 'sheep' who wait to be herded?

The TPA needs to remember Luke 11:9*

The Tax Payers Alliance (TPA) posts on HS2, asking that people take part in the consultation currently being held, one that is due to end this Friday. Either the TPA have not asked the right questions; have failed to scratch beneath the surface of the HS2 subject, or they are merely guilty of incompetence.

What is obvious is that they have ignored the 'elephant in the room' as they would only have had to read this to understand that HS2 is another European Union driven project, one being enacted under the administrative control of the Trans European Network - Transport (TEN-T). It is also totally amazing that the TPA fails to acknowledge the fact that government consultations are nothing more than a sham exercise, carried out with a view to hoodwinking the public into believing the democratic process has, indeed, been followed. What we have here is but another illustration of a government being selective with the information that is placed before the public in their determination not to mention their subservience to Brussels - and in so doing they stand guilty of obfuscation and deceit.

When the current crop of politicians - and their hangers-on - reach their day of reckoning, an event which is drawing closer with each passing day, I shall refrain from according them the accolade of spitting on their graves!


* "So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

Bob Hope & No Hope

"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."
H. L. Mencken

Ian Parker Joseph, IPJ on Politics, has a most illuminating post on the structure of the European Union, it's layers of bureaucracy and one that is a 'must read' for anyone wishing to learn about this odious body. In order to save readers a journey, I am sure IPJ will not mind my re-posting his writing here.

"First published in April last year, just before the May election, this article has been the subject of much searching lately, so due to public interest, I have decided to republish. (apologies if any of the original links no longer work).

LibLabCon only offering voters disguised EU agenda

Posted on April 29, 2010 by ianpj

 

In an article by Toque entitled The Liberal Democrats’ Resolution of the England Question, which was the publication of a letter from the Liberal Democrat HQ in response to their question on an English Parliament, published on 27th April, I posted the following response:

“Ultimately, we want to move towards a federal United Kingdom – devolving power within England further and thus resolving this question”
Note the LibDem words carefully – “devolving power within England further”. Not devolving power TO England, but within England.
Why can people not see, or choose not to see, that this ‘Federal United Kingdom’ is the 12 Regions of the UK as mapped out by the EU.
9 English regions, each eventually to have the same powers as Scotland, NI & Wales, (those 3 already having regional status), each with a Regional Minister in Westminster to give the appearance of UK sovereignty, but in reality controlled by the Committee of the Regions in Brussels.
That is what is meant by devolving power closer to the people as espoused by the LibDems, and regularly by Dan Hannan MEP because the Conservatives in the UK don’t want it raised as an issue at election time. The regional NHS (9 English RHA’s already in place) and Regional police forces (nearly in place with talk of mergers again on the table), 9 Regional Fire Service Commands (already in place), Regional TV & Radio (already in place), and to use the LibDems own words ‘removing power from Westminster and Whitehall’.
At that point, currently estimated to be 2012, the UK will no longer have the power to negotiate to leave the EU, its powers having been devolved completely to the 12 regions. And a region alone could not negotiate to leave, as the original treaty was with the UK.
There never will be an English Parliament, there never will be a single voice for England alone, so long as we remain inside the EU.
The evidence is all around you, its there again in the LibDem response, you only have to see what is in front of you.

As a result of my assertions, I have received an email asking me to expand on this subject and to provide some more detail. This I am happy to do, and will begin to outline this detail below.

Lets take first of all my assertion that there are 9 English regions, each eventually to have the same powers as Scotland, NI & Wales, (those 3 already having regional status), each with a Regional Minister in Westminster to give the appearance of UK sovereignty, but in reality controlled by the Committee of the Regions in Brussels. In June 2007 the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced the appointment of nine regional ministers. In the July 2007 Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, the Government proposed that regional committees should be established.

In this document, Regional Accountability at Westminster it was also laid out that 8 Regional Grand Committee’s be established, which are now in place. 8 rather than 9 as it was considered that London Region did not require one. Here is what Wikipedia tells us about these Regional Ministers, and includes the Regional Map of England (Scotland, NI & Wales already having been established with Regional Government).

The Governance of Britain Green Paper, published in July 2007, provided the following objectives for regional ministers:^[1]

1. to advise the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) on the approval of regional strategies and appointment of Regional Development Agency (RDA) chairs and boards;
2. to represent regional interests in the formulation of central government policy relevant to economic growth and sustainable development in areas that have not been devolved to the RDAs
3. to facilitate a joined up approach across government departments and agencies to enable the effective delivery of the single regional strategy
4. to champion the region at high level events and with regard to high profile projects (including through a programme of regional visits); and
5. to represent the Government with regard to central government policy at regional committee hearings and at parliamentary debates focused specifically on the region.

It also stated:^[5]
“There are a range of functions that Regional Ministers will undertake. These are mostly clustered around the responsibilities of the Government Offices and the Regional Development Agencies, particularly in relation to economic development. Regional Ministers will be able to take questions in Parliament on the work of regional bodies, and on regional strategies.

That so far is the visible element of the EU Regional policy, but what is more important is the invisible elements, that which must not be made visible to the public until it is too late to change it. The Governance of Britain Green Paper mentioned above is the UK Government complying and publishing its area of the more wide-ranging European Commission document European Governance.
So lets now get back to Regionalisation, across the entire European Union, and in particular to the UK, and we will see that not only the Liberal Democrats are committed to the regionalisation of the UK as part of the EU plan, but so are the Conservative party with the Big Society policy plan and of course the Labour party who have been implementing this since 1997.

When we speak of the European Union we think of the Council of Ministers, the European Commission and the European Parliament as the only players. It is true that these bodies form the Executive, Civil Service and Legislature, but there are many more bodies which work alongside the EU in formulating, presenting and implementing policy and EU directives, regulations and decisions. One such body is the Committee of the Regions (CoR) of which I have spoken before, originally set up as an advisory group, it is now taking on institutional and legal powers afforded to it by the Lisbon Treaty and holds plenary sessions representing the 277 Regions of the EU. We shall return to the CoR later. Another body is the Assembly of European Regions (ARE or AER). This body is represented by delegates of all 277 Regions of the EU, and although holds no constitutional or legal position, is fully funded by EU taxpayers, and its remit extends to 33 countries, including those now linked by the Mediterranean Union (EU and North African states bordering the Mediterranean).

In 1996 the Assembly of European Regions issued a Declaration on Regionalism in Europe. That document states:

Item 3 of Preamble:  The regions are an essential and irreplaceable element of European development and integration.
Item 5 of Preamble:  Recognising the importance in Europe of the process of integration and regionalisation.
Item 7 of Preamble:  Convinced that states with strong regional political structures, ie. with legislative powers and their own finances can optimally resolve their economic and social problems.
Item 9 of Preamble:  Being aware that the regions, within the national legal order, are an indispensable element of democracy, decentralisation and self-determination, by allowing people to identify with their community and by increasing the opportunities for their
participation in public life.
Item 13 of Preamble: Considering the relevance of the Council of  Europe’s draft European Charter of Regional Self-government (1996) and the European Parliament’s “Community Charter for Regionalisation” (1988).
Item 14 of Preamble: Convinced of the significance of this declaration, which reflects a political will and the aspirations that the regions wish to promote in Europe, while respecting the diversity of their situations which call for a variety of solutions;

Seeing any of the 3 main party policies yet? The document continues and lays out rules under which Regions shall exist, the definition and concept of Regions, and how States shall devolve power to them.

Article 1.1  The region is the territorial body of public law established at the level immediately below that of the state and endowed with political self-government.
Article 1.2  The region shall be recognised in the national constitution or in legislation which guarantees its autonomy, identity, powers and organisational structures.
Article 1.3  The region shall have its own constitution, statute of autonomy or other law which shall form part of the legal order of the state at the highest level establishing at least its organisation and powers.
The status of a region can be altered only in cooperation with the region concerned. Regions within the same state may have a different status, in keeping with their historical, political, social or cultural characteristics.
Article 1.4  The region is the expression of a distinct political identity, which may take very different political forms, reflecting the democratic will of each region to adopt the form of political organisation it deems preferable. The region shall resource and staff its own administration and adopt insignia for its representation.

The document is 13 pages in length and I suggest that you read the full document to understand fully just how the UK is to be broken, as it will explain why England in particular will never obtain its English Parliament.

Article 3.1  The apportionment of powers between the state and the regions shall be determined in the national constitution or in legislation in accordance with the principles of political decentralisation and subsidiarity.
Under these principles, functions should be exercised at the level as close to the citizen as possible. (see appendix)
Appendix to article 3, paragraph 1
Examples of the existing regions’ powers:
- regional economic policy,
- regional planning, building and housing policy,
- telecommunications and transport infrastructures,
- energy and environment,
- agriculture and fischeries,
- education at all levels, universities and research,
- culture and media,
- public health,
- tourism, leisure and sport,
- police and public order.
Article 5.3  Under national legislation, the region shall be entitled to levy its own taxes and determine sources of tax revenue. For this purpose, it shall set the criteria for determining its taxes, duties and
dues. Where the law permits, it may decide to charge supplements
on state taxes.
Article 6.1  The principle of solidarity entails the existence of national
systems of financial equalisation.
The aims and procedure of financial equalisation shall be prescribed in the national constitution or legislation.
Account shall be taken of the uneven distribution of the financial burdens borne by the regions, on the basis of objective criteria. However, financial equalisation shall not dissuade those regions required to make equalisation payments from making appropriate use of the sources of tax revenue available to them.
The needs of municipal authorities shall also be taken into account in the calculation of equalisation payments.
Equalisation shall take the form of transfers from the state to the regions, and between regions.

The implementation of Article 6.1 has of course already taken place and explains why taxpayers funds to Scotland & Wales are higher, whose Regional governments then disburse them differently to the English regions, and why we see the disparity in the NHS budgets between these regions where Scotland & Wales spend far more per capita than England, as they also do with Education.
There is a lot of mention in that document that refers to the Constitution. You would be right in saying the UK does not have one, well not yet, but whilst we have all been focusing on the election, those Civil Servants in the Cabinet Office have been beavering away writing a Constitution for the UK ready for the incoming government.

Now you may say that this is only a declaration from a non legislative body, and if that is as far as it went, you would be right. However, here is the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Recommendation of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe on a European Charter of Regional Self-Government’, which in turn had adopted the Declaration of Regionalism in Europe and by which time had also adopted the Council of  Europe’s draft European Charter of Regional Self-government (1996) and the European Parliament’s “Community Charter for Regionalisation” (1988). What followed next was that the European Commission passed this all into European Law with its Regulation, European Parliament resolution on the role of regional and local authorities in European integration (2002/2141(INI)) As this was passed as a Regulation, it was not required for an Act of Parliament to be raised and was therefore introduced into UK law on Tuesday 14th January 2003. (I would remind readers at this stage that EU laws are passed in 3 ways and introduced into UK law using different methods, which I have written about previously).

So, now it is UK law that Regionalisation must take place, Labour have been implementing this since 1997, firstly with the attempt at Regional Parliaments (voted down but since replaced with Regional Grand Committees), and with the introduction of Regional Assemblies, Regional Development Agencies and the Regionalisation of the Military and all the emergency services, media, NHS, and just about every other government body.

We see now at election time the 3 main parties including it in their party manifestos, but in such a way that regionalisation is never mentioned, England is never mentioned, the EU is never mentioned and the demise and marginalisation of Westminster are never mentioned.

Gordon Brown speaks of the Countries and Regions of the UK in which he means Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the 9 English regions.
Nick Clegg speaks of devolving power closer to the people, on immigration he has a regional placement plan, and
David Cameron talks of the Big Society, again devolving power closer to the people, elected Regional Police chiefs, cutting down the number of MP’s.

If you want to see the 3 main parties other policy items laid out in the EU agenda, you can see it here, in the The European Commission Work Programme 2010. The only argument between them is how to implement them. The real work as I said earlier is being handled by the Committee of the Regions, for it is they who now direct regional and local government policy implementation; and remember, that all the while these EU structures have been put into place in the background, you have been paying for it. The UK has been paying its up front EU dues, it has been paying its EU tax called VAT, and it has been paying for the Committee of the Regions, The Assembly of European Regions and for all of the local government restructuring that has been going on for over 10 years, over and over you have been paying.
Let me reiterate. Whilst we remain inside the EU, there are 2 chances of an English Parliament, Bob Hope and No Hope. If anyone wishes to campaign for an English Parliament, the only way in which you will achieve that ambition is for the UK to leave the EU. It is not too late, the election is still a week away.
Many of the smaller parties and Independents are committed to leaving the EU, and of course The Albion Alliance are asking candidates to sign a personal pledge on working for a referendum simply because we just don’t trust our politicians or parties to do what they say they will do, because we know that they are following an EU agenda, not a British one.
.
UPDATE:
For some strange reason, the Labour government in the final weeks before the campaign blocked publication of its plans for an elected second chamber. The Guardian tells us:  “So in the public interest we are publishing the plans in full on the website”. Click here to read them. You will note that these plans involve the election to the second chamber on a Regional basis."

With the subject of our membership of the European Union and all it's ramifications rising daily in the news agenda. the more that this paper is circulated; the more that people are made aware of how our politicians lie to us on this subject, thus showing themselves to be venal, self-centred and self-opinionated; the more that people become aware that there really is no difference in the Lib/Lab/Con, that they just argue about the implementation; and the more people become aware that our politicians, who profess to be the guardians of our nation, our society and our morals, are in fact no more than traitors, then closer comes their day of reckoning together with the day of reckoning for their sycophants in bureaucracy, quangos, the civil service and various other social-pressure groups that exist to promote the undermining of a system of democracy that has existed for hundreds of years. Not that I am saying that system of democracy is/was perfect, far from it - but at least it is our system of democracy and if it does require change, then the decision to change it rests not with our politicians nor bureaucrats in Brussels. It rests with the people of this nation!