|
MAJOR ISSUES BULLETIN |
||
UKIP WILL NOT STAND ASIDE FOR TORY EUROSCEPTICS. * Eurofacts9th June 2006. Vol 11 No 17 [Letters to the above] * UKIP will not step aside. Dear
Sir, In your front-page article
of the 12th May 2006 you again make the periodic plea for UKIP not
to stand against some Tory MPs. You cite Phillip Davies
because he, and apparently eight other Tory MPs, have said Britain should leave
the European Union. Mr Davies won his seat on a Tory manifesto saying that Britain should stay a committed member of the EU. If he fights next time around we can assume he will fight under a similar manifesto pledge, unless of course Mr Cameron dramatically changes tack, which is unlikely. Mr Davies and his colleagues
hold their seats on a false premise -and are likely to fight
again dishonestly under similar circumstances: WHEREAS: No UKIP candidate would, or will be
selected if they thought that EU Membership was a good idea. Anyone voting UKIP will know exactly what they are getting, which is sadly never the case with the TORIES. Mr Phillips and his
colleagues are just lobby-fodder, and their anti-EU stand will be tolerated by
Mr Cameron as a useful safety -valve and a cynical means of retaining the votes
of some Tory eurosceptics. UKIP -is a proper political party
with a full range of policies? We have no intention of standing down against
anyone. If Mr Davies and his anti-EU
colleagues can reconcile their consciences with representing a party whose most
fundamental policy they disagree with then that is a matter for them, not UKIP. You would not expect the
Labour or Liberal Democratic parties to stand down against a TORY because some
aspect of their candidates views seem to coincide, so don’t expect UKIP to do
so either. GERARD BATTEN MEPLONDON. *Literary Contortions? Dear
Sir, Frederick
Forsyth (letters, 12th May) seems not to have thought through the
consequences of his scenario of 58 ‘rock- solid-on-the-EU MPs’ possibly
bringing down Blair (though not
necessarily Labour) David
Cameron is the Tories’ fifth stab in less than ten years at finding an
‘appealing’ leader so they can expect to be stuck with him for some while to
come. Yet
a large contingent of EU-sceptic MPs would make the Tories as divided and hence
ineffective as never before. Except it
wouldn’t, for they are so desperate for power now as Labour was ten years ago. Once
in government, ranks would close and ‘EUROPE’ would cease to be an issue; at
the following election BOO (Better Off Out) candidates would be lucky to make
any list in the top half of the alphabet. Also,
there is evidence to suggest that big business, the Tories’ principle
paymaster, countenances Britain leaving the EU. Why should it, when it can sup at the top table in Brussels and
calmly pass the cost of the rules it helps draft? Even
the FSB [Federation of Small Businesses], whose members may suffer most from
these members, seem uninterested in a life outside the EU. This dismal non-achievements
of cross-party and reassure groups suggest that we will only get out of the EU
when enough people vote for a party that is crystal clear on the issue.
Similarly, the idea that the demise of UKIP, the inevitable consequence of
giving Tory candidates a clear run, will hasten our exit from the EU by even
one day, is pure delusion. Sadly the Tories still show
no inclination to put country before party as the literary contortions of their
best -seller writing champion show only too clearly. TONY STONE
Surrey
* * * [Font altered-bolding
&underlining used-comments in brackets] * [HOW TO CONFUSE WAVERERS OF THE EU CONSTITUTION - GIVE IT A NEW NAME.] This is a tactic most in use
when any government comes under intense pressure on a controversial issue which
as in the case of the Commission
for Racial Equality -Which we mentioned on its
inception that its title was an affront to the people of the most tolerant
people in the world and that there were already many laws already in existence
to cover any possible breach of the peace. Eurofacts (continued) Time to be bold as EU is
gripped by paralysis One of the very few things
that EU foreign ministers can agree about is that the EU Constitution [For a United States of
Europe] should be given a new name! Whatever their political
views most people who have taken the trouble to read the daft EU Constitution
are inclined to agree that compared to other such documents the text is prolix,
pompous and excessively long. Needless to say this is not
the view of its author, [Mr X] the former French President Giscard d’Estaing
who still believes that it will be adopted. In an interview with the Financial
Times on the 23rd May 2006 Giscard made it plain that despite
its rejection by the French and Dutch voters last year he remained optimistic
about its future. Provided that the
“modalities” were sorted out the treaty would be ratified without change, he
said. The big mistake, apparently,
had been allowing ordinary voters in France and Holland to have a say: “If we had chosen to have a
parliamentary votes last year the Constitution would have been easily
adopted. It is the method that has
provoked the rejection…There are 16 out of 25 countries that have ratified the
European Constitution [For a United States of Europe] That’s to say there’s a
qualified majority. There is an agreed (sic) text. The concern now is the
modalities of accepting it” * [Whatever changes take place
will make no difference to the determination of millions of people in our
island home to remain a FREE people in an Independent Sovereign Nation
State. As we have explained before it
is a matter for each subject-citizen to decide which camp to support -but there
can be NO surrender to a Foreign Power and if need be a civil war will result
if the Rights and Liberties are threatened by a TRAITORS PARLIAMENT] * To continue: Enunciating an entirely
novel approach to the interpretation of referendum results Giscard continued: “It is not France that has
said no. It is 55 per cent of the French people-45 per cent of the French
people said yes. I wish that we will have a
new chance a second chance, for the constitutional project [For a United States of
Europe] People have the right to change their opinion. The people might
consider that they made a mistake”. Some people might, but not,
it seems, the former French President. Giscard’s comments typify
the arrogance of a class which has shaped the EU institutions [See our Bulletin -Mr X] and which is consequently
responsible for its present state of paralysis as well as for many of Europe’s
most intractable economic and political problems. He may believe that one day
every European capital will display a statue of the man who gave constitutional
form to the European project, but the odds are against. The crisis which today
engulfs the European Union is profound as was apparent from the meeting of EU
foreign ministers in Vienna on the 27-28th May 2006, almost exactly
one year on from the French and Dutch referendums. Eurosceptics should take
greater advantage of this fact More palatable Still unable to find a way
out of the morass one of the few things that the ministers could agree upon was
that the Germans should have the first shot at drawing up plans to resuscitate
the constitution next June- in effect extending the present ‘period of
reflection’ for a further twelve months [June 2007]. Press reports suggest that
the only other matter on which agreement could be reached was the term
“constitution” should be dropped in favour of something more palatable to the
voters.
[Such as the European country club-for elite members and friends only?] On the big issues of whether
France and Holland should be made to re-sit the exam question they failed last
time around and how to deal with the spectre of referendums in the UK, Denmark
and the Czech republic (all strongly eurosceptic) if the French and Dutch
subsequently answer the question correctly , there was no agreement. Nor was
there agreement on whether the constitution should be preserved in its present
form. * [The EDP has always
opposed the need for a Referendum because it is tantamount to asking the people
whether they wish to be Slave or Free
-a question which for a
decided majority would demand to retain their Rights and Liberties -as protected by our Ancient Constitution. Our contention is that even
if one Englishman or Scotchman for Welshman or Ulsterman would not give up the
most precious gift of FREEDOM -then that is sufficient
reason not to be a part of a despotic totalitarian State calling itself at the
present the United States of Europe -but whatever future label
which will endeavour to conceal this same diabolical creature.] *To continue:
Staging second referendums in France and Holland would of course be fraught with huge risk for the europhiles since a further rejection of the TREATY would surely kill it for all time. A poll conducted by Open Europe on the first anniversary of the polls in France and the Netherlands suggest a new referendum would see the NO camp’s lead increase in both countries compared to last year. In France, the survey showed
that 55 per cent would say NO compared to 54.5 per cent last year, while in
Holland 65 per cent would say NO compared to 61.5 per cent in 2005. Moreover, the poll also indicates that around two-thirds of voters
in both countries would take powers back from the EU -which flatly contradicts
the claim that the referendums were not a vote against integration. Among EU leaders there are
those who want to scrap the present constitution in favour of something
briefer, simpler, less ambitious. But
that raises the question of deciding what to do about the 16 countries
including three of the biggest- Germany, Italy and Spain-, which have ratified
the present text. * [The ANSWER is SIMPLE -
France -Holland and the United Kingdom? Leave the EU. In effect the EU will be destroyed at a stroke because the COST
to the remaining members will make the EU defunct.] * To continue: There would be other
problems, too. The constitutional treaty was finalised following more than two
years of horse-trading [Just as happened in 1972 with the big give-away of our Fishing Fields
and other measures by the arch traitor Edward Heath a Nazi agent for 60 years
until his death last year] As an excellent analysis by Honor
Mahoney of the euobserver pointed out on 24th May,
the danger of removing some parts of the Treaty, for examples in areas where
national sensibilities lead to the unravelling of the whole package- [Whoopee!] Recently the EU Commission
has proposed that the so-called passarelle clause be invoked in order to reduce
the number of the vetoes in justice and criminal matters s that these can be
dealt with at the EU level. This may still happen but
the initiative has been strongly opposed by Ireland and Germany. Both are said
to have agreed to stronger EU powers in these areas in the constitution, only
because they got other things in return and since these are no longer on offer
there is presently no basis for a deal. As to the suggestion that
prospects for getting public approval for the constitution ca be improved by
changing its title -this smacks of desperation. There is a well -established
EU tradition of trying to mislead the European electorates by calling things by
misleading or obscure names: Competencies rather than Powers Rapid reaction forces rather
than [EU] Armies-etc. -but it seems most unlikely
that the trick will work THIS TIME Europe’s political elites
are capable of great cynicism and the voters-not least in Britain-have often
shown themselves gullible when it comes to EU matters. But the device of changing
the name of the constitution [United States of Europe] while preserving its
substance in its entirety seems more likely to encourage derision than to win
public support. No legal authority In this situation almost the
only way European political integration can continue is if Ministers of Member
States permit measures for which there is no legal authority - as in the case
of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights And European Defence Agency -but this can only be done
at the cost of stoking up greater public antipathy towards the EU project as a
whole. The fact of the matter is
that the EU project is in a deeper crisis than ever. It cannot be put into tactical reverse, and, on the EU’s own
admission; it cannot remain as it is. The logical ting would be to
return to he starting point and to rethink the project in ways that fully
respect national sovereignties-but the philosophy which underlines the project
as well as the interests of Europe’s political elites do not, for a moment, permit
this. In these circumstances,
British eurosceptics should be emboldened. The EU is DOWN, if NOT OUT. Those in public life who
have hesitated to acknowledge that leaving the EU is the sensible way forward
and that the case for ‘reform’ is risible should follow the example of Lord
Tebbit by announcing publicly their support for withdrawal. The number of the great and
the good ready to contemplate withdrawal is plainly increasing, but further
public conversions are required if the eurosceptic cause is to regain a real
sense of momentum. The recent improvement in
Tory fortunes should encourage Tory boldness. It is now just possible to
imagine a Tory government, which is not dependent on Lib-Dem support. The party’s scope for honest
-speaking on the EU without damaging its prospects is correspondingly greater. Remaining silent on
‘Europe’- when quite obviously ‘Europe’ is in a state of paralysis -in
the belief that this will assist a return to power could turn out to be
strategically foolish as well as unprincipled and irresponsible. * * * [Well Mr Nice- Guy-Dave
appears to have his own agenda and trying to extract substance in the way of
policy is like trying to get blood out of a stone. Our opinion is that Mr
Cameron is a Blair clone with strong EU leanings and is biding his time until
his progeny has found his true vocation either in the upper echelons of the EU
or the UN. It matters not one iota to
DAVE whether he leads the supposed Conservative Party or even the Labour Party. He has been in the shadows for a few years
and you can be assured that he was not wasting his time but being groomed for
the future. For WHAT! We will have to SEE? One is reminded of the
legend of the Pied Piper of Hamelin.
Hamelin was a town in Hanover -Germany that was infested with rats and a
stranger in many-coloured garb offered to charm the rats away with his piping
in return for a certain sum. The offer was accepted, and the rats scampered
after the Pied Piper and were drowned in the River Weser. The townsmen denounced him as a sorcerer and
refused payment, whereupon the piper set up another tune and all the children
of the town scampered after him and disappeared with him in a hole in the
MOUNTAIN. [Or was it a GLACIER] In our modern version of
events Mr Nice-Guy-Dave as leader or pied piper has charmed the Conservative
hopefuls and no doubt many from other parties with his Man of all Seasons where
everything is uncomplicated and certainly not nasty- a life of reasonableness
reigns. Those hearing the tune have
been taken in by this apolitical behaviour and have in many cases swallowed
this story line but there are now murmurings that life is not quite as
described even if Dave has visited a mountain. What millions of previous
Conservative voters wanted from their new pied piper Leader in 2005 was for him
to lead the rats of BRUSSELS into the River Weser and different to the Legend
he would be rewarded with a cascade of returning voters to the fold. Leaders have to lead and
what people want is policy that they can identify with whether it is palatable
or otherwise -not a hidden agenda, which may never be seen until it is too late
to complain. The Labour Party changed its
policies to resemble in many cases conservatism and changed their party name to
New Labour. The so- called Conservative
Party is no longer a party of conservative policies and YET it has NOT changed
its party name. WHY NOT? * * * LATE NEWS!
* EUROPEAN UNION ATTACKED FOR HOARDING £14 BILLION [£14,000,000,000] IN SECRET ACCOUNTS * Daily MailTuesday, June 13-2006. From Justin Stares in Brussels
The European Union is
hoarding up to £14 billion of taxpayers’ money in secret bank accounts,
according to evidence to be presented in the House of Lords today. [JUNE12] Critics last night compared
the ‘cash mountain’ to the notorious butter and grain mountains of the 1980s. They say it is evidence that
the European Commission is seizing too much money from British taxpayers and
other member states. Commission officials say
they always give back any surplus to national governments. But on a day-to-day basis the EU cash
surplus has risen as high as £14.7 billion, the same size as the entire economy
of Luxembourg. Details of the
reserves are contained in a submission to the House of Lords committee on
European finances. It will be revealed today by
Independent MEP Ashley Mote, a member of the European Parliament’s Budget Control Committee. Mr Mote’s submission details
how difficult it is to track EU money and the failure of he Brussels Court of
Auditors to check up on where it goes. The EU admits to having 662 bank accounts -in 45 countries. It also admits ‘dealing with’ another 214,000 -bank accounts across the
Globe. Neil O’Brian, Director of the Open
Europe -Think Tank, said: -The EU has got to stop
running its accounts like a dodgy slush fund. Some people in the Commission are
determined to make the accounts so complicated that no one from the outside
will be able to tell what they are up to. ‘The EU’s cash mountain is
just as bad as its butter and Beef Mountains, because it means that corruption
and fraud can thrive in Brussels.’ [Tony Blair has been very
generous with giving away taxpayer’s money particularly our hard-fought REBATE.
This fact alone should debar Mr Blair from accepting any position in the EU in
the future.] * * * LATE NEWS! * Daily Mail
Wednesday, June 14-2006. Blair’s failure on Europe,
by Geoff Hoon [Previous Defence
Minister-Leader of the House of Commons -now Europe Minister] by Benedict Brogan
Political Editor Tony Blair has failed to
persuade voters that it is worth being in the European Union, the Cabinet’s
chief Europe spokesman will admit today. Geoff Hoon will set out in
stark terms he scale of the problem Ministers will face if they try to win a
referendum o the controversial EU Constitution. ‘The EU has a serious image
problem’ Mr Hon will concede in a speech that will be seized on by the Tories
as an admission that Blair’s pledge to ‘build a European consensus’ has
come to nothing. Mr Hoon, who was demoted to
Europe Minister in the reshuffle last month, will give a candid assessment of
persistent voter hostility to the EU, arguing that only one in three voters see
a point in membership [And many of those in the ‘Yes’ camp have been bought with patronage] Speaking ahead of this
week’s EU summit in Brussels, he will say that more than 30 years since Britain
joined, public opinion has barely shifted. But his verdict will also be
seen as an indictment of the Prime Minister’s failure t make the EU more
popular with voters. ‘One of the most damning statistics is whether UK citizens
believe they have benefited from our UK membership,’ he will tell the Centre
for European Reform. ‘ You have 30 per cent of UK
citizens saying they recognise the benefits. That’s about the same as when we
joined.’ Mr Hoon who will set out his
agenda for Europe with a focus on restoring its battered reputation with the
public, will argue that voters remain unconvinced by EU membership despite what
he claims is the move in Brussels towards a British-led agenda of economic
reform. He will also claim that the
EU is valuable in areas voters are concerned about such as the ENVIRONMENT and
CLIMATE CHANGE. [As is usual with the EU
fanatics they desperately seize on matters, which could have been dealt with
outside a corrupt and monstrous totalitarian police state calling itself the
European Union as justification for the continued existence of that unnecessary
baggage. The cost to Britain has been
enormous in lost Fishing Fields -overpriced Agricultural Policy- interference
in National Constitutions -Law and much else. -Over a billion Regulations
-Declarations and overmuch mindless and unnecessary regulation-Billions of
pounds lost in the Mammoth black hole of the unaccountable ‘hands up if you
agree’ system which hid any pretence that it was fail- proof with 600 votes per
hour -provided everyone said ‘Yes’ in by circuitive routes voting massive sums
into thousands of bank accounts over the past thirty years. A Europe of co-operative Independent
Nation States would have been quite capable of discussing many topics
of European and World concern. The EU
or its intended objective a UNITED STATES OF EUROPE is a wonderful mulch cow for the
many millions of Elite followers from the 25 Member States, will be well
rewarded and a select but numerous body will have no need to be troubled by Law
or Taxes as they would be exempted from such matters. You notice that there is no
mention of the words ‘FREEDOM or LIBERTY’ as these expressions are TABOO in the
EU. You must have guessed it by
now the EU is for those who wish to make fools of YOU! To return: Last year’s rejection of the
[New Constitution] in the referendums in France and the Netherlands initially
killed off the drive to impose the constitution and the federal Europe. [Everyone knows that the EU
is an unstoppable machine and though it may have slowed since the rejections it
is still in business] The result allowed Mr Blair
to duck what was widely expected to have been a resounding ‘NO’ if a British
referendum o the proposal had gone ahead. * [What Tony Bliar fails to
grasp is that the EU is NOT only an Economic issue it is even more importantly
for millions of subject-citizens loyal to the Queen and Ancient Constitution a
matter of our accustomed LIBERTY which cannot be handed to a Foreign Power.
Therefore even IF through LIES and DECEIT a referendum went
Blair’s way -there would be the seeds of a Civil War to reclaim the fruits of
the victory of Naseby (1645) the day of the decisive defeat by Cromwell over
Charles 1 and the Royalists. But it will be a Royal Standard around which the
rebellion will fought in any future war to protect the ‘Rights and Liberties’ which
Mr Bliar and your cronies should know are NOT FOR SALE! ‘As was said Charles the
First would have dragged the human race back to slavery…there were men in the
nation who loved England more than the king, and loved truth and justice more
than England; and such men dared to protest to the king that the English people
had ancient liberties which he had sworn at his crowning to observe. DO
YOU GET IT NOW MR HOON? [As a Privy Councillor to Her
Majesty the Queen Mr Geoff Hoon you gave an Oath of Allegiance -the
contents of which you know doubt remember -but should you need reminding we are pleased to mention the salient points
in the language of the time: “NOE FORREIGNE [PRINCE,
PERSON, PRELATE.STATE OR POTENTATW HATH OR OUGHT TO HAVE JURISDICTION, POWER,
SUPERIORITY, PRE-EMINENCE WUTHIN THIS REALM.” (Bill of Rights -1689) For details are on our
Bulletin Board- need we say more?] * To return: But there have been signs in
recent months that in other EU countries political leaders are trying to revive
the discredited document and are pressing for a renewed attempt to get it
passed. [It should be remembered
that in many of the countries that have already ratified the New Constitution of a UNITED STATES OF EUROPE gave NO referendum to
their peoples and therefore in TRUTH the ratification was not with the FULL consent
of its people. Though as we have previously explained the English Constitution and
our past history does not permit such a surrender of Sovereignty to a Foreign
Power.] * * * [Font altered-bolding &
underlining used-comments in brackets] JUNE/06
* * The abolition of Britain
Campaigns: Print these .pdf's: One or two pages each.
|
