The Fourth Dimension - it has arrived!

A cross-post from The Grumpologist:

"He sighed as he straightened his tie. Life for an actor used to be such a simple and rewarding experience. All he used to do was learn the lines, memorise the scenes and stage directions, then work through the script. After a short period of a few hours came the finale and the pretence was over. The actors returned to their normal personality and the audience left, hopefully satisfied with the entertainment.

This gig was so much harder. All the dialogue had to be improvised. Of course the writers and directors had sketched out multiple scenarios for each scene and he had spent months learning cues and potential responses and making sure he understood how the scene could always be steered to the correct outcome. Every scene had to be controlled and manipulated by the actors so that no matter what improvised route was taken through the scene the outcome always supported the main plot. In addition the important messages must always get through to the audience. What was worse was having no set end to the play, it continued indefinitely until the audience became bored and restive, merging the part into and taking over his real life.

But at least the pay and perks were excellent he thought, as he strolled out into the auditorium and joined the other world presidents and prime ministers for the summit."

 A brilliant summation of our political scenario and politicians today!

TG may consider it a bit of 'sillyness' - it is not! It is a perfect summation of what politics and our politicians have become - bit-part players in the EU play, a play based on a dream!

One day the people will wake up - then we take Westminster! (to paraphrase Leonard Cohen!)

EU ESM Treaty

I had intended to post on the above, however Ian Parker-Joseph beat me to it and with his inimitable attention to detail has done a far, far better job than I could have ever hoped to do - so with his permission (I hope) I reproduce it below:

"What do you do when you get into financial trouble. What do you do when all your friends are in financial trouble as well?

Do you cut your spending? Do you borrow more? or do you, as the European Commission has done:
Set up a company, get all those friends who are in financial trouble to buy shares in your new venture by robbing their taxpayers of huge amounts to raise the paid up capital (details at the bottom), then get all the friendly governments to give this new company legal status, privileges normally reserved for diplomats along with full immunity for all and anything they do whilst working for the company, plan to employ a whole raft of new staff, appoint a Board of Directors and a Managing Director, invoke professional secrecy rules on them all, and get governments to grant immunity to the persons and exempt them from income tax (the company will tax its employees and keep it).

On top of that, ensure that your new company is exempt from all and any kind of registration, regulation, supervision, oversight or taxation and can operate OUTSIDE of all legal structures, AND gets to audit itself whilst leaving the EU Commission as the sole negotiator on loans made by your ‘company’.
That is exactly what the EU Commission have done with their ESM Treaty (European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism). The Mafia could not have done any better. This is racketeering and money laundering on a continental scale.

Perhaps we should all have a go as individuals, families, groups, friends, villages, towns etc follow the EU Commission’s lead, start up and run businesses on this basis, citing ESM type rules.
So lets take a look at this ‘Treaty’, but before we go any further I must tell you that the UK is not a signatory…. yet, and this is a long post, so please bear with me. (there is a link to the treaty at the end of this post if you want to skip my analysis).

The first thing to note is that they changed the Lisbon Treaty, without a vote or re-ratification in National Parliaments.

Whereas:

(2) On 25 March 2011, the European Council adopted Decision 2011/199/EU amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability
mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro1 adding the following paragraph to Article 136: “The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality”.

Then in true Mafia style, the Commission insists that all Euro area member states become members of the new company. No doubt an offer they couldn’t refuse, although non euro area states were told they could watch (7).

(5) All euro area Member States will become ESM Members. As a consequence of joining the euro area, a Member State of the European Union should become an ESM Member with full rights and obligations, in line with those of the Contracting Parties.

It then goes to to arrange that Collective Action Clauses (CACs) will be included in the T&Cs of all new euro area government bonds starting in July 2013, and that these arrangements will be finalised by end 2011.

Then it arranges for this new ‘company’ to give itself Preferred Status.

(10) Like the IMF, the ESM will provide financial assistance to an ESM Member when its regular access to market financing is impaired. Reflecting this, Heads of State or Government have stated that the ESM will enjoy preferred creditor status in a similar fashion to IMF, while accepting preferred creditor status of the IMF over the ESM. This status shall be effective as of 1 July 2013. In the unlikely event of ESM financial assistance following a European financial assistance programme existing at the time of the signature of this Treaty, ESM will enjoy the same seniority as all other loans and obligations of the beneficiary ESM Member, with the exception of the IMF loans.

So, no haircuts for this mob.

Now let get to the Articles. This ‘Treaty’ to me can only be considered illegal and fraudulent, casting itself as it does outside of all legal structures and oversight whilst spending taxpayers money with no constraints.

Article 1
Article 1.1 gives this its corporate status, Article 1.2 the shareholders.

1.
By this Treaty, the Contracting Parties establish among themselves an international financial institution, to be named the “European Stability Mechanism” (“ESM”).
2.
The Contracting Parties are ESM Members.

Article 2 provides the rules for new members beyond the initial shareholders.

Article 3 provides the purpose. It sets out that it will operate under strict economic policy conditionality, not legal conditions.

Article 4 sets out its Structure and voting rules, and reiterates that if an ESM member doesn’t pay, it loses its voting rights.

1.
The ESM shall have a Board of Governors and a Board of Directors, as well as a Managing Director and other dedicated staff as may be considered necessary.
2.
The decisions of the Board of Governors and the Board of Directors shall be taken by mutual agreement, qualified majority or simple majority as specified in this Treaty. In respect of all decisions, a quorum of 2/3 of the members with voting rights representing at least 2/3 of the voting rights must be present.
6. The voting rights of each ESM Member, as exercised by its appointee or by the latter’s representative on the Board of Governors or Board of Directors, shall be equal to the number of shares allocated to it in the authorised capital stock of the ESM as set out in Annex II.
7.
If any ESM Member fails to pay any part of the amount due in respect of its obligations in relation to paid-in shares or calls of capital under Articles 8, 9 and 10, or in relation to the reimbursement of the financial assistance under Article 14 or 15, such ESM Member shall be unable, for so long as such failure continues, to exercise any of its voting rights. The voting thresholds shall be recalculated accordingly.

Now read Articles 4.2, 4.6 & 4.7 above very carefully. The way that this is cleverly laid out means that it will potentially allow at some stage in the future, Germany and/or France as the biggest shareholders to gain complete control of the board, the voting and the money, as the smaller countries fail or are unable to pay new capital calls.

Article 5 lays out the structure and rules for the Board of Governors, including the election of the Chairman in 2 year periods, for which is is no limit on re-elections, and those who may participate or observe in Governors meetings.

3.
The Member of the European Commission in charge of economic and monetary affairs and
the President of the ECB, as well as the President of the Euro Group (if he or she is not the
Chairperson or a Governor) may participate in the meetings of the Board of Governors as observers.
4.
Representatives of non-euro area Member States participating on an ad hoc basis alongside the ESM in a financial assistance operation for a euro area Member State shall also be invited to participate, as observers, in the meetings of the Board of Governors when this financial assistance and its monitoring will be discussed.
5.
Other persons, including representatives of institutions or organisations, such as the IMF, may be invited by the Board of Governors to attend meetings as observers on an ad hoc basis.

No mention of elected officials such as National Parliamentarians or MEPs, none, nada, zilch, but then as you may recall me saying earlier this is a Commission Mafia operation.

Still within Article 5 we now get to what the Board can do…(the highlights are mine)

6. The Board of Governors shall take the following decisions by mutual agreement:
(a) to issue new shares on terms other than at par, in accordance with Article 8(2);
(b) to make the capital calls, in accordance with Article 9(1);
(c) to change the authorised capital stock and adapt the maximum lending volume of the ESM, in accordance with Article 10(1);
(d) to take into account a possible update of the key for the subscription of the ECB capital, in accordance with Article 11(3), and the changes to be made to Annex I in accordance with
Article 11(6);
(e) to grant financial assistance by the ESM, including the economic policy conditionality as stated in the memorandum of understanding referred to in Article 13(3), and to establish thefinancial terms and conditions, and the choice of instruments, in accordance with Articles 12 to 15;
(f) to give a mandate to the European Commission to negotiate, in liaison with the ECB, theeconomic policy conditionality attached to each financial assistance, in accordance with Article 13(3);
(g) to change the pricing structure and pricing policy for financial assistance, in accordance with Article 14(4);
(h) to change the list of financial assistance instruments that may be used by the ESM, in accordance with Article 16;
(i) to establish the modalities of the transfer of EFSF support to the ESM, in accordance with Article 35;
(j) to approve the application for membership of the ESM by new members, referred to in Article 39;
(k) to make adaptations to this Treaty as a direct consequence of the accession of new members, including changes to be made to the distribution of capital among ESM Members and the calculation of such a distribution as a direct consequence of the accession of a new member to the ESM, in accordance with Article 39; and
(l) to delegate to the Board of Directors the tasks listed in this Article.
7.
(h) to approve the annual accounts of the ESM, in accordance with Article 23(1);
(i) to appoint the members of the Internal Auditing Board, in accordance with Article 24;
(j) to approve the external auditors, in accordance with Article 25;
(k) to waive the immunity of the Chairperson of the Board of Governors, a Governor, alternate Governor, Director, alternate Director or the Managing Director, in accordance with
Article 30(2);
(l) to determine the taxation regime applicable to the ESM staff, in accordance with Article 31(5);
(m) on a dispute, in accordance with Article 32(2); and
(n) any other necessary decision not explicitly provided for by this Treaty.

Articles 5.6 and its subsections are what you would pretty much expect of a corporate body, but 5.7 starts getting into the illegal and fraudulent stuff… if it was a body that was subject to scrutiny, the law or any regulatory oversight… but its not, as I shall highlight in later Articles.
But hey, its only taxpayers that will have to cough up for all this shite…

Article 6 outlines the same kind of rules etc for the Board of Directors (who also have immunity).

Article 7 focuses directly on the role of the Managing Director.

1.
The Managing Director shall be appointed by the Board of Governors from among candidates having the nationality of an ESM Member, relevant international experience and a high level of competence in economic and financial matters.

At least that rules Gordon Brown out of the role.

NOW we get to the interesting stuff. Its all taxpayers money remember, until it goes into the coffers of a company… and this new body is such a company.

Article 8 – Authorised capital stock.

1.
The authorised capital stock shall be EUR 700 000 million. It shall be divided into seven
million shares, having a nominal value of EUR 100 000 each, which shall be available for
subscription according to the initial contribution key provided for in Article 11 and calculated in Annex I.
2.
The authorised capital stock shall be divided into paid-in shares and callable shares. The
initial total aggregate nominal value of paid-in shares shall be EUR 80 000 million. Shares of
authorised capital stock initially subscribed shall be issued at par. Other shares shall be issued at par, unless the Board of Governors decides to issue them in special circumstances on other terms.

Thats 700 BILLION of Eurozone taxpayers Euros, and once its in… it stays in.

3.
Shares of authorised capital stock shall not be encumbered or pledged in any manner
whatsoever and they shall not be transferable, with the exception of transfers for the purposes of implementing adjustments of the contribution key provided for in Article 11 to the extent necessary to ensure that the distribution of shares corresponds to the adjusted key.
and they can call for more at any time.

Article 9 Capital Calls
1.
The Board of Governors may call in authorised unpaid capital at any time and set an
appropriate period of time for its payment by the ESM Members.
2.
The Board of Directors may call in authorised unpaid capital by simple majority decision to
restore the level of paid-in capital if the amount of the latter is reduced by the absorption of losses below the level established in Article 8(2), as may be amended by the Board of Governors..

Article 10 Changes to authorised capital stock

Article 11 Contribution key

Article 12 Operations

Article 13 Procedure for granting financial assistance

3. … the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission with the task of negotiating with the ESM Member concerned – wherever possible together with the IMF, and in liaison with the ECB – a memorandum of understanding (the “MoU”) detailing the economic policy conditionality, contained in a macro-economic adjustment programme and attached to the financial assistance.
4.
The European Commission shall sign the MoU on behalf of the ESM, subject to prior
compliance with the conditions set out in paragraph 3 and approval by the Board of Governors.

See the correlation to the Mafia yet?. The EU Commission do the negotiations, call the shots, make the rules and sign the contracts but this new company paid for by the taxpayers is just the front man… no wonder they want immunity in this money laundering operation. And not a law enforcement or an elected official in sight.

Article 14 ESM stability support

Article 15 Primary market support facility

Article 16 Review of the list of financial assistance instruments

Article 17 Borrowing operations

1.
The ESM shall be empowered to borrow on the capital markets from banks, financial institutions or other persons or institutions for the performance of its purpose.

Not content that they have already ripped taxpayers to the tune of Eur700 Billion, they have given themselves the ability to borrow more on the markets.

Article 18 Investment policy
The Managing Director shall implement a prudent investment policy for the ESM, so as to ensure its highest creditworthiness, in accordance with guidelines to be adopted and reviewed regularly by the Board of Directors.
The Mafia Bank Ltd ….

Article 19 Dividend policy

Article 20 Reserve and other funds

Article 21 Coverage of losses

1. Losses arising in the ESM operations shall be charged:
(a) firstly, against the reserve fund;
(b) secondly, against the paid-in capital; and
(c) lastly, against an appropriate amount of the authorised unpaid capital, which shall be called in accordance with Article 9(3).

Item (c) is what we call Taxpayers.

Article 22 Budget
They get to make and approve their own budget.. again, no oversight.

Article 23 Annual Accounts

Article 24 Internal Auditing Board

1.
The Internal Auditing Board (the “IAB”) shall consist of three members appointed by the Board of Governors for their competence in auditing and financial matters.

Article 25 External auditing

The accounts of the ESM shall be audited by independent external auditors approved by the Board of Governors. The auditors shall have full power to examine all books and accounts of the ESM and obtain full information about its transactions.

Ok.. so that will be like the Commission audits then, with no doubt the same results.

Article 26 Location.
With so much French involvement in this money laundering scam it is little wonder that this will be headquartered in Luxembourg.

Article 27 Legal Status, privileges and immunities
The opening clause in this Article sets the scene.

1.
To enable the ESM to fulfil its purpose, the legal status and the privileges and immunities set
out in this Article shall be accorded to the ESM in the territory of each ESM Member. The ESM shall endeavour to obtain recognition of its legal status and of its privileges and immunities in other territories in which it performs functions or holds assets.

Now watch this:

2. The ESM shall have full legal personality; it shall have full legal capacity to:
(a) acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property;
(b) contract;
(c) be a party to legal proceedings; and
(d) enter into a headquarter agreement and/or protocols as necessary for ensuring that its legal status and its privileges and immunities are recognised and enforced.
3.
The ESM, its property, funding and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of judicial process except to the extent that the ESM expressly waives its immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract, including the documentation of the funding instruments.
4.
The property, funding and assets of the ESM shall, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure, taking or foreclosure by executive, judicial, administrative or legislative action.
5.
The archives of the ESM and all documents belonging to the ESM or held by it, shall be inviolable.
6. The premises of the ESM shall be inviolable.
7. The official communications of the ESM shall be accorded by each ESM Member and by each state which has recognised the legal status and the privileges and immunities of the ESM, the same treatment as it accords to the official communications of an ESM Member.
8.
To the extent necessary to carry out the activities provided for in this Treaty, all property, funding and assets of the ESM shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.
9.
The ESM shall be exempted from any requirement to be authorised or licensed as a credit institution, investment services provider or other authorised licensed or regulated entity under the laws of each ESM Member.

So lets understand this. Total Immunity except in the case of a contract. But… you can’t search buildings or assets, can’t take any legal actions and all archives and documents are inviolable, its buildings and communications are given diplomatic immunity so you can’t touch them for anything. The property and funding is outside of the reach of anyone and they don’t need to be licensed or regulated in any way. It really is a legalised Mafia.

Article 28 Staff of the ESM

Article 29 Professional secrecy

Both during and after their duties have ceased, covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
Article 30 Immunities of persons

1.
In the interest of the ESM, the Chairperson of the Board of Governors, Governors, alternate Governors, Directors, alternate Directors, as well as the Managing Director and other staff members shall be immune from legal proceedings with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents.

You really do have to question WHY? Normal corporate indemnification should suffice unless they are expecting to do things that are illegal Are they expecting the Board to skim off a good amount of taxpayers money or make inappropriate loans as the head of the IMF is alleged to have done, and are they really expecting that any of these clauses will hold water when the Euro collapses and the EU burns.
Article 31 Exemption from taxation

1.
Within the scope of its official activities, the ESM, its assets, income, property and its operations and transactions authorised by this Treaty shall be exempt from all direct taxes.
4.
Goods imported by the ESM and necessary for the exercise of its official activities shall be exempt from all import duties and taxes and from all import prohibitions and restrictions.
5.
Staff of the ESM shall be subject to an internal tax for the benefit of the ESM on salaries and emoluments paid by the ESM, subject to rules to be adopted by the Board of Governors. From the date on which this tax is applied, such salaries and emoluments shall be exempt from national income tax.

Above all else, this one really does take the biscuit, bearing in mind that this Mafia body’s very existence will be based upon the robbing of taxpayers to make loans that taxpayers will have to repay because their respective governments have wasted their taxpayers money and overspent. In other words, money laundering.

Article 32 Interpretation and dispute settlement

Article 33 International cooperation
This is the clause that effectively lets this Mafia engage in a turf war and muscle in on the activities of the IMF, non euro area States, and any international organisation or entity (which will include banks but does not specifically say so). Its how the Mafia would want it.

Article 34 Relation with EFSF lending

Article 35 Transfer of EFSF supports
This is how the EU Mafia take over the existing bail-outs and repayments..

Article 36 Payment of the initial capital

1.
Without prejudice to paragraph 2, payment of paid-in shares of the amount initially subscribed by each ESM Member shall be made in five annual instalments of 20 % each of the total amount. The first instalment shall be paid by each ESM Member within fifteen days of the date of entry into force of this Treaty, but not earlier than 2 January 2013. The remaining four instalments shall each be payable on the first, second, third and fourth anniversary of the payment date of the first instalment.

So the poor taxpayers in the Eurozone can expect their taxes to massively go up to cover this. They really do need to pray that the Euro and the EU collapse and burn before 2013.

Article 37 Temporary correction of the contribution key
This set of clauses allows for readjustments to be made should any other countries be stupid enough to join the Euro and be forced into this scheme.

Article 38 First appointments
1.
Each ESM Member shall designate its Governor and alternate Governor within the two weeks of the entry into force of this Treaty.
2.
The Board of Governors shall appoint the Managing Director and each Governor shall appoint a Director and an alternate Director within the two months of the entry into force of this Treaty.
My money is on a certain disgraced Frenchman, an ex-IMF man taking control of this lot.

Article 39 Accession
You guessed it, joining the Mafia Bank will become part of the Accession agreement for any new member state of the EU.

Article 40 Annexes

Article 41 Deposit

Article 42 Ratification, approval or acceptance

Article 43 Entry into force

1.
This Treaty shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following the date when instruments of ratification, approval or acceptance have been deposited by signatories whose initial subscriptions represent no less than 95 % of the total subscriptions set forth in Annex II.
Done at Brussels on the eleventh day of July in the year two thousand and eleven in a single original, whose Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Irish, Italian, Maltese, Portuguese, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish texts are equally authentic, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Depositary which shall transmit a duly certified copy to each of the Contracting Parties.

Subscriptions to the authorised capital stock
ESM Member                             Number of shares         Capital subscription
(EUR)
Kingdom of Belgium                             243 397                    24 339 700 000
Federal Republic of Germany          1 900 248                  190 024 800 000
Republic of Estonia                                 13 020                      1 302 000 000
Ireland                                                    111 454                    11 145 400 000
Hellenic Republic                                  197 169                    19 716 900 000
Kingdom of Spain                                  833 259                    83 325 900 000
French Republic                                  1 427 013                 142 701 300 000
Italian Republic                                   1 253 959                 125 395 900 000
Republic of Cyprus                                   13 734                      1 373 400 000
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg                  17 528                      1 752 800 000
Malta                                                            5 117                         511 700 000
Kingdom of the Netherlands                  400 190                   40 019 000 000
Republic of Austria                                  194 838                  19 483 800 000
Portuguese Republic                               175 644                   17 564 400 000
Republic of Slovenia                                 29 932                     2 993 200 000
Slovak Republic                                         57 680                     5 768 000 000
Republic of Finland                                 125 818                  12 581 800 000
Total                                                      7 000 000                700 000 000 000

The EU has always been corrupt, but this new form of corruption will leave millions of people in poverty. It may save a few faces, it may save a few banks, but the peoples of Europe will never forgive or forget this new form of economic slavery, a heinous crime, and the levels of totally un-repayable debt that is now being thrust upon them… by the unelected mafia that is the EU Commission.

Ref:
ESM TREATY – ENGLISH"

I cannot let this pass without further reference to the immunities that have been granted to the members of the ESM - they must have been watching our politicians!

Roger Helmer MEP

This 'Conservative' publishes a blog under the title of "Straight Talking", yet straight talking is not a feature of the content which appears. Over the last few days Autonomous Mind has posted on Roger Helmer (here. here and here) in which he castigates Helmer for his stance and writing, accusing him of being a faux eurosceptic.

In his latest post Helmer comments on the recent YouGov poll which found that the majority of voters wish to leave (52%) against the minority (30%) who wish to stay in. This poll also found that 60% of the public (74% of Conservative voters) want an In/Out EU referendum, while only 25% (19% of Tories) don’t. The fact that this poll was commissioned by Nikki Sinclaire, Independent (Ex-UKIP MEP), provides Helmer the opportunity of making a sarcastic and unwarranted 'side-swipe' at a politician from another party. I make no comment on Ms. Sinclaire, her reasons for not wishing to sit with UKIP MEPs, nor the party's decision to eject her - and neither should Helmer, unless of course he is not a gentleman.

The fact that it is obvious Helmer has 'softened' his views on the Conservative Party's European Union Bill coupled with their 'change from within' policy; and comes to the defence of a fellow faux eurosceptic (ex-MEP, now MP, Christopher Heaton-Harris) leaves Helmer rather floundering, when the question of principle is raised. On the subject of the term 'eurosceptic' Autonomous Mind has posted here and here; pointing out that the term now has no meaning where opposition to this country's membership of the EU is concerned and proposes replacing it with the word 'Withdrawalist', where as I tend more to use of the word 'Anti-EU' - but hey, who's arguing.......

It has also long been obvious that David Cameron allows his 'eurosceptic' MPs and MEPs to promote their opposition to his policy and reasons for membership as it 'promotes' the idea that the Conservative Party is 'eurosceptic' by nature when the opposite is so obviously the case (example in Helmer's last two paragraphs in the post to which I link above). If Helmer and Hannan, who are both signatories to Better Off Out, which is in total opposition to the policy of David Cameron, it begs the question why are they still members of the Conservative Party? Principles? Well, as Groucho Marx is reputed to have said: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Until such time as Helmer and Hannan categorically state that they are against the UK's membership of the EU; are not prepared to support, in any way, the Conservative Party in either Westminster or Brussels; are not prepared to remain a member of the Conservative Party; then any pronouncements on matters EU will carry no 'weight' and contain no gravitas whatsoever - and those conditions are applicable to every other so-called 'eurosceptic' in the Conservative Party.

Love

Continuing a series that has been requested by some readers, of music that appeals to me, two songs for you of differing styles but with one common theme; the love of one person for another. The first because there is always one person in you life that you will never forget; and the second, because of the ability to be able to compose music and write lyrics to express a love that, hopefully, would mean so much to someone.

He said: "I'll love you till I die", she told him: "You'll forget in time"; As the years went slowly by, she still preyed upon his mind......

You're the story of my life and every word is true; each chapter sings your name, each page begins with you.......

'Eurosceptic'

A term used to describe those claiming to be that which they most definitely are not! Autonomous Mind, Richard North and I have been posting lately on this subject, using the statements of those who claim they are. Only a few days ago, in response to an article by Patrick Hennessy of the Daily Telegraph, I posted this. Not actually having seen any list of these 70 supposed 'eurosceptic' Tory MPs, I am forced, as a starting point, to refer back to this list supplied by Conservative Home. So, using the website TheyWorkForYou and the ConHome list, let us have a look at the voting records on matters EU.

Steve Baker: Voted moderately for and against more EU integration.

Andrew Bingham: Voted moderately for more EU integration.

Peter Bone: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

Douglas Carswell: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

William Cash: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

James Clappison: Voted moderately against more EU integration.

Philip Davies:  Voted very strongly against more EU integration.

David Davis: Voted moderately against more EU integration.

Nick de Bois: Voted moderately for more EU integration.

Richard Drax: Voted a mixture of for and against more EU integration.

Zac Goldsmith: Voted a mixture of for and against more EU integration.

James Gray: Voted moderately against more EU integration.

Gordon Henderson: Voted moderately against more EU integration.

Philip Holobone: Voted very strongly against more EU integration.

Bernard Jenkin: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

Edward Leigh: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

Anne Main: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

Jason McCartney: Voted strong for more EU integration.

Karl McCartney: Voted moderately for more EU integration.

David Nuttall: Voted a mixture of for and against more EU integration.

Andrew Percy: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

Mark Reckless: Voted moderately against more EU integration.

John Redwood: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Voted strongly for more EU integration.

Bob Stewart: Voted moderately for more EU integration.

Justin Tomlinson: Voted moderately for more EU integration.

Andrew Turner: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

Martin Vickers: Voted moderately for more EU integration.

Charles Walker: Voted strongly against more EU integration.

Dr. Sarah Wollaston: Voted moderately for more EU integration.

As the above list appeared under the heading "Euroscepticism will triumph in the Conservative Party. It's just a matter of time.", presumably these MPs are counted as being Eurosceptic because they rebelled against further bail-outs. In fact, ConHome even makes the point that there are different kinds of Eurosceptics, so it would perhaps be as well if we look at the meaning of the word 'Eurosceptic'.

Originally assumed to mean anyone against membership of the European Union (or any other of its preceding guises), it is worth looking at the word in depth. Euro = abbreviation of European; sceptic = not convinced, having doubts about; ergo those MPs classified as being anti-EU are in fact nothing of the sort. If in fact we are to talk about anti-EU Conservative MPs then one can do no better than look at the Better Off Out website on which are listed just 7 names: Bone, Carswell, Davies (Philip), Hollobone, Nuttall, Percy and Reckless. (I wonder why the names of Cash and Redwood are so obvious by their omission?)

Whilst I have linked to the website TheyWorkForYou, I have to make the point that their classification of whether an MPs voting record is for, against, or what may possibly be consider as 'sitting on the fence' is, to a certain extent, skewed. If one looks at some of the MPs in the list above, the classification is based on just 4 voting attendances. Any classification is further skewed when, for example, one considers that given to David Nuttall - and his appearance on the Better Off Out list. David Nuttal voted for the acceptance of the European External Action Service, yet one has to ask the question if he believes in this country being better off out of the EU, how can he vote for a further expansion of EU power? To take yet another example, John Redwood, he is classified by TheyWorkForYou as having voted strongly against further EU integration - yet on his latest blogpost he is advocating a semi-divorce, hardly what one would call the view of a supposed Eurosceptic? In view of these examples you will understand my reasons for not having added to the list above, MPs such as Priti Patel or George Eustice.

It would seem to me that not only do we need to redefine the term 'eurosceptic', but that we also need to redefine just who amongst our MPs really is anti-EU!

Oh, No John, No John, No

To paraphrase the words of a song by Phil Lobl, written in 2003*:

"In the HoC there stands a creature
Who he is we know too well,
He wants us to believe he’s truthful
YES or No we have to tell,
Oh, NO John, NO John, NO John, NO."

The problem is that John Redwood obviously does not wish to even hear what some of us have to say. On Twitter yesterday comments were made that when attempting to post on his blog, one on which he uses moderation, when posted they had found their comments had been edited. I have now discovered that when attempting to comment that I am immediately classified as a spambot and no matter that I complete word verification correctly the comment is disallowed.

Hats off then to Dougas Carswell who does post, unedited, comments from me, even when they are of critical content. Reverting to John Redwood and his latest post on solving the EU problem, I can only repeat the comments I made to Douglas Carswell. What is it with Redwood that he appears unable to understand the phrase 'ever closer union'? Why would the EU, having accumulated so many powers that it becomes difficult to think of just one aspect of your life that is not in some way affected by our membership of that body, voluntarily relinquish even one? Why can he not understand that this renegotiation involving repatriation of certain powers is a non-starter? Why can he not understand that for the EU to allow repatriation of just one would open the floodgates for other member states to do the same, thus negating ever closer union?

John Redwood is no fool, being a clever man with a banking background prior to entering Parliament, so one can only assume there are hidden reasons for his 'eurosceptism' being modified somewhat. Has he acquired a few whip marks on his back? Has it been intimated that, come the next general election, candidate selection might be a tad awkward? John Redwood may find such suggestions offensive, but must surely understand they are valid in view of the lack of any other evidence to the contrary.

Carswell rarely answers comments on his bog, a similar failing also of Redwood. If politicians will not debate with the electorate then one can only assume they are unable to answer their critics and thus substantiate their arguments. One can then only pose the question: why are they there?

Just saying.........

* Source

Man or Mouse, Mr. Carswell?

Douglas Carswell posts on a Two-Tier Europe. Personally, I am totally fed-up with all this 'pussy-footing' around the subject of our membership of the EU and have posted the following comment:

"Words, Mr. Carswell, just words is all we get from those we look to, to do something.

When will you actually do something?

When will you, Cash, Hollobone, et all supposed eurosceptics, forget parliamentary procedure and manners and actually stand up and castigate Cameron and his coterie for being traitors to their country? Use plain English for a change, forget you may get deselected and speak up for those of us who cannot speak in parliament! You may just be surprised by how much your majority increases!

The same message is projected to Hannan D.

You co-authored "The Plan" - then fight for it!

Man or Mouse, Mr. Carswell?"

No doubt Mr. Carswell, as with  all politicians, will place his career above his principles.........

'Expertitis'

It is often maintained, quite rightly in my opinion, that the state intrudes into our lives unnecessarily - a problem which probably has at its core all the 'experts' to which politicians listen. Picking up on a very witty post by CallingEngland we find:

We are drinking too much, although there is no acknowledgement of the fact that we are probably attempting to lessen the period in which we have to suffer all the crap dropped on us by our politicians.

That patients should be given a choice over when they die, with this idiot suggesting that there should be a referendum or a free vote in parliament to decide the issue. Is it not the person to whom the life belongs who should make that final decision? What legitimacy would any free vote by MPs have?

The two examples chosen from CallingEngland's post illustrates all that is presently wrong with our system of democracy, that politicians and their tame quangocracies elect to decide what is and what isn't good for us. It also demonstrates the point that politicians take from us and rarely give; by which I mean that if I wish to end my life voluntarily or drink myself to an early grave (which I don't, I hasten to add) the least the politicians could do is express some thanks and appreciation of the fact that my actions had saved the country monies in pension payments and end of life care. I mean to say, it is not asking much of them, is it?

Not another to cross off my 'eurosceptic' list, surely? (2)

Thanks to CallingEngland, commenting on my preceding post, I find that the letter* referred to had already been published by John Redwood - and yes, it is one hell of a read. (no apology for the pun) From one who professes to be a eurosceptic we read:

"My suggestion is we should make a very modest proposal to the EU, urging our government to use this moment to negotiate a long term solution to the UK’s problem. The proposal would be that we will happily allow the other members to do whatever they like without our seeking to block or veto it. In return we will be given the right to opt out of anything that the EU has agreed or may agree in the future, as Parliament sees fit. The rest of the EU would be spared the UK acting as the brake on the train, the wrecker at the unification party. The UK would be spared having law and regulation forced upon us with which we did not agree. 

Normally we would go along with new and old EU legal proposals. We would still sit down to negotiate and draft with the others. We often might reach collective agreement with them and happily implement what was decided. We would not however, be able to hold them up or resist if they were determined to do something, and they would not be able to force us to do it. We would need to be able to go back over past agreements, but would do so sparingly and only after raising it with them to see if all EU members might like to repeal or amend the offending law." (Emphasis mine)

Redwood then continues to write that with the above, the UK would once again be a democracy.  No it will not and never will be whilst 'decisions' are taken 'as Parliament sees fit' without deference to the people.

I can but repeat the question: how can powers ceded be reclaimed from an organisation whose basic 'raison d'être' is ever closer union. As for Redwood's intention that in reviewing past agreements we would only do so sparingly, it leaves me totally speechless. I had always believed Redwood to be a man of principle and honour, one who believed in self-governance. Unfortunately I now find he is no better than the majority of his parliamentary colleagues who, like others, are prepared to disregard their Privy Councillor Oath and see a foreign entity able to interfere in the governance of our nation. Shame on you Mr. Redwood.

As an aside and for the benefit of the public, it might be an idea if the word 'eurosceptic' - a word that has been stretched beyond its original meaning - were to be abolished and instead the word 'anti-EU' substituted. After all, it would at least enable the public to see who is to be trusted and who is only too willing to claim their 30 pieces of silver.

* The reason for my having missed the letter can be found in Redwood's existing version of his post and the content that I cut & pasted - you will note that the beginning of his last paragraph has been changed (much like his principles, it would seem)....................

Not another to cross off my 'eurosceptic' list, surely?

John Redwood, in a post entitled "Conservative thoughts and Coalition policies", homes in on a survey conducted of Conservative members' opinions, writing:

"The strongest support of all came for two policies which the goverment is not following. 93% want powers back from the EU, instead of seeing more and more power drift to the EU as we have done under this governemnt as well as under its predecessor. A similar 93% want the UK to abolish the Human Rights legislation, and presumably our entanglement with the European Court of Human Rights in its current form and guise, replaing them with domestic arrangements to uphold our human rights.

I will look tomorrow at what action Conservative MPs could now take over Europe. I will do so in the form of a letter I am sending  to George Eustice, who has announced he is forming a new group of Eurosceptic MPs, with an emphasis on those elected for the first time in 2010. They will be most welcome allies in getting powers back and establishing a more suitable relationship for the Uk with emerging Euroland."

I so look forward to reading how powers ceded can be reclaimed from an organisation whose basic 'raison d'être' is ever closer union. It should be one hell of a read............

This is not 'troughing' - this is 'taking the p**s!

"Take from a man his reputation for probity, and the more shrewd and clever he is, the more hated and mistrusted he becomes."
Marcus Tullius Cicero

And so the troughing of public funds continues unabated - according to this story in the MailOnline, a story about wealthy MPs taking advantage of £4,000 interest free loans whilst waiting for payment of their expenses. In the article mention is made of Nicholas Soames and Ed Miliband, both of whom it is reported have made use of the interest-free loan facility.

So what did Ed Miliband do with his £20,000 bonus, one received just over 18 months ago? What has Nicholas Soames done with all the money received and notated under his 'declaration of interest'?

Do not our 650 continually inform us how clever they are and that only they are fit and proper people to 'guide' our nation? Then they wonder why they are so hated.................

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

Helmer errant

And he should be erubescent with embarrassment at having been outed as yet another not-so-eurisceptic Conservative. Where, I hear the cry, has a renowned eurosceptic - or so Roger Helmer would have us believe - been outed? You need to toddle over to Autonomous Mind and read here, here and here - including the comments.

In the last of the 'series' of AM's posts one commenter, Trooper Thompson, hits the nub of the problem when he writes: "but for me the issue is encapsulated in the name ‘eurosceptic". Originally coined to describe those who were against any ceding of power, with the help of the MSM it has been widened to include those who want some powers returned but who are also content for our membership of the EU to continue - amongst whose numbers, it would seem, can now be  included Roger Helmer. Consequently I believe it reasonable to assume that the ten has now become eleven.

There are only two possible reasons for MPs and MEPs to present themselves as 'eurosceptics' when in fact they are nothing of the kind. First, there are career politicians who will not vote against their party in the hope that promotion may be forthcoming, whilst assisting their party by appearing to be a grouping behind which others can be seen to associate but having the hidden agenda of diverting attention from the real matter in hand; or they have, at some stage, been threatened with deselection at some point. It is not beyond logical speculation to ask whether Helmer has been reminded, from on-high, that Euro elections are due and that the candidate list can easily be changed.

As one who will never accept governance by the EU, the only definition of eurosceptic with which I will concur is someone who accepts the principle embodied in The Oath of Supremacy, imposed by the Act of Supremacy 1558, that no foreign prince or prelate shall rule over this island - and anyone, I repeat anyone, who breaks that Oath is, in my book, a traitorous b'stard.*

It is indeed sad when one sees someone, for whom one had admiration, then shown to be but another unprincipled, dishonourable, talking-head for the leader of his party.

Apologies for yet another short post, but why waste words on anyone who has shattered your ideas of what constitutes decency, truth, principle and honour.


* and when I say anyone, I don't care whether their named Hannan, Carswell, Cash, Heaton-Harris, Cameron, Hague,......................... (Hannan? Ok not an MP, but still a career politician.......)

Everyone should be entitled to the fruits of what they earn

An interesting video, brought to my attention by Edward Spalton, one most definitely worth watching and from which the heading to this post is taken Although based on America, it does have resonance with the United Kingdom. From the video, I paraphrase:

"Have you ever once seen a person in receipt of benefits ever thank those who made their benefits possible?"*

Where Bill Whittle compares two graphs does beg the question what results would a similar survey produce over here? So, is there such classifications as 'rich' and 'poor', or is it more a graduation of the degrees of 'rich'? 

* The question is not just aimed at those on social security benefits, but also to our politicians!

Can we really afford this?

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it...and a moral code that glorifies it."  Frederic Bastiat

One aspect of the 'plundering' came to light with the exposé, by the Daily Telegraph, of our elected representatives misuse of public money in 'Expensgate' - yet this is still continuing with MPs learning foreign languages which are paid for from the public purse. What, however, is just as important is the plundering of the nation's finances through ineptitude and also for reasons of political ideology.

Examples are legion; the cancelled IT projects; the introduction of multiculturalism which has placed untold burden and cost on society and public services; the continual 'tinkering' with our educational system resulting in incalculable cost for the future, in that the 'production line' produces an ill equipped end product; the imposition of costs to both individual and commerce through an enforced membership of what is, in effect, a United States of Europe; the abomination of costs imposed on individuals and commerce by an ill thought out environmental energy policy; the costs involved in attempts to introduce freedom and democracy abroad, whilst denying both to their own people; the subsidy that our political elite demand from the public purse to enable them to enjoy a lifestyle, one about which the majority can only dream - to name just some.

This plundering of the UK's wealth cannot be allowed to continue - and that is why a new system of democracy is urgently required for our nation.

Live births to non-UK women

Damien Thompson, Daily Telegraph, has a post, one which I recommend you read!

Some excerpts:

"In 2010, a quarter of births were to mothers born outside the UK, according to the ONS. The same set of statistics also showed that immigration added 239,000 to our population – a number which proves that this Government has no more control over our borders than the last one."

"More than half of all babies born in the capital in 2010 were to foreign mothers; in the borough of Newham more than three quarters of all new mothers were born abroad." 

"Another statistic that jumps out of the ONS findings relates to Poles. In 2001, there were 896 babies born to Polish mothers in England and Wales; in 2010, there were 19,762. Meanwhile, births to Middle Eastern, African and Asian mothers amounted to 14.7 per cent – that’s twice the proportion of non-British European mothers. Add that 14.7 per cent to children born to non-white British mothers and within a few years, a quarter of young Britons will be black, Asian or of mixed race. In the capital, the total will be well over 50 per cent."

And the UK doesn't have an immigration problem? Oh, happy days*

We can but hope that someone will arise and put a stop to this madness which is being inflicted upon our once proud land by our political elite. Whilst on the subject of hope: remember, at the end, in The Shawshank Redemption where Red has found the box left for him by Andy and reads a letter from the latter? "Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things - and good things never die".

I leave the last word to Damien Thompson:

"Alas, as the riots proved, we don’t have a clue how to police this emerging landscape – and, let’s face it, with Theresa May as Home Secretary, Ken Clarke as “Justice Secretary” and the ultra-wimpish Liberal Democrats as Coalition partners, we’re not about to find out."

* Seems a good cue for a song:

European Union matters

Two posts have caught my eye, the second having been sent to me by Edward Spalton - my thanks, Edward.

First, I would refer readers to Mark Wadsworth, who uses a summary by Denis Cooper on the subject of European Council Decision 2011/199EU - well worth a read! It is not surprising that this has not appeared in any detail, if at all, in our media - it is not something our political elite would want us to know, but then we are also aware that the press and politicians are in each others pockets. As the Americans tend to say: go figure.

The second is from German-Foreign-Policy.com and I wish to pick-up something in the last paragraph, namely:

"Because of Germany's austerity dictate, EU and IMF supervisors are, in fact, now ruling Athens. Recently a leading German daily columnist wrote, "for months now, elected Greek representatives have been prevented from making their own decisions on any questions of significance." A parliamentarian publically posed the question, "what was he supposed to do now in Parliament, when, in any case, every decision is going to be taken by the IMF, the EU and the European Central Bank."[13] "As a matter of fact," concluded the commentator, "for the time being, Greece will be merely a restricted democracy. The Greeks can vote for whatever they want, but it will not really change anything." (Emphasis mine)

Anyone spot the similarities between Greece and the United Kingdom on elected representatives making decisions on any question of significance? Or the fact that the Greek people can vote for whatever they want, but that it will not really change anything? It should be remembered that the UK's budget has, in effect, to be approved by the European Union - and it should also be remembered that he who controls fiscal planning also controls the country. With regard to the second highlighted emphasis, we should also recall that not one of the present three main policial parties will allow a referendum on this country's membership of the European Union; that they refuse to provide an independent cost/benefit analysis of that membership; and that, basically, they will not even debate the subject.

As an aside, regular readers may have spotted that one of my regular commenters has a good knowledge of matters Germany and no doubt his comment(s) on this post may well prevoke a good 'discussion' in the comments section - stay tuned, as they say... (and don't let me down, TT).