FROM CRADLE TO GRAVE IN THE EU

Nikki Sinclaire MEP, horrified with what she learned.

Newly elected MEP in the West Midlands, Nikki Sinclaire, was horrified to hear the comments of EU Commissioner, Jaques Barrot, at one of her first EU committee meetings in Brussels.

Mr Barrot, who is the EU Justice Commissioner, outlined his remit of the Stockholm Programme in which he called for ‘citizenship in the fullest sense of the word’ seemingly from the cradle to the grave by introducing EU Birth and Death certificates.  He was speaking to the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee in Brussels.

Births and deaths have been registered in the UK since 1837 and held by the Registrar General and collected by local registration officers. In 2007 changes were made to the system and Birth and Death Registers were no longer written by hand. Instead, this information is now held on a central online database.

Nikki Sinclaire, who is a member of the committee, said “I was stunned when the Commissioner outlined this proposal.  They are not even pretending anymore, it is now full steam to a full Euro super state with a single register for all EU citizens’ births and deaths – what about the protection and respect for national identity?” Nikki also criticised Commissioner Barrot, for his blatant disregard for the voters in Ireland as he talked about 'When' the Lisbon Treaty would come into effect not if. 

This proves there can be no more doubt about the intentions of the EU, it is time the British people demand we quit now before it’s too late.

GIVING AWAY THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE BY ANNE PALMER

Anne Palmer writes about the loss of the Royal prerogative.

There was a time many years ago, the occupation of every Office, and the very existence of Parliament itself, terminated with the death of the King. (HC debates 4th March 1824) ). Times change and some of us remember the announcement, “The King is dead, long live the Queen” on the death of the much loved King George VI.

One of the best explanations I have found as regards the Royal Prerogative, was during a debate 16th October 1952, “The law of our Constitution provides that the treaty-making power shall rest with the Prerogative; it shall be exercised by the Executive. But the treaty-making power is a power which cannot affect the rights of the ordinary, individual citizen”.

“No contract or treaty made by the Government of this country with another country can affect the ordinary rights of an English citizen, can affect his contracts, or can affect his freedom. For the rights of the individual to be taken away from him requires the consent of Parliament in legislation passed for that purpose”. I did not find any separate, deliberate reference that has quite deliberately set out to remove the people's “Rights”, though all our rights under our Constitution are listed for removal in the Civil Contingences Act which is only meant for temporary specific cases, certainly not permanently. (allegedly!) Though the reason to implement such an act would be during a fight FOR those Rights. World War II was fought so that no foreign Constitution would be imposed upon us, especially delivered by the then leader, Adolf Hitler. Do YOU know who is going to be the next leader? 

Tony Benn, Monday 16th Oct 2000 speaking on Radio 4, “The power to go to war is a Crown power and in the recent wars in Kosovo and the Gulf there was no vote legitimising the military conflict that we entered. The power to sign Treaties, the most important power now from a practicable point of view is the power to make laws in the European Council of Ministers, they automatically and without further debate repeal any laws passed by Parliament without any consultation in the House of Commons. And whereas the powers of legislating by Prerogative was stripped from Charles 1st and never restored after the glorious revolution, it has been returned now, but returned to the person of the Prime Minister using the powers of the Crown, and Parliament is now a spectator of its fate and not a participant in the real decisions that matter”.

Peter Shore, stated, (Hansard, 20th January 1972), just days before the signature was to be placed on the Treaty of Rome. “This is a treaty which carries the most formidable and far-reaching obligations. It is a treaty-the first in our history-which would deprive the British Parliament and people of democratic rights which they have exercised for many centuries. I can think of no treaty, to cite only one characteristic of the Rome Treaty, in which the British Parliament agree that the power to tax the British people should be handed over to another group, or countries, or people outside this country, and that they should have the right in perpetuity to levy taxes upon us and decide how the revenues of those taxes should be spent”. 

The Solicitor General:- “Throughout, the treaty making power resides in the Crown, in Her Majesty the Queen acting upon the advice of her Ministers. It is by virtue of the Royal Prerogative in the conduct of foreign affairs that the Government initiate, sign and ratify international agreements. As a matter of constitutional law, no parliamentary authority is necessary before the Crown may exercise those powers. The other principle is equally important. Those prerogative powers, the treaty-making powers, do not enable the Crown to alter the law within the United Kingdom so as to implement the treaty”. End of snippets. That paragraph is perhaps the most important because it highlights that the Crown's own Royal Prerogative does not allow even the British Crown to alter the law or Constitution within its own Kingdom, yet here we have a Government whose sworn allegiance is to that very same Crown, transferring the ability to make Treaties on behalf of the UK through that same Royal Prerogative the only method they themselves can use, to foreigners, in a Parliament in a foreign Country strictly against the Crown's Coronation Oath and Constitution of this Country. 

Our Government has ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, which included Article 47 “The Union shall have legal personality.” So few words yet if implemented will have such a devastating affect on this Country and the rest of the Commonwealth. A Report by Carlos Gonzalez in the EU Parliament was clear that because the Union does not have legal capacity in the Member States, it has no capacity to take action under public international law. It cannot therefore in particular conclude agreements, join in international organisation, act as an observer within such an organisation or conduct diplomatic relations, it cannot be party to legal proceedings etc. Although the European Community has legal personality and limited treaty making powers recognised in Article 24 and 38 of the EU Treaty, the European Union as a whole does not have full Legal Personality.

Proof that this has not only deprived the people of their RIGHTS, it has also deprived the people's representatives in Parliament to have their say on Treaties. Proof that an EU Treaty and/or AGREEMENT was completed and set in place without any knowledge or debate on this, in the UK Parliament. Recorded in Hansard Lords, Pages GC 287-294 Extradition Bill 18th June 2003.

When an agreement has been negotiated with another Country, it cannot be amended unilaterally here. The Government are allegedly guardians of our Constitution, they all swear a solemn Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, yet they have put the EU before that allegiance. This is perhaps more apparent in those people that have “served” in the EU at one time or another. 

No Government of this Country should transfer to others, even through “Treaties”, the Royal Prerogative of Treaty Making. No British Government can send troops into battle or sign Treaties without using the Royal Prerogative. It is not in the Government's 'gift' to do so. It is not in their 'gift' to give away the authority to do so to foreigners. The Crown is the one stable factor in all this, the constant, the trusted. I then look at the signature on behalf of the Crown on the EU SOFA AGREEMENT, (Official Journal of the EU, C 321/6 dated 31.12.2003.) which some EU Countries have signed, and the full account of NEW Article 188R in the Lisbon Treaty (not the one in the consolidated version) and I fear what may be the outcome of these? (We are not compelled-as required under 188R Lisbon-to always join in with NATO activities) We have a Government that does not even have the guts to tell the people what they have done in the people's name.

Complete Ratification of the Treaty would deprive Her Majesty's Government of the ultimate and sole authority of the use of the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making and possibly of war making powers. It would revoke permanently the power of the Crown, though in truth, exercised by Parliament through the Royal Prerogative in the UK. Therefore the Crown no longer has the exclusive authority to apply the Royal Prerogative. It follows then that the same would apply to the next in line to the throne of the United Kingdom. The Crown will no longer have use of the Royal Prerogative for it so binds all successors making the Crown subservient to the European Union forever.

In all the previous EU Treaties, EU laws and Directives have been transposed via our Parliament. The Governments use of the Royal Prerogative for Treaty Making is direct, it by passes the British Parliament and uses the power of the Crown via the Royal Prerogative and hands full power exclusively in perpetuity to the EU. The Treaty of Lisbon, if not withdrawn and put before the people in a referendum, may be eventually ratified by all 27 Countries, and will result in removing the power of the Crown and Royal Prerogative from the British Crown to the European Union. 

That is not the end for that action may well extend to the over-seas Territories and even as far as the Falklands, or didn't anyone read the EU's “Motorway in the Sea”. Will Britannia ever “Rule the Waves” again?

The other 'party' to the Common Law of Royal Prerogative Powers which removes the people Rights they have under Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 will have no say what so ever in any Treaty the EU makes in the future. The people will be bound by any such Treaty. The question is therefore, in the giving of the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making powers to the EU, have our Common Law Rights held in our Constitution been destroyed, bearing in mind all so solemnly swear a solemn oath of true allegiance to the Crown? We are mindful that according to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the Constitution, is an act of treason. If that is the smallest Article in the Treaty, what on earth is hidden in the rest?

RECAPPING ON THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS

Now that the dust has settled and the results of the European elections are sinking in, it's time for a little recap of what happened, the after-effects and, of course, the success of UKIP which became the UK’s second party by size of vote.

Like all campaigns it did not just happen for UKIP, the planning for it had begun a long time in advance and like all the plans of mice and men, not everything went as it should along the way and there were several rethinks and changes, but in the end it finished up with a cracking result for UKIP - greatly helped, of course, by the antics of our MPs and their expenses!

All over the country UKIP activists worked hard delivering leaflets, a great many of which were supplied and paid for by Alan Bown who has been as solid as a rock for UKIP. Those of us campaigning for UKIP in the West Midlands started campaigning at the beginning of last autumn by targeting areas, stepping up the campaign as the election drew closer. Many UKIP members worked tirelessly and just kept coming back for more.

In the West Midlands the UKIP candidates, especially Mike Nattrass, Nikki Sinclaire and Jill Seymour, worked like Trojans. I was impressed with the sheer dedication and devotion of our UKIP members for our cause to save Britain from EU domination. 

Old and young alike got stuck in and pounded the streets while the West Midlands UKIP bus, decked out in UKIP colours was a fantastic campaigning tool.  However, one of our biggest assets in the campaign was our UKIP leader, Nigel Farage himself.  

That man just performs to perfection the moment a microphone, audience or camera is placed in front of him - no question seems to faze him - he is a professional through and through.

Other things which added to UKIP’s success was the capability of its press and media teams who were provided with a fantastic computer programme that helped them to monitor and comment on situations as they arose.  All this attributed to UKIP's most successful campaign yet. 

Labour had a devastating night as the results came in and it was quickly realised their vote was below that of the UK Independence Party, although they ended up with thirteen MEPs, the same as UKIP. Yet, despite this blow and the fact the electorate placed their pro-EU policies below UKIP’s anti-EU stance, the Labour Government still continue to push the EU project and Lord Peter Mandelson even had the gall to declare that Britain should join the euro literally days after.

If it was bad for Labour, it was even worse for the Liberal Democrats, who in the European elections became the fourth political party. Again their pro-EU stance did not go down well with the electorate.

However, if awards were handed out for sheer nerve, bullshine and bluster, the West Midlands Conservative MEP, Malcolm Harbour should be awarded a large gold gong. When giving his election speech he declared that more people in the European elections had voted for the EU than against it. This then shows his mindset that the Conservative Party is a pro-EU party despite its sham EU-scepticism and David Cameron’s rhetoric regarding the Lisbon Treaty. To prove the point even further Ken Clarke followed up with his comments that if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified by the time and the possibility that the Tories take office and make the next Government, Cameron will be powerless to do anything anyway.

It was sad to see people still giving the BNP enough votes to enable their leader, Nick Griffin and one other elected, but that is democracy and if the so-called mainstream parties have failed so much that some feel it necessary to vote BNP, then the Labour Party should look to its failings and ask why Labour voters chose this option.

After that success, we now face the general election whenever Gordon Brown has the guts to call it - UKIP won't be found lacking - all it needs now is for the people to learn from this success that UKIP can win elections and have the courage to vote for what they want.

FROM BLACK HORSE TO BLACK DAYS

When the global recession started and the banking crisis began, one bank was praised for doing everything right and looked strong as other banks, such as Northern Rock, had their worried savers queuing to get their money out before the bank went belly up. That bank was, of course, Lloyds TSB.

As other banks began to crumble Lloyds looked a strong bet, and with some encouragement from the Government, plus a nod and a wink from Peter Mandelson the Trade Minister, Lloyds TSB merged with Halifax Bank of Scotland. We were all informed at the time that this was a good move and both banks would benefit. 

Sadly, this was not so and Sir Victor Blank, the Lloyds TSB chairman who promoted the idea of the take-over to Gordon Brown at a cocktail party, was forced to resign as the whole deal went pear shaped. As soon as it was announced he was to quit as the chairman, shares in the bank began to climb, only to plunge again by around thirty per cent when Sir Victor revealed in a letter to shareholders that the European Commission could well demand the break up of the bank under its competition rules.

It would seem that Gordon Brown and the Government was so desperate to dump the problem of the Halifax Bank of Scotland, and to avoid nationalising it they virtually tore up the competition rule book to rush the deal through.

The merger of the two banks made the new merged bank one of the largest on the High Street controlling thirty percent of both the Mortgage and saving markets.

Sir Victor Blank wrote that the EC could move in and force the bank to shrink. How the EC deals with this matter is speculation at this point in time. Some predict it could force the bank to sell off ‘non-core’ assets, which would not be too disastrous for the bank. However, the EC also has the power, due to successive British Governments surrendering their right to govern to the EU, to force the bank to sell off its ‘core-assets’ such as overseas operations.

There is speculation that the bank may have to sell off constituent parts of HBOS - its Halifax or Bank of Scotland divisions or its Scottish Widows insurance arm.

It would seem that the normal due diligence before any major take-over had not been fully completed. Because of the fiscal problems this has created for the bank the Government has been forced to prop up the bank with state aid which has set alarm bells ringing in Brussels which will not hesitate to interfere in British affairs. The Lloyds TSB sign has gone from a romping black horse to a sign of black days ahead under EU orders.

WHY GERMANY WANTS THE IRISH TO SHOW HUMILITY BY ANTHONY COUGHLAN

Anthony Coughlan of the Irish National Platform.

A little time ago the German Ambassador said that a second No vote to Lisbon would have "horrific consequences" for Ireland.  

On Tuesday, 24th March 2009, the German Social Democrat spokesman on European affairs said that any economic assistance to Ireland would require "greater humility" from Dublin, a renewed commitment to the EU from Irish voters in a Lisbon Two referendum, and a better appreciation of "the common German and Irish interest" in continuing  European  integration. Why this German anxiety over Lisbon? 

One obvious reason is that the Lisbon Treaty would hugely advantage Germany, the EU's largest Member State, by moving EU law-making to a primarily population basis and abolishing the weighted vote system for making EC/EU laws that has existed since the 1957 Rome Treaty. 

By basing EU law-making primarily on population size, Lisbon would double Germany's voting weight on the EU Council of Ministers from its present 8% under the Nice Treaty rules to 17%. France's vote would go from 8% to 13%, Britain's and Italy's from their current 8% to 12% each, while Ireland's voting weight would be halved from 2% to 0.8% (Art.16 TEU). 

Under the present Nice Treaty arrangements Germany, France, Britain and Italy have 29 votes each in making EU laws and Ireland has 7 votes. An EU law requires 255 votes out of 345 and at least half the Member States have to vote in favour to make up those 255 votes. A "blocking minority" is 91 votes: that is, 345 minus 255 plus 1.

By contrast, under Lisbon a new European law would require the support of 55% of the Member States, i.e.15 out of 27, so long as  the 15 make up 65% of the aggregate EU population. Germany has four times Ireland's voting weight now: 29 votes as against 7. By basing votes on population size Lisbon would thereby give Germany 20 times Ireland's voting weight, with its  82 million people as against Ireland's 4.3.

France, Britain and Italy would each have some 15 times Ireland's voting weight on a population basis, compared to their four times now.  

Germany and France between them have nearly one-third of the EU's total population. Under the proposed Lisbon Treaty rules Germany and France would need only two other countries to vote with them to be able to block any EU law they did not like.

Giving Germany and the other Big States more of a say in EU law-making  is what German Ambassador Christian Pauls really means when he says Lisbon would make the EU more "efficient"!

If Lisbon goes through and gives Germany and the other Big States such an increase in their power, how long -  realistically speaking -  do people think Ireland's 12.5% corporation  tax rate would last, as compared to Germany's 30%? 

How long would it be before the EU imposes its own income tax, sales tax or property tax on us - which would be permitted for the first time under Lisbon's Article 311 TFEU and which Germany and France are likely to push for once the Council of Ministers would obtain the legal power?

In the European Parliament when Ireland joined the EEC in 1973, Germany had 36 seats as against 10 for Ireland - 3.6 times as much.  Under Lisbon, Germany would have 96 MEPs as against 12 for Ireland - 8 times as much.  

The political reality is that there is now a race on in time between the ratification of Lisbon, which would greatly increase the powers of Germany, France and the  Brussels Commission in the EU, and the advent to office of a Conservative Government in Britain by spring next year at the latest.

Conservative policy is to hold a referendum on Lisbon in the UK and recommend a No vote to it to the British people - so long as  we Irish are not bullied and bamboozled into reversing our No vote before then, thereby bringing Lisbon into force for all 27 EU States before Mr Gordon Brown's Government loses office. 

By standing by last year's No to Lisbon, we would thereby be opening the way to enabling our fellow countrymen and women in Northern Ireland to have a vote also on this important Treaty.

BROWN UNDER FIRE

For quite some time Gordon Brown has managed to confuse most people over his Euro credentials. The Prime Minister has often been referred to as a Euro-sceptic for refusing to accept the euro as they did not pass his tests, yet he sold off vast stocks of Britain’s gold when he flooded the market with gold in order to help prop up a struggling euro.

After his speech to the European Parliament on Tuesday 24th March 2009, there could be no confusion left - he is without doubt a Euro fanatic. In the most pro-EU speech yet from the Premier, he stated that he was proud to be European and oozed slimy praise on the undemocratic organisation, much to the delight of the majority of the few MEPs

who bothered to attend the EU’s toy Parliament to hear what he had to say.

The most interesting part of Browns visit came with the twin attacks against his leadership from Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, and Dan Hannan, one of the few EU-sceptics left in the pro-EU Conservative Party. Both MEPs ridiculed Mr Brown’s rash statement about British jobs for British workers as no British PM can ever make that promise as long as we remain under the cosh of the EU.

Nigel Farage tore into Brown for ramming through the Lisbon Treaty days after the Irish ‘No’ vote, for wrecking private pensions and apologising for slavery and just about everything, other than for the mess he has got the country into, whilst Dan Hannan, pressed home the fact that every child is born with £20,000 of debt and for engorging the state sector.

Both MEPs made impressive speeches and for once they have hit a wider audience.

SECOND CLASS CITIZENS BY DEREK NORMAN

Derek Norman, reports there is little help for British people.

Have you noticed how in recent years the British, and especially the English, have become second-class citizens in their own country. I have been accused by one or two Euro Realist readers of being too morbid and miserable in my jottings.  I apologise for that, but I haven’t been truly happy since Ted Heath took the UK into, the then, Common Market.  Here is another sad tale relating to the disgraceful treatment of two British citizens.

Ron and his wife Joyce had holidayed in Turkey for several years, they had made many Turkish friends and decided that when they retired they would benefit from living in the Turkish sunshine for a few years.  They retained their British citizenship and passports and thought that they had earned their right to enjoy the sunny clime of Turkey in their retirement years.  Unfortunately, Joyce became seriously ill and was taken to a hospital in Fethiye where she received several days of intensive treatment. Joyce did not improve and Ron was advised to transfer his wife to a better equipped hospital in Antalya, over 100 miles away via a mountainous road.  After some days in the Antalya hospital Ron was told by a specialist doctor that his wife had a virus that was threatening her life and that she might have as little as a week to live.  The specialist advised Ron to get his wife back to England if at all possible to give her the best chance of survival.  Ron paid out several thousand pounds to the two hospitals for Joyce’s treatment.  In view of his wife’s serious condition, Ron booked an air-ambulance to fly Joyce back to England. The cost of the air-ambulance, a private jet operated by a German company, was £26,000 and the cost of an ambulance to take Joyce from Cambridge Airport to Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge was another £800.

The medical staff at Addenbrookes Hospital were superb and in just over a week they had Joyce out of danger and with out-patient treatment arranged allowed her to leave hospital.  Ron has since received two demands from Addenbrookes Hospital for payments of £5064  and £365 for the treatment received.

Now this is the bitter bit.  During their working lives Ron and Joyce have paid the equivalent of  ninety three (93) years of National Insurance Contributions, during which time Ron spent just one week in hospital and Joyce cannot remember requiring any medical treatment at all.  Ron has spent most of his savings already and cannot find the money to pay for Joyce’s treatment in the UK.  He has been informed that if he doesn’t pay he will be taken to court and may have to serve a prison sentence.  In addition a letter from the Manager of the Finance Department of Addenbrookes Hospital warns Joyce that if the debt is not paid the matter will be put in the hands of a collecting agency, adding additional costs and the debt will be registered with the British Embassy and Foreign Office and will affect the granting of any future visas.  How’s that for overbearing  bureaucratic officialdom?

Incidentally, if Ron and Joyce had chosen to settle just under twenty miles away in Rhodes, Greece, they would probably have been able to get medical treatment free in the same way that over 10,000 Polish and East European women from EU countries have had free abortions in the UK costing the British taxpayers around £10,000,000.  But if a British couple, who have paid into the British National Health Service for 93 years during their working lives, want medical attention, they have to pay for it.

Well, what else can we expect from our traitorous politicians in Parliament who pander to every wish of their EU masters in Brussels and are happy to approve the type of EU legislation that allows Foreign companies to employ foreign workers on major British projects on British soil and exclude British workers from major contracts in their own land. If the foreign workers come from an EU country, they will get full access to public services such as the NHS even if they have never paid a penny towards them.  There are many more examples that could be given of unfair treatment of UK citizens, but that will have to wait for another day. Makes you proud to be British, doesn’t it?