Compare & Contrast

It is reported that Frank Carson counted Bernard Manning as a friend and defended him against charges of racism. “How could anyone call Bernard a racist?” he wondered. “He even had black horses at his funeral”.


In the same newspaper we read of a man who, having placed his belongings including a scarf on the belt to pass through a scanner, noticed a woman in a hijab pass through without showing her face. Querying what would happen were he to cover his face with his scarf resulted in a lengthy questioning session in which he was accused of making a racist remark. After considerable time, during which the police were called and management from BAA, a compromise was reached in which this man agreed that his remark could be considered offensive to a Muslim. So it is possible for racism to be an offence if a remark could have caused distress?


How have we allowed ourselves to be conditioned to the extent that free speech and even our private thoughts can be held to be verboten? As with the health & safety brigade, so have the politically correct brigade built an industry, ones that the taxpayers fund.


Frank Carson was renowned for suffering from what might be called verbal excess, yet this man - because of the pc brigade - was prevented from talking the hindi leg of a donkey. Is it not better that we allow a thousandfold abuses of free speech than to deny free speech? Likewise, does not free speech carry with it the another freedom; to listen?


To underline my point that we do indeed live under a system of democratised dictatorship, I am reminded of a quote by Herbert Hoover:

"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own."

 On that note - and to borrow a legal phrase - I believe I am entitled to say that I rest my case!

EUSpeak - by Van Rompuy

Courtesy of England Calling:

1. We, the people, have no bloody choice!

2. And the difference is?

3. Same bloody question!

It is sad the man is not of this planet - and even sadder is the fact that neither is Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and about 600+ others!

Sod the lobbyists - lets target the politicians!

From Politics Home we learn that the Government has unveiled a consultation on a new statutory register for lobbyists. Among other areas, ministers will look at how lobbyists are defined and what sanctions should be in place.


How about a public consultation on how politicians are defined and what sanctions should be in place for them? - leaving to one side that we are being offered the 'barstardised' Recall Bill.........


Direct Democracy, anyone?


Just asking...............

Err, not strictly true Mr. Redwood - surely?

With a post entitled "Europe again - its always there to trouble us" John Redwood writes:

"I used the opportunity to ask the Minister about the status of the UK’s HS2 project. He confirmed what I have been telling many of you. HS2 is a project which the UK can and does decide for itself. It is not mandated by the EU, and is not on the maps as a crucial part of the EU’s European networks. Critics of the scheme should attack it on its domestic merits and defects, not as a further illustration of too much EU power. There does not seem to be any wish by the EU to find EU money raised from member states to help this project."

Agreed that HS2 is a project which the UK can and does decide for itself; that it is not mandated by the EU, ie there is no EU Directive or Regulation 'enabling' its construction. That is a fact - however knowing our political elite have this overriding aim to show what "good little Europeans we are" I still suspect this to be another of Cameron's "We have decided to ......" with a view to negate the ensuing "Brussels Effect". Perhaps Mr. Redwood did not pay attention to Justine Greening and Statutory Instrument 3066/2011 in which it is notated that our rail system is now known as "the rail system within the Community (now the EU)". If that phrase does not mean that our railway system is no longer under our control - then I must have missed something! Oh and by the way, Mr. Redwood, it is on TEN-T maps - go trawl the TEN-T website....... Ask yourself why the EU has part-funded the rail link between Dublin and Belfast and beyond? Ask yourself why would they do that if it was not to provide a 'transport corridor' from one outer region of the EU, through the UK, to mainland Europe and why there may have been a little 'arm-twisting' on HS2. Are we to see a bridge or tunnel connecting Larne in Ireland to mainland Britain?


That, insidiously, we are being subsumed into the "EU net" is beyond doubt and I find it utterly unbelievable that an avowed, supposed, Eurosceptic appears to be following the public trend of believing that which he is told and doing so without question. There has been much effort expended in obtaining sight of the emails that exist with regard to Huhne and his speeding points - cynic that I am, perhaps the police might wish to spend some time obtaining emails and correspondence between our political elite and those bodies set up to 'investigate' the viability of HS2, together with said correspondence twixt the EU and our 'government'?


One thing is certain - we, the public (and I suspect MPs), are not privy to all the facts about HS2 and why it is being implemented and yet we are expected to fund it. That is democracy? So much for "transparency in government"; so much for 'honesty' on the part of our political elite; so much for the 'honour' of our political elite. Until the foregoing becomes the norm we will continue to live under what is becoming more and more evident as a democratised dictatorship. Until we get some form of direct democracy and an element of 'referism', we will continue to be 'bled dry' as a result of the vanity of those who are supposed to serve us!

Politics in our country is rotten to the core......

.....because honesty and openness, principle and honour amongst politicians appear to be characteristics that are most noticeable by their absence. Let us consider three examples which have occurred during the last 48 hours.


1. Yesterday Richard North, EU Referendum, posted on a statement by Cameron, one which in a related post I intimated meant that he, Cameron, had misled the House of Commons. Today, Richard North posts yet another example of the duplicity of Cameron who presents a new 'initiative' when that 'initiative' is anything but. There are other examples of Cameron introducing 'policy', policy that is in effect putting in place 'programmes' that originate from the European Union. The most obvious examples are HS2-Trans European Network-Transport and the Big Society - European Year of Volunteering 2011.


2. Jack Dromey has been 'censured' by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges (the irony of that title escapes the minds of MPs, obviously!) That the report issued by that committee finds that whilst Dromey did wrong, the fact he was a new MP with a heavy workload is sufficient for him to be 'excused'? The man is an astute political operator - you don't become one of the hierarchy in a trade union without so being and it has to be remembered that as Mr. Harriet Harman he has no doubt enjoyed many moments of 'pillow talk'.  So Dromey 'apologises' for the error of his ways a fiddle he hoped he would get away with and all is forgiven? The report of their findings can be read here and it is worth dwelling a moment on the MPs comprising that committee whilst bearing in mind the Daily Telegraph Expenses findings, the brief details being placed in brackets:


Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) - (Kevin Barron claimed London flat in 2004-05 as his second home with a monthly mortgage interest of £1,509, which rose to £1,791 in 2005-06. It increased in 2007-08 to more than £2,000)
Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) - (Sir Paul Beresford, who works up to three days a week as a dentist, designated his west London property, which includes his surgery, as his second home on his parliamentary allowances)
Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole) - (Annette Brooke pays £1,124 a month rent for a flat in London and makes few other claims. One was £149.95 for a vacuum cleaner)
Rt hon Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) - (Tom Clarke designated the Sloane Club in Chelsea as second home, and claimed about £1,500 a month while in London. Claimed £400 a month for food)
Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) - (Geoffrey Cox QC made monthly mortgage interest payments of £1,750 in 2005-06 and 2006-07. This was his only regular claim)
Matthew Hancock MP (Conservative, West Suffolk) - (Entered Parliament in May 2010)
Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) - (Oliver Heald's second home is a flat in south London. Has spent £5,258 on refurbishing his bathroom as well as £2,891 on new windows. Bought three lavatory brushes in as many years)
Julie Hilling MP (Labour, Bolton West) - (Entered Parliament May 2010)
Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) - (Entered Parliament May 2010)
Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) - (Alan Whitehead claimed mortgage interest payments of up to £730 per month on his second home in London. Also claimed £1,942.98 for a replacement boiler)


3. When Cameron and Clegg usurped power, following the results of the 2010 General election, they subsequently produced a document/manifesto entitled: "The Coalition - our programme for government". From page 27 of that document:

"We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters  to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents."

Aha, everyone thought - at last we can have some control over these people. Not so, I'm afraid, as what was a deliberately loosely worded political promise (and what political promise is not loosely worded in a manifesto, or anywhere else come to that?) results in we the people having virtually no power on which to recall any MP who it is felt has questions to answer.


From Fausty's blog we learn that:

"All of them agreed (as did the Committee), that the government's recall bill, if implemented, would have the opposite effect on politics to what its proponents purport to want. It would cause further deterioration in confidence in the democratic process."

Today the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee held a hearing into the Recall Bill (video on Faustys blog).

So what has happened in the last 48 hours (which is no different to what has happened for yonks now) is that (1) a Prime Minister has tried - or intends trying - to pass off initiatives as his own, when in fact all he is doing is pre-empting legislation which will be imposed, at some time in the not too distant future, on our country from Brussels. In other words, he has lied to/misled the country; (2) an MP has been caught taking money which he did not declare (and I accuse, knowingly) - judged by some whose own behaviour is questionable; and (3) two politicians contrived to mislead the public by presenting a promise they had no intention of keeping.

Come election time the voters are asked to place their trust in representatives who maintain that they will govern in the best interests of the country - that they do not and obviously have no intention of so doing becomes more obvious by the day. So just why the hell do we, the people, continually re-elect these bastards back time and time again? Are we so blind that the Labour Party, comprising politicians that got us into the present financial problem, are now as equally popular as the present Coalition, if opinion polls are to be believed? Are we so blind that the present Coalition is equally trusted when the three examples above show they are no better than the last lot of thieves/conmen they replaced? Having shown that they lack any sense of honesty and openness, principle and honour, why have we not attached them to the nearest lamppost? Why when local authorities impose draconian measures have we not meted out similar punishment? Are we that cowed?

Is not Cameron acting as a dictator, not just in his attitude to Salmond and the question of Scottish Independence, but in every action he takes? He can decide whether Fred Goodwin retains his knighthood? Where is the people's voice in that decision? Salmond decides that he wants a referendum on Scottish Independence and wishes to set the question(s) put - is that not a decision for the people? Cameron decides to intervene in the pay of top executives in the private sector - is that not a decision for the shareholders of those companies?

Our politicians extract money from our earnings by force, not having given any indication why that money is needed and on what it will be spent; they decide to engage in wars and then 'cry tears' every Wednesday at PMQs over the lost lives of our servicemen, all without the express consent of the people; they decide to loan our money to the IMF, at a reduced rate of interest from that which has to be paid for the initial loan, without asking for our agreement; they instigate procedures, funded by our money, but then are 'shocked' when they don't work; they decide who can and cannot vote in the Scottish referendum; we could well be deprived of plastic bags when visiting a supermarket - and our 'government' cannot but comply; and finally we have a Conservative MP, Bernard Jenkin, stating that there is a "ferociously negative" public perception of politics; that action needed to be taken, as it was "not in the public interest to keep reinforcing that narrative". If anything demonstrated that these bastards believe they are a 'class apart' and that they believe in the present system of democratised dictatorship, then it is surely that statement!

Just who the hell do these politicians think they are? I am fully aware that we British are supposed to be slow to anger - so will someone please light a fire under their backsides?

Ripp-Ed Off

Ed Miliband has 'been speaking to the Daily Telegraph', so we are informed by Robert Winnett and Mary Riddell, at least according to the print edition. MilibandE states we have to call time on the surcharge culture; that it is about rules that government set; that car parking charges at railway stations should be capped, along with season tickets and other fares; that on bank charges a new watchdog should have the power to intervene and outlaw excessive fees.


If it is time to take action on the surcharge culture perhaps a start could be made with the public subsidy for food and drink in the Palace of Westminster, perhaps a start could be made with the public subsidy paid to employ what are not even second-rate politicians.


If season ticket and other fares are to be capped, perhaps MilibandE would like to publicly state that, should by some quirk of fate he became Prime Minister, he will not impose the 'user-pays' principle when it is introduced by the European Union?


At a time when it is generally accepted that the public sector is bloated and needs trimming, in true socialist fashion all MilibandE can suggest is yet another watchdog be created, one funded by the public.


Lastly - and most importantly - MilibandE states that ultimately its about the rules government sets - err, what?! So in electing a political party based on a piece of incomplete fiction (they call it a mandate), one that only contains broad outlines of policy, we get dictated to by rules government set? And people say we do not live under a democratised dictatorship?


And this idiot wants to end the rip-off of the public when the greatest rip-off merchants are the section of our society of which he is a member!

Exactly whose money is it?

From Paul Waugh on Twitter:

"No.10 spksman kills Royal Yacht idea:" I don't think this wd be an appropriate use of public money given the state of the nations finances"

Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to increase our contribution to the IMF to help troubled eurozone countries.


Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to fund our politicians in order that they may govern our country, when they so obviously do not and cannot.


Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to fund a railway line the objective of which has been shown to be flawed.


Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to fund an energy policy that is so obviously not fit for purpose.


Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to fund development aid to other countries when the elderly and vulnerable in our own country are left wanting.


Just a few examples in rebuttal, Mr. No10 spokesman - over to you.........

The dictator-in-waiting has spoken

Ed Miliband - aka Ed il Mil - has been speaking today and it is reported that he has called for the Labour Party to change if it is to govern in tough economic times. He claims the next time his party comes back to power, it will be different as they will be handed a deficit. He continued that it is his belief that how fairness was achieved for Britain in a time when there was less money to spent depended on Labour's responsibility to find a new approach and that therefore Labour will be a different party from that of the past; that the availability of less money for public spending did not mean governments could not make a difference and deliver a fairer society.

Leaving aside the fact that Ed il Mil conveniently omits to state the reason for their being handed a deficit, in other words continuing to reject, or deny, the charge that it was the last Labour government’s overspending the caused the deficit, is most notable - and it is a charge the electorate would do well to remember.


However what we see here is yet another politician telling the people that they, the political class, are the only ones who know what is good for our country, that continue to make sweeping statements, such as that made today, whilst not providing any detail - in any event, what is a fairer society to one man is not necessarily so to his neighbour, however Ed il Mil will continue none the less regardless of the peoples wishes to create that fairer society, one of his choice not that of the people.


His statement that his Labour Party is not going to bow to the outdated idea that says that government cannot help brings to mind Reagan's oft quoted remark that the most feared words in the English language are when government says that they are there to help. We all know that politicians are not there to help - they are there to dictate, to impose their ideas on those they are meant to serve.


At every election politicians promise better times - even though they have previously created the opposite - and every time, when given the opportunity, then promptly fail again. With every general election they then proceed to impose yet more restrictions on our personal liberty, whilst at the same time steering the country further down the path to chaos, ridicule and penury. Presently we are being told that we must live with less whilst they blame their failures on unforeseen circumstances; attempt to convince us that anyone wishing to achieve a higher standard of living, the result of thrift and hard work, is somehow selfish extravagance which we must renounce in the name of fairness.


 As with, I believe, a growing number of people I am unable to stand by and see our great country being destroyed by a political elite. It is for that reason that I was instrumental in setting up talkconstitution.net with a view to arriving at a consensus whereby a better form of government can be achieved. One of the underlying reasons for that decision was, to borrow another Reagan phrase, I realised that government as we know it is not the problem, government as we know it is the problem. In promoting the benefits of direct democracy, I was also influenced by the words of Ronald Reagan's  first inaugural address:

"From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

This is our country, people - so why the hell do we allow a small minority amongst us to treat it like their own personal fiefdom?  Why the hell do we allow them to tax us till the pips start squeaking - and continue to allow them so to do? Why do we allow them to 'improve' our education system - whilst each 'improvement' consigns children to an even worse education, one beholden to political and ideological expediency? Why do we allow them to forcibly extract money from us in the form of tax without our having the faintest idea how that money is to be spent?


We are continually informed by our political elite that they want change, the only problem is that that change is change 'their way'. Well I say if we are to have change, then it should be change 'our way'!

Kirkup or (journalistic) 'Kockup'

James Kirkup, writing in the Daily Telegraph, in a blatant attempt to 'big-up' the comment piece by Caroline Spelman, pens that Spelman pledges that farmers, rural businesses and residents will get a “hotline straight to the heart of Government” allowing them to raise concerns with ministers directly. As can be seen, what Spelman actually wrote was that she is creating a rural hotline straight to the heart of Government through 14 Rural and Farming Networks; that this is a new way of working; that these networks will give rural business and community leaders a direct link to her and her team to tell them their problems so they can find ways to help. So Kirkup, where exactly does the word "residents" occur in Spelman's article? 


In effect all Spelman has done is to create a direct communication channel between central government and its acolytes within local government and 'stakeholders' on how the latter can implement central government diktats and how to pass these off to the public as 'localism'. Where local 'problems' exist and are at variance with national policies, it is perhaps pertinent to repeat that which my Member of Parliament - who also happens to be the nation's Prime Minister - informed me at a constituency surgery, namely that where local policy, or local 'requirements', conflict with national policy, national policy will reign supreme - a comment which prompted my rejoinder that that is the constituents of Witney disenfranchised then. It is also disingenuous of Spelman to say that direct contact with ministers by real people with real practical knowledge will benefit those people - as I found out to my cost when I was granted an audience with Grant Shapps!


On the subject of farmers and farming, it is again disingenuous of Spelman to intimate that their industry can be 'improved', or 'helped', when farmers are constrained by the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which in effect dictates what can be produced, at what price and how farming is organised - matters over which Spelman has little, if any, control.


All the foregoing underlines that we do not have 'democracy' per se - we have democratised dictatorship, one dictated at every level by our nation's membership of the European Union.


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

Drunk as a skunk

We are advised today that Dav il Cam, ('Dav il', as in the landlord of Hell) aka Dear Leader of Region UK in the People's Republic of Europe, is of a mind to increase the price of alcohol by one means or another. The Daily Telegraph editorial bemoans the fact that unless this 'measure' is fully thought through, problems may well arise. That comment prompts two immediate thoughts: when has any political policy ever been fully thought through - and come to that, when has any DT editorial ever been thought through, today's being the latest example; but I digress.


Today is also the day when it is announced by, amongst others, Politics Home that MPs are set for a survey on the facilities in the House of Commons for the third successive year at a cost of £27,790, making the point that in previous years many Parliamentarians have complained about the price of food in the the various eateries and bars on the Parliamentary Estate. Presumably, in consideration of his statement that we are all in it together, Dav il Cam will also decree that MPs will be paying the 'state price' for their alcohol.


Dav il Cam illustrates only too plainly that a skunk can easily get drunk; in his case from the power he 'assumes' under our system of governance - aka democratised dictatorship.

And we do not live under a democratised dictatorship?

IanPJonPolitics links to an article by Tim Worstall who in turn links to a report in the Guardian newspaper, from which we learn that a law rejected by Parliament was introduced by means of a Statutory Instrument (SI). (You can read more on the latter from Wikipedia.) Tim Worstall's post has also been picked-up by The Last Ditch.

IPJ is correct that the use of SIs needs to be revisited, it being a means by which EU directives are introduced, as it is but one aspect of how new laws are effected without any opportunity of the people to agree or disagree. This method of 'government' though is not confined to central government, with the practise also carried out by local authorities. Richard North, EU Referendum, comments that local authorities derive income from fees and charges, none of which is subject to any real accountability or democratic control. Local Authorities also spend taxpayer's money without any form of democratic control or accountability, as illustrated by this article from Ambush Predator.

For sure, political parties publish manifestos come election time, but these are so loosely worded and contain 'vague' promises, such that they are virtually worthless. How many of us would hire a group of tradesman to renovate (or 'fix') an old property without knowing what work is needed, how the work will be carried out and, more importantly, what it will cost? Yet is not that what we do, come election time, seek to select a political party who promises to 'fix' our country without knowing how they intend going about it, nor what the final cost will be?

Regular readers will have realized that I am leading up to something - and that 'something' will appear during the course of the coming weekend, at which time a suggestion for an alternative form of democracy and constitution will be presented.

Watching the state - aka our 'democratised dictatorship'

Courtesy of Statewatch (H/T), from which a selection:

1.    EU: CATS-SCIFA REPRIEVED: Council of the European Union
2.    EU: Council of the European Union: Accession of the EU to ECHR
3.    DEMOCRACY SIDELINED: ITALY-GREECE: Monti names unelected government of technocrats and bankers
4.    EU: European Parliament: Draft Report on the proposal for a directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings
5.    EU-USA-PNR AGREEMENT: Draft declarations regarding the draft Agreement
6.    European Parliament: Working Document: on amending the Rules of Procedure
7.    EU: Migreurop Press Release: Our ideas are much better than your destructive policies
8.    EU: European Commission: Green Paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals
9.    UK BORDER AGENCY: Home Affairs Select Committee report: The work of the UK Border Agency
10.  EU-ACTA: Council of the European Union: Declassified Resticted "negotiating" documents
11.  EU-USA: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY
12.  EU: Council of the European Union: Crime Statistics proposal
13.  EU: Council of the European Union: Single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work
14.  UPDATED: HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS: EU: Evaluation of National Anti-Terrorist Arrangements
15.  EU: Council of the European Union: Guidelines on downgrading and declassifying Council documents
16.  EP-COMMISSION: Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission
17.  CoE: Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on “the right to access to a lawyer and on the right to communicate upon arrest
18.  EU-TFTS (Terrorist Finance Tracking System) : USE OF USA TECHNOLOGY & COOPERATION WITH USA TFTP
19.  EU: FUNCTION CREEP: EUROPEAN INVESTIGATION ORDER (EIO)
20.  EU: EUROPEAN INVESTIGATION ORDER (EIO): "Certain investigative measures"
21.  EU: NGO Letter to Commissioner Malmstrom: Ongoing human rights concerns.. Western Balkans to stop the influx of asylum seekers
22.  EU: European Commission Communication: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges
23.  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: REJECTS NEW PROTOCOL: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
24.  European Parliament: Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE): Notes on 7th November 2011 meeting
25.  EU: Meijers Committee: Proposal for a Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals
26.  EU: Council of the European Union: Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children
27.  EU: Council of the European Union: Joint Investigation Teams Manual
28.  FRANCE: Security of personal data: a guide for action

1.  EU: CATS-SCIFA REPRIEVED: Council of the European Union:

The future of CATS: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-cats-17187-11.pdf
The future of SCIFA: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-scifa-17182-11.pdf

The Maastricht Treaty created the K4 Committee (Interior Ministry and law enforcement officials) which was replaced by the Article 36 Committee (CATS) under the Amsterdam Treaty. But the Lisbon Treaty provides no legal basis for CATS so COREPER decided on 24 November 2009 to continue its existence until 1 January 2012. (The SCIFA Committee dealing with borders, immigration and asylum also created under the Maastricht Treaty). By these two decisions CATS and SCIFA will continue until 2014. CATS and SCIFA sit between the Council Working Parties and COREPER (the Committee of Permanent Representatives from each Member State based in Brussels) Background: EU doc no: 13206-11: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/aug/eu-council-cats-future-13206-11.pdf

2.  EU: Council of the European Union: Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR): - State of play: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-echr-accession-16385-11.pdf

FREMP, the Working Party on Fundamental Rights, Citizens' rights and free movement of persons, considered a series of proposed amendments by the UK and France - most of which were rejected. See also: EU accession to ECHR: Report to the Committee of Ministers on the elaboration of legal instruments for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights (dated 14.10.11):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/oct/coe-eu-accession-echr-14-10.11.pdf

3.  DEMOCRACY SIDELINED: ITALY-GREECE: Monti names unelected government of technocrats and bankers (euobserver, link):
http://euobserver.com/19/114299

"Incoming Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti has named a government entirely composed of unelected figures, just days after a technocratic government was installed in Greece, where the presence of far-right figures linked to the military junta are raising hackles." Prime Minister intends to rule until elections in 2013. In Italy: "All ministerial posts will be held by technocrats, soldiers and diplomats." and in Greece: "Four individuals from the Popular Orthodox Rally, a religious and and anti-immigrant grouping whose leadership is normally more commonly seen in the company of France’s National Front or the UK’s British National Party, have been named ministers. Two in particular who have links to the military junta are raising hackles amongst critics of the new government."

See also Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom's Blog: "Both Monti and Papademos have clear mandates and expectations are high that they will get their countries back on track without delay. Of course it is not ideal that democratic countries are run by technocrats and not elected politicians. But at the same time the situation is serious, and elections are also planned for." - SW comment: but not until 2013 in Italy. And: Statement by President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, after a phone call with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti (Press release): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-pres-monti.pdf

4. EU: European Parliament: Draft Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right to information in criminal proceedings
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/ep-vote-rigt-to-info.pdf

the Vote will take place in the Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE) on 23 November 2011. Council of the European Union: Proposal for a Directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings: - Approval of the final compromise text with a view to a first reading agreement with the European Parliament:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-right-to-info-16342-11.pdf

and Commission Press Release: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-com-right-to-info-prel.pdf

5. EU-USA-PNR AGREEMENT: Draft declarations regarding the draft Agreement on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security (EU doc no: 16981-11):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-usa-pnr-declarations-16981-11.pdf

See also Draft Article 17 - May 2011: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-usa-pnr-draft-art-17.pdf

and Draft Article 23 - May 2011: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-usa-pnr-draft-art-23.pdf

6.  European Parliament: Working Document: on amending the Rules of Procedure to take into account the changing relationships between the European Parliament and the institutions representing the national governments following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty Committee on Constitutional Affairs Rapporteur: Alain Lamassoure
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/ep-institutional-relations-lisbon-wp.pdf

A very interesting document which takes on the problems posed by new post-Lisbon bodies created at the level of the Council of the European Union on which the European Parliament has little information nor control - the new Permanent President, the High Representative (defence and foreign policy) and the Eurogroup (financial) - to which could be added the plethora of new agencies and bodies. The document says that: "these new ‘intergovernmental’ bodies are now fulfilling the role of a collective executive." And that the parliament is only involved "at the stage of legal implementation" but not at the level of the primary decision-making in the Council summits.

The only mechanism for reporting European Council Summits (comprised of Prime Ministers) to the parliament is when the President of the Council (van Rompuy) briefs "the Enlarged Bureau of the European Parliament instead of to a plenary sitting of the European Parliament" - and he has made clear that this will continue to be the practice as "he was responsible only to the European Council, his only ‘master’" (Speech by Herman Van Rompuy, 7 January 2010). In effect the European Council "outrageously... debates and decides behind closed doors."

7.  EU: Migreurop Press Release: Our ideas are much better than your destructive policies (link):
http://www.migreurop.org/article2045.html?lang=fr

- French: http://www.migreurop.org/article2044.html
- Italian: http://www.migreurop.org/article2046.html
- Spanish: http://www.migreurop.org/article2047.html

"The two latest reports by Frontex show that joint surveillance operations with countries neighbouring the European Union (EU) are still a priority for its member states. The externalisation of migration controls at the borders of the EU continues, and it has resulted in many migrants being deported."

8.  EU: European Commission: Green Paper on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European Union (Directive 2003/86/EC) (COM 735):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-com-family-reunification-tcn-com-735.pdf

10.  EU-ACTA: Council of the European Union: Declassified Resticted "negotiating" documents:

- 15004/08 RESTREINT: dated: 4 November 2008: New status: Public: Subject: Plurilateral Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) Chapter 2: Draft Criminal provisions: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-acta-declass-15004-rev1-10.pdf

- 13637/08 RESTREINT UE: dated: 29 September 2008: New status: Public: Subject: Plurilateral Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
3rd negotiating session 8-10 October 2008, Tokyo, Japan Chapter 2 :Draft Criminal provisions Japan-USA Joint proposal, dated 12 September 2008:
  http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-acta-declass-11203-rev1-10.pdf

- 11203/10 RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED: dated: 17 June 2010: New status: Public: Subject: Pluri-lateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Chapter 2 "Criminal Enforcement": http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-acta-declass-10837-rev1-10.pdf

- 10837/10 RESTREINT UE: dated: 8 June 2010: New status: Public: Subject: Pluri-lateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
- Statement by Germany Consolidated Text of 16 April 2010: 
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-acta-declass-10837-rev1-10.pdf

11.  EU-USA: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY: Council of the European Union: Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on cooperation in the regulation of civil aviation safety - Agreed minutes and rules of procedure of the Bilateral Oversight Board:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-usa-civil-aviation-safety-oversight-board-16574-11.pdf

12.  EU: Council of the European Union: Crime Statistics proposal: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European statistics on safety from crime - Summary table:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-crime-stats-16721-11.pdf

13. EU: Council of the European Union:
- Draft Statement of the Council's reasons - single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work. Revised.
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-single-permit-reasons-revised-13036-add1-11.pdf

- Directive on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (pdf) Ready for adoption:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-qualifications-ep50-11.pdf

14. UPDATED: HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS: EU: Council of the European Union: Evaluation of National Anti-Terrorist Arrangements: France (164 pages)::
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-france-2003-10373-ext1-04.pdf

Reports de-classified from the period 2003-2005 (downgraded from "Restricted"). 21 Member States responses below. Some are short reports but others contain interesting detail. Cyprus, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Italy and the UK have not consented to the release of their national reports.

- Germany (16 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-councul-ct-germany-2004-13946-ext1-04.pdf
 - Poland: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-councul-ct-poland-2004-9046-ext1-05.pdf
 - Hungary: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-councul-ct-hungary-2004-6103-ext1-05.pdf
 - Estonia: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-councul-ct-estonia-2005-9103-ext1-05.pdf
 - Sweden: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-councul-ct-sweden-2004-13510-ext1-04.pdf
 - Latvia: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-councul-ct-latvia-2005-11207-ext1-05.pdf
 - Belgium (45 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-councul-ct-belgium-2004-9216-04.pdf
 - Malta: (21 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-councul-ct-malta-2005-11343-ext1-05.pdf
 - Portugal (18 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-councul-ct-portugal-2003-11357-ext1-04.pdf
 - Spain (19 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-spain-11348-ext1-04.pdf
 - Luxembourg: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-luxembourg-12597-ext1-04.pdf
 - Greece (25 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-greece-2003-12633-ext1-04.pdf
 - Ireland (32 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-ireland-2003-9770-ext1-04.pdf
 - Denmark: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-denmark-2003-11078-rev1-04.pdf
 - Finland: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-finland-2004-13927-rev1-04.pdf
 - Bulgaria: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-bulgaria-2005-6883-ext1-06.pdf
 - Romania (43 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-romania-2005-6246-ext1-06.pdf
 - Slovenia (19 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-slovenia-2005-7413-ext1-05.pdf
 - Netherlands (55 pages): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-2004-netherlands-12247-rev1-04.pdf
 - Lithuania: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-2005-lithuania-10997-rev1-05.pdf
 - Austria: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-2004-rep-austria-13944-rev1-04.pdf

See also: Interim Report on the Evaluation of National Anti-Terrorist Arrangements:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-rep-nov-2004-14306-rev3-04.pdf

and Final report on the Evaluation of National Anti-Terrorist Arrangements: Improving national machinery and capability for the fight against terrorism:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-ct-final-rep-2005-12168-rev2-05.pdf

15. EU: Council of the European Union: Meeting Document from the Security Committee: Guidelines on downgrading and declassifying Council documents (MD 36-11, 2.9.11): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-sec-cttee-declassifying-docs-md-36-11.pdf

16.  EP-COMMISSION: FOR THE RECORD: 2010: Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (47 pages):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/ep-com-interinstitutional-agreement-2010.pdf

Letter from the Commission to the European Parliament with Annex (45 pages):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/ep-com-interinstitutional-agreement-letter-to-ep-2010.pdf

and see OEIL on procedure (link): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5864472

17. Council of Europe: Opinion of the Secretariat on the Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on “the right to access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest”: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/coe-opinion-right-to-info.pdf

18. EU-TFTS (Terrorist Finance Tracking System) : USE OF USA TECHNOLOGY & COOPERATION WITH USA TFTP: France has intervened in the discussions over the creation of an EU TFTS: France's position with respect to a European TFTP (Council of the European Union: Doc no: 13716-11, pdf) which says:

"Overall, the programme should be designed to be compatible with the system implemented with the US. On the one hand, the United States has agreed, in the aforementioned Agreement, to a technology transfer, which will help reduce design costs of the system. On the other hand – again under the terms of the Agreement – the United States and the European Union have agreed, once the European system is operational, to cooperate via their respective TFTPs." (emphasis added)

France acknowledges that the TFTS "would involve large-scale transfers" from financial institutions in the EU from which, using "terrorist threat identification skills" targets will be selected at national level. Each Member State would apply its own perception of a potential terrorist "threat" - which on past practice can vary from state to state. No central database would be create but national hub could give data access to third countries and "allow data searches requested by the United States".

See: Commission Communication: A European terrorist finance tracking system: available options (COM 429):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/jul/eu-com-eu-tfts-com-429-11.pdf

EU-USA Agreement: Full-text of EU-USA Agreement on Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (Agreed in July 2010):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/jun/eu-usa-draft-swift-agreement-com-final-3.pdf

19. EU: FUNCTION CREEP: EUROPEAN INVESTIGATION ORDER (EIO): Council of the European Union: Initiative of Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Spain, Austria, Slovenia and Sweden for a Directive regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Freezing of evidence (EU doc no: 16410-11, 8.11.11):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-eio-freezing-evidence-16410-11.pdf

The Council is discussing extending the scope of the draft Directive to cover not just the "freezing of assets" but their confiscation - covering property (ie: bank accounts, computers) or evidence. As currently drafted the Directive concerns only the "gathering" of evidence. At the Article 36 Committee (CATS)in June: "the Commission and the Council Legal Service appealed to Member States to carefully weight pros and cons of such inclusion". This Council Presidency Note offers three Options which include (Option C) the "both freezing of evidence and freezing of assets" (ie: confiscation). It should be noted that by the nature of the EIO the suspect may not have been either been charged or convicted.

See Statewatch Observatory: European Investigation Order: http://www.statewatch.org/Targeted-issues/EIO/eio-observatory.htm

20. EU: EUROPEAN INVESTIGATION ORDER (EIO): Council of the European Union: Initiative Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Spain, Austria, Slovenia and Sweden for a Directive regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters - Follow-up document of the meeting of the "Friends of the Presidency" meeting on 26 October 2011 (EU doc no: 16408/11): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-eio-fop-version-16408-11.pdf

Concerns Chapter IV on "Certain investigative measures" and contains detailed comments by Member States.

See Statewatch Observatory: European Investigation Order: http://www.statewatch.org/Targeted-issues/EIO/eio-observatory.htm

22.  EU: European Commission Communication: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2011-2012 (SEC 1203-11):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-com-enlargement-rep-sec-1203-11.pdf

23. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: REJECTS NEW PROTOCOL: Draft Report on the draft protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/ep-charter-protocol-rep.pdf

24. European Parliament: Civil Liberties Committee (LIBE): Notes on 7th November 2011 meeting:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/ep-libe-committee-notes-7-nov-11.pdf

25.  EU: Standing Committee of experts on international immigration, refugee and criminal law (Meijers Committee): Proposal for a Directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals for the purposes of seasonal employment (COM(2010)0379):
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-meijers-cttee-seasonal-employment.pdf

26. EU: Council of the European Union: Ready for adopted: Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-dir-sexual-exploit-pe51-11.pdf

27.  EU: Council of the European Union: Joint Investigation Teams Manual:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/nov/eu-council-jit-manual-15790-rev1-11.pdf

"The main goal of this Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) Manual, which supplements the existing Eurojust/Europol document “Guide to EU Member States’ legislation on Joint Investigation Teams”, is to inform practitioners about the legal basis and requirements for setting up a JIT and to provide advice on when a JIT can be usefully employed."


It may be that some of the above could well be considered beneficial; may well be good for mankind, however a few questions:

• When were we consulted about the above?
• When were we given a vote on these subjects?
• When did our government advise us that they were participating in some, or all, of these proposals?
• When did the MSM report on these proposals?
• When did your MP write to you, as one of his/her constituents to advise you of just one of the above?
• When did your MEP write to you, as one of his/her constituents to advise you of just one of the above?
• When did any Coalition minister advise Parliament that the UK government was in dialogue on any  of the above? (Alright, I may have missed one - or two)

OK, stop complaining - you don't have to read all the links - just one or two will provide all the information you need to know about our 'puppet government'.

The foregoing show why we are not a self-governing nation - and never will be whilst we remain a member of the European Union. The foregoing show why the EU is not our problem - that our politicians in Westminster are, by failure to repeal the ECA1972, condoning their acceptance of rule from abroad; coupled with our membership of international bodies to whose 'decrees' we shackle ourselves and of which we were yet again never asked for our agreement.

Just why the hell are we paying for this Judas Class; their salaries and lifestyles; and in one particular case, their 'empirical' staffing?

Yet again, just asking.................

Frack Off!

Just a few days ago Chris Huhne had an article in the Daily Telegraph in which he mentioned shale gas and, in effect, ruled out any plans for development into this source of energy.

Courtesy of The Grumpologist come news from France 24 of events in this area that are taking place in France.

Both items of news demonstrate that 'democratised dictatorship' lives - possibly as a result of 'vested interests'?

Just asking..........

Words and deeds

Today has been a rather quiet 'news day, the reasons for which I know not - whether this is due to a dose of ''acropolitis' or that what news there is 'has been all Greek' to us, I know not. Consequently what news and opinions that have been pertinent has, once again, come from the blogosphere.

Initially, let us consider two posts: one by John Redwood and the other by The Boiling Frog. First John Redwood, who queries whether the 'group of 81' might in fact be more than 81. In his post Redwood cites the case of Dr. Phillip Lee who voted against the recent debate calling for a referendum on EU membership, posing the question whether there may have been more like Lee who filed through the 'No' lobby. With all respect to John Redwood, his question could be taken as yet another reason to excuse supposedly eurosceptics not voting according to how their constituents wished - it also has that aroma of smoke 'n mirrors', one whereby Redwood is fudging the basic question, namely either MPs believe in membership of the EU or not.

The Boiling Frog mentions that, despite Conservative Party rhetoric, they have, over the years:

"1. Entered the EEC on a lie (read the 1971 internal document FCO 30/1048)
  2. Campaigned in the 1975 referendum for a yes vote, including Thatcher
  3. Passed the Single European Act
  4. Shadowed the Deutschmark in preparation to enter the ERM.
  5. Entered the ERM which directly lead to the early '90s recession
  6. Passed the Maastricht Treaty
  7.Have become, in Roger Helmer's words the most pro-EU government ever, since elected in 2010."

As TBF so rightly states the Conservative Party - and most definitely their MPs - have fudged the issue of EU membership and it is about time that their MPs came down off their respective fences. In this respect the quotation by Andrew Carnegie is most apt where future voting intentions are concerned when matters EU arise for debate and subsequent voting.

Calling England links to the recent Civitas report by Ian Milne in which he believes that the UK's 'extraction'  from the EU can be accomplished within the timetable he sets out. This would indeed be ideal - if only it could be carried out as Milne suggests. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with the view espoused by Richard North, EU Referendum, in his post: "A declaration of independence". That is, I hasten to add, not in anyway intended as criticism of CE, but merely to raise doubts about what Ian Milne believes possible. It is also worth mentioning that while the electorate continues to follow their tribal tendencies, continually voting for the Lib/Lab/Con, it will not allow the opportunity to even test whether Milne or Richard North is correct - a point worthy of serious consideration.

The above demonstrates, in my humble opinion, what is missing from the blogosphere - and this is not in any way intended as a criticism of my fellow bloggers. However, we all sit back offering criticism of all that we know is wrong, complaining - to the extent that we must by now be hoarse of both voice and word - about politics in general and the lack of accountability therein, coupled with that which they are party to, namely a system of democratised dictatorship; and the deficits in sovereignty as a result of our country's membership of the EU. Not one of us, to my knowledge, with the exception or Richard North and his idea of "Referism" and, if I may so bold, myself with my series on "Constitution" in which I argued for a 'participtory' form of democracy based on the Swiss system, has attempted to offer an alternative to the nadir in which this country finds itself.

I wonder, therefore, how many in the blogosphere would be interested in a little exercise, namely formulating an agreed 'new' form of democracy resulting in a document that could be put to the existing political parties and challenging them to incorporate it into their manifestos. Failing which, perhaps it may just promote the formation of a new political party, one with which the general electorate may become enthused, once the basic 'ideals' are explained to them. It is worth mentioning that, in respect of publicity, there are those in the blogosphere who have access to the newspapers by which means they could publicise such an 'alternative' form of democracy.  In any event, if the 'exercise' stirred the torpor that presently exists amongst the electorate and made them question all that is presently wrong with this country's existing democratic debacle, it would have, at least, accomplished its purpose - namely a situation whereby the electorate begin to take an interest in that which is done in their name.

Just thinking..........

Comments, 'takers' - and criticisms..........?

Question of the day

From Douglas Carswell we learn (apologies, but video won't embed):

"People in the eurozone can vote on the tax and spend options that they want"

And if we were an independent nation under our present 'democratic' system of 'democratised dictatorship', we could? The system Douglas Carswell - and every other politician, regardless of party - wishes to continue, is one whereby we vote and then obey.

I have come to the belated, although obvious conclusion, (and forgive me, dear reader, its a Senior Citizen 'thing' whereby the older one gets, the slower the brain engages hence the use of the word 'belated') that so-called eurosceptics are, in reality, MPs who are now 'miffed' that the role of elected dictator has been removed from their remit.

Just asking/saying..................