The French say"non"
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The name change
Circuit Basher
I think I may have the answer for you here about that name change, but it's a bit long drawn out......... here we go.
The present EU Constitution is the distillation of several treaties and subtle name changes over 30 odd years, and by treachery and deceit we in the UK now find Straw and company now renege on another Election promise that we could have a Referendum on the EU Constitution - coming up with tripe about a period of reflection and not wanting the UK linked to killing the thing stone dead.
Forgive me going back to the EEC days when we knew where we stood (sort of) in what was this European Economic Community. Note the title well, for 'they' change the name without further direct authority from the people.
The Treaty of ROME
Signed on the 25th March 1957 by the founding SIX - Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
Edward Heath signed this treaty on the 22nd Jan 1972 and the UK officially became a member of the EEC on the 1st Jan 1973.
All looked "rosy" but unbeknown to the voters, in order to became members of this new club, Heath had to sign away British sovereignty of its territorial fishing waters. Check it out!
Whilst this was kept under wraps, Heath in one of his White Papers called, "Britain in Europe" was telling the country, "the government is determined to secure proper safeguards for the British fishing industry". Determined it may have been, but that meant sweet nothing!
With back-up from Geoffrey Rippon (Cabinet Minister at the time) in the Commons on the 13th Dec 1971 (see the Sunday Telegraph 14 Jan 01) saying, ".......We retain full jurisdiction over our coastal waters". He should have know better, for it was not quite correct as it happened!
It was not until the Maastricht Treaty was signed that we, the voters, saw the formal acknowledgement that our fishing waters had been surrendered without our authority those many years before! That was the death knell of our fishing.
I could go on about farming, and closer to pr00ne's wallet, EU Law, and a host of other industries now lost, but we are trying to trace the subtle names changes that lead us to the stupefying position we are in today - a dead EU Constitution that the political doctors will not pronounce dead!
The Single European Act
Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act 1986 on our behalf; the purpose of this Treaty was to make the process of, "...... ever closer Union" (Article A) another sly and deadly step along the hidden way.
That Treaty dropped the word "Economic" from the previous title, "European Economic Community" (EEC) which of course meant we were now playing a game called the European Community.
The "Common Market" was now the "Single Market" - who would notice?
Who would bother with this thing called 'Qualified Majority Voting' where the Council of Ministers lorded over 24 areas; would the people on the street notice they had lost sovereignty as their magic veto in these areas had been culled. Some did, but not a lot.
The Treat of Maastricht
Signed by John Major in Oct 92 and came into force (good word for it) 1st Nov 1993. THAT was the time where 'they' dropped the word "Community" from the old title and inserted UNION.
We were, by stealth, deceit, smoke screens and mirrors and cover ups, now a member of the European Union without our express permission!
The long game (which Straw and BLIAR are now wanting to play still, as of 6th June 2005) of decades saw us move from a "Common Market" to the EEC and then the EC to the fully fledged EU which the political elite had long planned for.
These political rapists want our country to sign up to this EU Constitution, and now we cannot even have our say whilst the iron is hot and spelling out NO.... NO.....NO.
Rapists don't listen or hear the word NO......... they want castrating - like the real thing!
The UK is witnessing the lies and deceit of political rapists once more as they deny they have done us wrong, and will not let us have a say.
Thank the French and the Dutch for having the courage to say NO........ and damn those who deny us the chance to repeat the message. NO........... now and forever more........... are you listening Mr Blair? Tell your bully boys to back off.
TG
----------
PS: I see pr00ne is back - holes in his argument as per usual, I shall tell him where later.
I think I may have the answer for you here about that name change, but it's a bit long drawn out......... here we go.
The present EU Constitution is the distillation of several treaties and subtle name changes over 30 odd years, and by treachery and deceit we in the UK now find Straw and company now renege on another Election promise that we could have a Referendum on the EU Constitution - coming up with tripe about a period of reflection and not wanting the UK linked to killing the thing stone dead.
Forgive me going back to the EEC days when we knew where we stood (sort of) in what was this European Economic Community. Note the title well, for 'they' change the name without further direct authority from the people.
The Treaty of ROME
Signed on the 25th March 1957 by the founding SIX - Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
Edward Heath signed this treaty on the 22nd Jan 1972 and the UK officially became a member of the EEC on the 1st Jan 1973.
All looked "rosy" but unbeknown to the voters, in order to became members of this new club, Heath had to sign away British sovereignty of its territorial fishing waters. Check it out!
Whilst this was kept under wraps, Heath in one of his White Papers called, "Britain in Europe" was telling the country, "the government is determined to secure proper safeguards for the British fishing industry". Determined it may have been, but that meant sweet nothing!
With back-up from Geoffrey Rippon (Cabinet Minister at the time) in the Commons on the 13th Dec 1971 (see the Sunday Telegraph 14 Jan 01) saying, ".......We retain full jurisdiction over our coastal waters". He should have know better, for it was not quite correct as it happened!
It was not until the Maastricht Treaty was signed that we, the voters, saw the formal acknowledgement that our fishing waters had been surrendered without our authority those many years before! That was the death knell of our fishing.
I could go on about farming, and closer to pr00ne's wallet, EU Law, and a host of other industries now lost, but we are trying to trace the subtle names changes that lead us to the stupefying position we are in today - a dead EU Constitution that the political doctors will not pronounce dead!
The Single European Act
Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act 1986 on our behalf; the purpose of this Treaty was to make the process of, "...... ever closer Union" (Article A) another sly and deadly step along the hidden way.
That Treaty dropped the word "Economic" from the previous title, "European Economic Community" (EEC) which of course meant we were now playing a game called the European Community.
The "Common Market" was now the "Single Market" - who would notice?
Who would bother with this thing called 'Qualified Majority Voting' where the Council of Ministers lorded over 24 areas; would the people on the street notice they had lost sovereignty as their magic veto in these areas had been culled. Some did, but not a lot.
The Treat of Maastricht
Signed by John Major in Oct 92 and came into force (good word for it) 1st Nov 1993. THAT was the time where 'they' dropped the word "Community" from the old title and inserted UNION.
We were, by stealth, deceit, smoke screens and mirrors and cover ups, now a member of the European Union without our express permission!
The long game (which Straw and BLIAR are now wanting to play still, as of 6th June 2005) of decades saw us move from a "Common Market" to the EEC and then the EC to the fully fledged EU which the political elite had long planned for.
These political rapists want our country to sign up to this EU Constitution, and now we cannot even have our say whilst the iron is hot and spelling out NO.... NO.....NO.
Rapists don't listen or hear the word NO......... they want castrating - like the real thing!
The UK is witnessing the lies and deceit of political rapists once more as they deny they have done us wrong, and will not let us have a say.
Thank the French and the Dutch for having the courage to say NO........ and damn those who deny us the chance to repeat the message. NO........... now and forever more........... are you listening Mr Blair? Tell your bully boys to back off.
TG
----------
PS: I see pr00ne is back - holes in his argument as per usual, I shall tell him where later.
What on earth is a "political rapist?"
pr00ne.....
Political Rapist?
For lack of a better example...Bill Clinton is one! Remember Juanita Broderick?
But then that would depend upon what "is" is?
Political Rapist?
For lack of a better example...Bill Clinton is one! Remember Juanita Broderick?
But then that would depend upon what "is" is?
TG
Calm down, calm down!
As has been pointed out on many topics before prOOne doesn't want to debate the case on any matter of issue. He just uses the 'I'm too busy' argument or resorts to anti anyone else tirade of 'you are a racist', 'I'm more intelligent than you', 'you don't know what you are talking about', 'you are a facist' or 'you are a Little Englander'.
Don't ley him get to you! He has not yet come up with any proof of an increase in the defence budget (that is not countered by RAB and savings measures) and that the Constitution is nothing more than a 'tidying-up' process. (Straight from the heart of new Labour?). The chap? knows no more than you or I and certainly nothing of recent military experience (assuming the 'Toom was his last jet). He believes everything that comes from Labour Central Office, which proves he has no original thought, and fails to debate any point where his knowledge is found to be lacking other than resorting to the school playground 'I'm right and your wrong' mentality. Proof, if proof were needed, that he is as morally bankrupt as the rest of his colleagues in the chattering classes.
All typos are Grolsch induced!
Calm down, calm down!
As has been pointed out on many topics before prOOne doesn't want to debate the case on any matter of issue. He just uses the 'I'm too busy' argument or resorts to anti anyone else tirade of 'you are a racist', 'I'm more intelligent than you', 'you don't know what you are talking about', 'you are a facist' or 'you are a Little Englander'.
Don't ley him get to you! He has not yet come up with any proof of an increase in the defence budget (that is not countered by RAB and savings measures) and that the Constitution is nothing more than a 'tidying-up' process. (Straight from the heart of new Labour?). The chap? knows no more than you or I and certainly nothing of recent military experience (assuming the 'Toom was his last jet). He believes everything that comes from Labour Central Office, which proves he has no original thought, and fails to debate any point where his knowledge is found to be lacking other than resorting to the school playground 'I'm right and your wrong' mentality. Proof, if proof were needed, that he is as morally bankrupt as the rest of his colleagues in the chattering classes.
All typos are Grolsch induced!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My suspicions are that they will keep presenting it in a slightly different forms until everyone finally gives in and agrees to ratify it (vote or no vote) Once in and ratified there will be no way of going back on the agreement.
This seems to be the way our present democracies work anyway.
Just take a look at the laws against hunting, whether you agree with hunting or not I can't remember the number of times it was presented to parliament to be voted against only to be eventually forced through anyway. Do we ever get a chance (or do our voted representatives ever get a chance) to get rid of a law once it is accepted.
I think not, unless we want to follow in the footsteps of Guy Fawkes.
Anyone got a spare laser designator and Paveway III???
This seems to be the way our present democracies work anyway.
Just take a look at the laws against hunting, whether you agree with hunting or not I can't remember the number of times it was presented to parliament to be voted against only to be eventually forced through anyway. Do we ever get a chance (or do our voted representatives ever get a chance) to get rid of a law once it is accepted.
I think not, unless we want to follow in the footsteps of Guy Fawkes.
Anyone got a spare laser designator and Paveway III???
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to calm down - honest!
Hi Roland
I tried to calm down, but I had these thoughts on my mind and had to share them in the court of you know who....... here goes....... all mostly for FJ pr00ne........ the pr00ne who cannot get his grammar correct, asks what does, "political rapist" mean - his literary imagination for the use of the metaphor is obviously not his strong point either. I will not bother trying to explain.
Forgive this fairly long look, at what pr00ne still offers in defence of the EU Constitution:
It is not the member states that have this terrible hunger to achieve their objectives, but the small group of ego power maniacs at the heart of the beast.
Article I-12 on division of competences creates an institutional ratchet to transfer more powers to the EU.
It says that member states may only choose to act in areas where powers are "shared" if the EU chooses not to exercise its powers.
Straw said, "......I set out a set of red lines for the United Kingdom. In the negotiations we delivered on each and every one of them". The UK Government tabled 275 requests for changes to the EU Constitution - only 27 were accepted and acted upon.
What pr00ne deliberately and wilfully missed out was this OTHER all embracing exclusive:
"2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope. "
Seems to me that is one hell of a lot of sea room for manoeuvre - am I wrong pr00ne?
Ill defined EXCLUSIVE for their own purposes!
"Article I-16: (ex Articles 17, 11(2) TEU) The common foreign and security policy: 1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence."
Here's where pr00ne's idea of what a veto means comes into question:
Plenty of room there to tell 'them' to piss off when we want to egh pr00ne?
Just in case some right-wing UK zealot/s moan about an EU course of action, 'they' have thought of that too:
It is called moving the goal posts when 'they' want.
pr00ne declares these five, "exclusive" competence areas and NO others. What does he make of:
1. "EU law shall have primacy over the law of member states."
2. "The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
3. "The Court of Justice of the EU shall rule on actions brought by a member state."
4. "The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy." Article I-12
5. "EU member states...must refrain from any measure which would jeopardise the attainment of the Unions' objectives."
Well pr00ne how do you like this case of the Continental system of Law and Order and the "personality" of it.
Chris Lees, a British businessman (and Lib Dem Cllr) spent a whole year in a Spanish jail awaiting a trial - the charges were dismissed owing to complete lack of evidence....... Why and how did that happen?
The EU Commission's "Corpus Juris" plan for a European Public Prosecutor, laying down an "embryo criminal code for Europe", explicitly rules out, "simple jurymen and lay magistrates" (Art. 26.1 as amended) to be replaced with career judges.
It also makes provision for the European Prosecutor to "request" (really meaning to 'order') the arrest and imprisonment of a suspect for up to six months, renewable for three months, an unspecified number of times (Art. 20.3.g as amended) with no provision for any public hearing or check of evidence.
Is that not so pr00ne?
With this crack-pot EU Constitution, there will be no veto to stop this from being introduced to the UK if 'they' slip it through the back door - is that not so pr00ne?
So for breaking the UK code of honour and the House rules, nothing happened to Blunkett! Sent to the sin bin to cool off for a bit, no fine, no loss of pay, or thrown out on the street; now he is on-side again and playing the game.
.
And how did that PARTICULAR law come about pr00ne? The Civil Contingencies Bill that was bulldozed through, that is how that dreadful piece of legislation became law - it's all to do with TERRORISM and nothing else.
Tell the good people here what the definition of an "emergency" is according to the dopes who dreamt that CCB up!
I'm glad you restricted the arrest/imprisonment/no trial only under the TERRORIST banner - for you cannot do it for anything else can you!
If you call waiting TWO years to leave something, and that is only allowed if 'they' agree you can leave, is that really a voluntary state of affairs? If so, I do not like your definition of "voluntary" one little bit pr00ne.
Imagine being in "a voluntary association" such as the RAFA and you wanted to stop your subscription (be it monthly or annual in any association) and your request was on the books for TWO years, then the Association Committee met to discuss your case and said, NO he cannot leave right now, let him fry for a while - that's just a completely dreadful rule is it not pr00ne?
For something to be voluntary, it must be by the agreement of the individual. If you do not ask the individual then it cannot be voluntary.
My point is, the voters of Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, and Germany were NEVER asked for their permission to become part of this UNDEMOCRATIC giant superstate were they - it was their government who took them in whether they liked it or not.
Sounds great pr00ne but you must know it is just not so.
As a hint, here is what a QC said of such matters, when he was given time.
Mr Alister is a QC and an MEP for the DUP in NI. He was talking in the EP on the 11 Jan 2005, debating the Treaty Establishing a Constitution For Europe.
pr00ne says, "I know this damm [sic] draft so well because I have had to get to know it so as to be able to advise CEOs and Chairmen of major multi nationals of the impact of it upon their operations. Nevertheless, it is now dead and it will not be ratified in this form. Incidentally, I have NEVER stated anywhere that I support this draft constitution, I have only challenged statements about what it is NOT and what it does NOT say."
So pr00ne were you for the EU Constitution or not - before it died?
Will you further argue the toss over all the above?
TG
I tried to calm down, but I had these thoughts on my mind and had to share them in the court of you know who....... here goes....... all mostly for FJ pr00ne........ the pr00ne who cannot get his grammar correct, asks what does, "political rapist" mean - his literary imagination for the use of the metaphor is obviously not his strong point either. I will not bother trying to explain.
Forgive this fairly long look, at what pr00ne still offers in defence of the EU Constitution:
From the Definitions and Objectives; “the Union shall coordinate policies by which the member states aim to achieve their objectives”
Article I-12 on division of competences creates an institutional ratchet to transfer more powers to the EU.
It says that member states may only choose to act in areas where powers are "shared" if the EU chooses not to exercise its powers.
Straw said, "......I set out a set of red lines for the United Kingdom. In the negotiations we delivered on each and every one of them". The UK Government tabled 275 requests for changes to the EU Constitution - only 27 were accepted and acted upon.
“the Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity”
From relations between the Union and member states;
“The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Constitution as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.”
From fundamental rights; “Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.”
From areas of exclusive competence; (there are NO others!-pr00ne)
1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market.
(c) monetary policy, for the Member States whose currency is the euro,
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries
policy.
(e) common commercial policy.
From relations between the Union and member states;
“The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Constitution as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.”
From fundamental rights; “Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.”
From areas of exclusive competence; (there are NO others!-pr00ne)
1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market.
(c) monetary policy, for the Member States whose currency is the euro,
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries
policy.
(e) common commercial policy.
"2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope. "
Seems to me that is one hell of a lot of sea room for manoeuvre - am I wrong pr00ne?
Ill defined EXCLUSIVE for their own purposes!
"Article I-16: (ex Articles 17, 11(2) TEU) The common foreign and security policy: 1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence."
Here's where pr00ne's idea of what a veto means comes into question:
"Article I-16: (ex Articles 17, 11(2) TEU) The common foreign and security policy.
2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
Just in case some right-wing UK zealot/s moan about an EU course of action, 'they' have thought of that too:
"Article I-18: (ex Article 308 TEC, 235 Rome Treaty) Flexibility clause
1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures."
1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures."
pr00ne declares these five, "exclusive" competence areas and NO others. What does he make of:
1. "EU law shall have primacy over the law of member states."
2. "The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
3. "The Court of Justice of the EU shall rule on actions brought by a member state."
4. "The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy." Article I-12
5. "EU member states...must refrain from any measure which would jeopardise the attainment of the Unions' objectives."
I simply do not have the time [well that's handy] to go through the document and pick out statements to counter what tartan giant has quoted, here are a few comments though; There is no continental system of Law and Order, the EU constitution does not affect individual member states judicial procedures, it merely confirms the current position with regard to the EU legislating where it is allowed to, as it has for a long time now, what changes is that the EU now has a legal personality.
Chris Lees, a British businessman (and Lib Dem Cllr) spent a whole year in a Spanish jail awaiting a trial - the charges were dismissed owing to complete lack of evidence....... Why and how did that happen?
The EU Commission's "Corpus Juris" plan for a European Public Prosecutor, laying down an "embryo criminal code for Europe", explicitly rules out, "simple jurymen and lay magistrates" (Art. 26.1 as amended) to be replaced with career judges.
It also makes provision for the European Prosecutor to "request" (really meaning to 'order') the arrest and imprisonment of a suspect for up to six months, renewable for three months, an unspecified number of times (Art. 20.3.g as amended) with no provision for any public hearing or check of evidence.
Is that not so pr00ne?
With this crack-pot EU Constitution, there will be no veto to stop this from being introduced to the UK if 'they' slip it through the back door - is that not so pr00ne?
Blunkett did what he did in English law, not some vague EU law.
The EU constitution has NO affect whatsoever on arrest, investigation or charge. You can be arrested and imprisoned in the UK without a shred of evidence or a trial under the anti-terrorist legislation, legislation that is far more draconian than most EU member states..
And how did that PARTICULAR law come about pr00ne? The Civil Contingencies Bill that was bulldozed through, that is how that dreadful piece of legislation became law - it's all to do with TERRORISM and nothing else.
Tell the good people here what the definition of an "emergency" is according to the dopes who dreamt that CCB up!
I'm glad you restricted the arrest/imprisonment/no trial only under the TERRORIST banner - for you cannot do it for anything else can you!
The constitution enshrined within it the right of a member state to leave, something that does not exist at present, the constitution now confirms that the EU is a voluntary association.
Imagine being in "a voluntary association" such as the RAFA and you wanted to stop your subscription (be it monthly or annual in any association) and your request was on the books for TWO years, then the Association Committee met to discuss your case and said, NO he cannot leave right now, let him fry for a while - that's just a completely dreadful rule is it not pr00ne?
For something to be voluntary, it must be by the agreement of the individual. If you do not ask the individual then it cannot be voluntary.
My point is, the voters of Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, and Germany were NEVER asked for their permission to become part of this UNDEMOCRATIC giant superstate were they - it was their government who took them in whether they liked it or not.
Veto retained on Defence, foreign policy, territorial integrity and taxation.
As a hint, here is what a QC said of such matters, when he was given time.
Mr Alister is a QC and an MEP for the DUP in NI. He was talking in the EP on the 11 Jan 2005, debating the Treaty Establishing a Constitution For Europe.
Allister (NI)
Mr President, though this House, in self-congratulatory euphoria, will embrace this Constitution, thankfully the ultimate decision rests with the Member States. It is their votes that really matter. What I despise most is the false pretence, particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom, that this Constitution is merely a tidying-up exercise made necessary by enlargement and that it will settle the constitutional shape of Europe for generations. That is demonstrably false.
Those who peddle that deception are best exposed by the Constitution's own most ardent and more honest proponents.
In the Constitutional Affairs Committee, I have observed at first hand the strategy and scheming of arch Europhiles. They make no secret of the fact that this Constitution is not an end in itself, but a work in progress and they do nothing to conceal their ambition to have it, in their terms, strengthened at the first opportunity - without, of course, the troublesome obstacle of further national consultation. Their undisguised candour gives the lie to those who would deceive voters into thinking that this is a mere tidying-up exercise: it is not.
The choice for the nation-states is this: a choice between a Europe of cooperating sovereign nation-states, or a Europe that is itself a superstate. Despite all the denials, this Constitution is a framework for superstatehood. It declares its supremacy over national constitutions; it proclaims the subservience of national law; it appoints its own president and foreign minister. It relegates national parliaments to mere consultative sounding boards; it trades meaningful democracy for the pseudo_democracy of this House; it neuters the last defence of the nation-state by increasingly supplanting the national veto with radically increased qualified majority voting; and it provides an unbridled path to further integration by permitting amendment by heads of government rather than by the people. Anyone with pride in his or her own nation, who does not want to see it subsumed into a hideous conglomerate, will reject this tawdry Constitution.
Mr President, though this House, in self-congratulatory euphoria, will embrace this Constitution, thankfully the ultimate decision rests with the Member States. It is their votes that really matter. What I despise most is the false pretence, particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom, that this Constitution is merely a tidying-up exercise made necessary by enlargement and that it will settle the constitutional shape of Europe for generations. That is demonstrably false.
Those who peddle that deception are best exposed by the Constitution's own most ardent and more honest proponents.
In the Constitutional Affairs Committee, I have observed at first hand the strategy and scheming of arch Europhiles. They make no secret of the fact that this Constitution is not an end in itself, but a work in progress and they do nothing to conceal their ambition to have it, in their terms, strengthened at the first opportunity - without, of course, the troublesome obstacle of further national consultation. Their undisguised candour gives the lie to those who would deceive voters into thinking that this is a mere tidying-up exercise: it is not.
The choice for the nation-states is this: a choice between a Europe of cooperating sovereign nation-states, or a Europe that is itself a superstate. Despite all the denials, this Constitution is a framework for superstatehood. It declares its supremacy over national constitutions; it proclaims the subservience of national law; it appoints its own president and foreign minister. It relegates national parliaments to mere consultative sounding boards; it trades meaningful democracy for the pseudo_democracy of this House; it neuters the last defence of the nation-state by increasingly supplanting the national veto with radically increased qualified majority voting; and it provides an unbridled path to further integration by permitting amendment by heads of government rather than by the people. Anyone with pride in his or her own nation, who does not want to see it subsumed into a hideous conglomerate, will reject this tawdry Constitution.
pr00ne says, "I know this damm [sic] draft so well because I have had to get to know it so as to be able to advise CEOs and Chairmen of major multi nationals of the impact of it upon their operations. Nevertheless, it is now dead and it will not be ratified in this form. Incidentally, I have NEVER stated anywhere that I support this draft constitution, I have only challenged statements about what it is NOT and what it does NOT say."
So pr00ne were you for the EU Constitution or not - before it died?
Will you further argue the toss over all the above?
TG
TG,
No I won't argue the toss over a document we so obviously disagree strongly on, we could go on all night quoting little snippets and trumpeting what we believe, it would be pointless as we do not agree.
You ask me "am I wrong Proone?"
Yes TG, you are.
The veto WAS there on defence, foreign policy, national security and taxation-fact.
Would I have voted for it? Probably not.
Roland Pulfrew,
Believe everything that comes from Central Office? I don't think so old chap, not by a long way.
Toom certainly was my last jet, and in the Strike/GA role too, never went AD with it.
No I won't argue the toss over a document we so obviously disagree strongly on, we could go on all night quoting little snippets and trumpeting what we believe, it would be pointless as we do not agree.
You ask me "am I wrong Proone?"
Yes TG, you are.
The veto WAS there on defence, foreign policy, national security and taxation-fact.
Would I have voted for it? Probably not.
Roland Pulfrew,
Believe everything that comes from Central Office? I don't think so old chap, not by a long way.
Toom certainly was my last jet, and in the Strike/GA role too, never went AD with it.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one glaring fact that comes out of Pr00ne and Tartan Giant's ping-ponging is that the constitution, if accepted in current form, is wide open to interpretation. It appears to contradict itself in several places - Guaranteeing 'respect' for national identities and laws, whilst at the same time including so many broadly-drafted catch-all clauses, such as:
...and...
...and...
What concerns me most is just WHO will be doing the interpretation that will be required in any number of forseeable and unforseeable circumstances. It will be left up to an unelected cabal of Eurocrats to decide what is in the 'Best Interests' of the 'Union' - it certainly WILL NOT fall to either the parliaments or people of member states! In effect, a referendum on the ratification of the constitution is the LAST CHANCE that ANY 'EU Citizen' (spit!!!!) will get to have any kind of say on this, since the constitution itself gives authority to the aforementioned cabal to dictate the future evolution of the 'legal personality' that the EU will become. THIS clause is what chills my spine the most:
This TRULY is a catch all clause - paraphrased, it means that 'We, the great and the good of the United States of Europe, can do whatever the fcuk we like, provided that the EU parliament has rubber stamped it first (easily done, given how the EU 'Parliament' operates), without ANY further reference to the great unwashed or their elected representatives in their own country'.
Now, do we really believe that the EU Cabal of 'Ministers' will really carry out the will of the people or follow some even more altruistic path in making such an interpretation? Since some members of this cabal have already displayed their disdain for 'EU citizens' (spit!!!) by proclaiming that those who voted 'Non' or 'Nie' didn't really understand the question, it is easy to deduce the potential results of this clause.
As is so often the case in English law, it's all down to interpretation, Pr00ne, as you well know - when clauses such as the above leave such a massive and influential entity open to the interpretation of a few untouchable individuals, only danger can ensue. Wars have been started over much, much less.
16B
"Article I-16: (ex Articles 17, 11(2) TEU) The common foreign and security policy.
2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
"Article I-18: (ex Article 308 TEC, 235 Rome Treaty) Flexibility clause
1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures."
1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures."
"EU member states...must refrain from any measure which would jeopardise the attainment of the Unions' objectives."
"Article I-18: (ex Article 308 TEC, 235 Rome Treaty) Flexibility clause
1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures."
1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures."
Now, do we really believe that the EU Cabal of 'Ministers' will really carry out the will of the people or follow some even more altruistic path in making such an interpretation? Since some members of this cabal have already displayed their disdain for 'EU citizens' (spit!!!) by proclaiming that those who voted 'Non' or 'Nie' didn't really understand the question, it is easy to deduce the potential results of this clause.
As is so often the case in English law, it's all down to interpretation, Pr00ne, as you well know - when clauses such as the above leave such a massive and influential entity open to the interpretation of a few untouchable individuals, only danger can ensue. Wars have been started over much, much less.
16B
Last edited by 16 blades; 8th Jun 2005 at 02:23.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with you 16B
Hello 16B
Through all the smoke and mirrors, we have seen how the tricks are performed by the unelected EU masters.
It is a great shame some men of law in the UK cannot come to the same conclusion as we do. Not just a probably vote, make it a bloody definate NO! vote
They do not mention the "catch all" do they!
To hell in a basket with this EU Constitution, and to any attempt Noo LIAbour has of trying to slide bits and pieces of the junk under/onto our UK table.
We have managed very well for a 1000 years without this EU superstate sniffing and sucking away our success and as the 4th richest country in the world, the proof is there without the need of a Flexibility Clause!!!!!!!
"Article I-18: (ex Article 308 TEC, 235 Rome Treaty)".
Keep the blades safely turning.
Cheers
TG
Through all the smoke and mirrors, we have seen how the tricks are performed by the unelected EU masters.
It is a great shame some men of law in the UK cannot come to the same conclusion as we do. Not just a probably vote, make it a bloody definate NO! vote
They do not mention the "catch all" do they!
To hell in a basket with this EU Constitution, and to any attempt Noo LIAbour has of trying to slide bits and pieces of the junk under/onto our UK table.
We have managed very well for a 1000 years without this EU superstate sniffing and sucking away our success and as the 4th richest country in the world, the proof is there without the need of a Flexibility Clause!!!!!!!
"Article I-18: (ex Article 308 TEC, 235 Rome Treaty)".
Keep the blades safely turning.
Cheers
TG
Gentleman Aviator
without the need of a Flexibility Clause!!!!!!!
..... oh ........ I forgot ............
......"Thre ain't no Sanity Clause!" (Chico Marx 1935 "A Night at the Opera" )
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Europe
I propose you guy do something honourable too (for a change) and use, to the best effect, one of our stored guillotine that we could dispatch to you from Musee Grevin. We can take care of Chirac without it, how about you take care of your politicians?
Goohie. Salut.
Goohie. Salut.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gegene,
"I propose you guys do something honourable too (for a change)."
May I regretfully suggest that the last of your Governments major decisions in a world crisis resulted in a capitulation, and subsequent subservitude, to one of the most vile regimes the World has ever had to experience.
A few, a very honourable few, of your Countrymen found their way to the UK and continued the fight in the dark days until the entry of the US into the War brought the certainty of final victory.
Equally a few, a very honourable few, of your countrymen created the Maquis and its various networks that contributed to the Allied Victory.
Let us not forget, however, that your countrymen fought AGAINST the Allies during the initial stages of Operation TORCH; and that Vichy France had a price on the head of Generals de Gaulle & Leclerc.
"I propose you guys do something honourable too (for a change)."
May I regretfully suggest that the last of your Governments major decisions in a world crisis resulted in a capitulation, and subsequent subservitude, to one of the most vile regimes the World has ever had to experience.
A few, a very honourable few, of your Countrymen found their way to the UK and continued the fight in the dark days until the entry of the US into the War brought the certainty of final victory.
Equally a few, a very honourable few, of your countrymen created the Maquis and its various networks that contributed to the Allied Victory.
Let us not forget, however, that your countrymen fought AGAINST the Allies during the initial stages of Operation TORCH; and that Vichy France had a price on the head of Generals de Gaulle & Leclerc.
Ah but Caz....the had to defend the honour of France by killing a few Allied soldiers before throwing their arms down and showing us their armpits! Don't you understand......please. It is easy to get confused during war time....fog of battle and all that.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case pr00ne has time to visit us in this democracy!
He will be interested to know (?) that we can have our say about keeping monkeys, but we cannot have our say when WE want it about the EU Constitution!
Wonderful priorities this Noo Liabour lot set out.
Thanks Tony and Jack, you are stars....... bloody DIS.ass.stars
How about these EU arrogant morons carrying on as if nothing has happened! The inertia is too much for them.
More good news for the EU lovers:
We have not yet agreed on this EU Constitution and here they are slipping things in under our noses............ as suggested they might by NAV ATTACKING
Of course we have the veto - don't we FJ pr00ne.
TG
He will be interested to know (?) that we can have our say about keeping monkeys, but we cannot have our say when WE want it about the EU Constitution!
Wonderful priorities this Noo Liabour lot set out.
Thanks Tony and Jack, you are stars....... bloody DIS.ass.stars
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050608a.htm
234/05 8 June 2005
PUBLIC TO HAVE THEIR SAY ON PRIMATES KEPT AS PETS
Members of the public will be able to have their say on the keeping of monkeys and other primates as pets, as part of a review of Government policy.
234/05 8 June 2005
PUBLIC TO HAVE THEIR SAY ON PRIMATES KEPT AS PETS
Members of the public will be able to have their say on the keeping of monkeys and other primates as pets, as part of a review of Government policy.
How about these EU arrogant morons carrying on as if nothing has happened! The inertia is too much for them.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050606/debtext/50606-05.htm#50606-05_wqn1
Andrew Rosindell: Now that we have seen the death of the European constitution, will the Secretary of State give us a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no further development of the European defence project, and particularly the European Defence Agency?
John Reid: No, I will not give the hon. Gentleman such assurances .................
Andrew Rosindell: Now that we have seen the death of the European constitution, will the Secretary of State give us a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no further development of the European defence project, and particularly the European Defence Agency?
John Reid: No, I will not give the hon. Gentleman such assurances .................
More good news for the EU lovers:
The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe
Article III-254. To promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies, the Union shall draw up a European space policy. To this end it may promote joint initiatives, support research, technological development and demonstration programmes. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.
The second meeting of the Space Council – concomitant meeting of the ESA Council at ministerial level and of the European Union Competitiveness Council (Internal Market/ Industry/ Research) – was held at the Kiem Conference Centre in Luxembourg today (Tuesday 7 June).
In consultation with private and public stakeholders, the Space Council is working on the definition of a coherent space policy and associated programmes, covering the activities of the EU, ESA and their Member States. The objective is to endorse, at the third Space Council meeting planned for November this year, a European space policy and European space programme for the period to 2013.
Article III-254. To promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies, the Union shall draw up a European space policy. To this end it may promote joint initiatives, support research, technological development and demonstration programmes. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.
The second meeting of the Space Council – concomitant meeting of the ESA Council at ministerial level and of the European Union Competitiveness Council (Internal Market/ Industry/ Research) – was held at the Kiem Conference Centre in Luxembourg today (Tuesday 7 June).
In consultation with private and public stakeholders, the Space Council is working on the definition of a coherent space policy and associated programmes, covering the activities of the EU, ESA and their Member States. The objective is to endorse, at the third Space Council meeting planned for November this year, a European space policy and European space programme for the period to 2013.
Of course we have the veto - don't we FJ pr00ne.
TG
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more for pr00ne (if he has time)
Here is some more EU inspired rubbish - put in the landfill by a world famous author.
Frederick Forsyth, author and patriotic defender of our England of historic counties, received a surprise letter from the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) inviting him to become an 'East of England Ambassador'.
EEDA's letter is below, as is Mr Forsyth's response, in which he turns down the chance of becoming 'Ambassador' in no uncertain terms.
............................................................ ..............
Now the broadside...........
http://www.regionalassemblies.co.uk/...ession*id*val*
----------------
Needless to say, Frederick Forsyth has the measure of these EU lackies down to a tee.
pr00ne still likes the idea - probably?
TG
Frederick Forsyth, author and patriotic defender of our England of historic counties, received a surprise letter from the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) inviting him to become an 'East of England Ambassador'.
EEDA's letter is below, as is Mr Forsyth's response, in which he turns down the chance of becoming 'Ambassador' in no uncertain terms.
Dear Mr Forsyth
East of England - space for ideas
A chance to contribute
By 2010 the East of England Region region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe. Made up of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, the East of England is a diverse and fascinating region and one that you are closely associated with.
Key to its future success will be our ability to promote the East of England on the world stage. One way that our goal will be achieved, for the good of all who live, work, visit and invest in the region, is by building a strong brand for the region. This brand is called 'East of England - space for ideas'.
In 2004 we, the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) have some very exciting plans for the brand. And this is where we would like your help. A diverse mix of companies, individuals and organisations has already committed their assistance, and as a recognised member of the regional community I would like to invite you to become an East of England ambassador.
I will call your offices over the next week to explore the possibility of setting up a 15-minute East of England - space for ideas introduction meeting to talk you through both the commercial and non-commercial opportunities available.
Please be assured that any commitment you do make will take up a minimum amount of your time.
If, in the meantime, you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me on 0845 226 0803/07771 964 595 or email [email protected].
Through collective effort and commitment we hope:
'to make the East of England a world-class economy, renowned for its knowledge base, the creativity and enterprise of its people and the quality of life of all who live and work here' East of England strategic review goal 2002
Ambitious as it might be, we are all 100% committed to our goal and would ask you to recognise both the personal and community based rewards of investing in the East of England's future.
I look forward to speaking to you and/or your representative over the coming weeks.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Caruth
On behalf of East of England - space for ideas
East of England - space for ideas
A chance to contribute
By 2010 the East of England Region region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe. Made up of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, the East of England is a diverse and fascinating region and one that you are closely associated with.
Key to its future success will be our ability to promote the East of England on the world stage. One way that our goal will be achieved, for the good of all who live, work, visit and invest in the region, is by building a strong brand for the region. This brand is called 'East of England - space for ideas'.
In 2004 we, the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) have some very exciting plans for the brand. And this is where we would like your help. A diverse mix of companies, individuals and organisations has already committed their assistance, and as a recognised member of the regional community I would like to invite you to become an East of England ambassador.
I will call your offices over the next week to explore the possibility of setting up a 15-minute East of England - space for ideas introduction meeting to talk you through both the commercial and non-commercial opportunities available.
Please be assured that any commitment you do make will take up a minimum amount of your time.
If, in the meantime, you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me on 0845 226 0803/07771 964 595 or email [email protected].
Through collective effort and commitment we hope:
'to make the East of England a world-class economy, renowned for its knowledge base, the creativity and enterprise of its people and the quality of life of all who live and work here' East of England strategic review goal 2002
Ambitious as it might be, we are all 100% committed to our goal and would ask you to recognise both the personal and community based rewards of investing in the East of England's future.
I look forward to speaking to you and/or your representative over the coming weeks.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Caruth
On behalf of East of England - space for ideas
............................................................ ..............
Now the broadside...........
Dear Mr Caruth
For some ten years, since I became fascinated by the sheer duplicity and mendacity of the Europe Project I have studied it with some intensity and no little research. I presume you are in the same position, so we need not fool each other.
We both know that, for the Europe of (say) 2010 (your own choice) there are only two viable visions. One is what we thought, back in 1972, we were being inducted into until we learned we had been comprehensively lied to. This was the Europe De Gaulle had referred to as 'Une Union des Patries.' Brits have always translated this as 'A Europe of Nations'. It is what the Conservative Party has always claimed to support and what New Labour also pretends to seek, though once again it is lying.
Basically, a confederation of self-governing and sovereign nation-states who have chose by free volition to cooperate towards a goal of enhanced mutual prosperity by the creation of a huge Free Market. That vision was effectively terminated by euthanasia in the Maastricht Treaty, though fools and liars continue to employ the phrase.
The other vision can best be described in the title of a recent pamphlet from the Comite des Regions in Brussels: 'A Europe of Cities and Regions in an Integrated Continent.' This is a Europe where so-often pooh-poohed words like 'ever closer union', 'complete political integration' and United States of Europe, have become literal realities. That clearly is the vision to which you and yours aspire with self-denying fanaticism.
But like all Euro-integrationists, you are being less than frank with the public. Behind the Utopian propaganda lie several less happy truths. The creation of the USE and the continuation of the nation-state are quite simply mutually incompatible. The creation of the USE must mean the End-of-Nation, now at last being openly mentioned in print, though a long-held dream of the Post-Modernists.
Now I happen to be one of the (approx) ninety per cent of the citizens of the UK who regard this country with love, affection and loyalty. I find the end-of-nation, with its concomitant partner end-of-democracy anathema. So I look carefully at how this nightmare might be achieved.
Clearly not by free vote, by fair referendum. Therefore, as ever, by deception, mendacity, dissimulation and fraud. But via which vehicles? One is clearly the abrogation and abolition of the national currency. There has never been a single example in history of a nation abolishing its currency to adopt the currency of a larger neighbouring unit which was still a self-governing country ten years later.
Second, there is abolition of the national constitution, or its supercession by another alien constitution. Parliamentary democracy is the only known governmental system which requires as an absolute need the consent of the governed. All other systems are variants of dictatorship. What Giscard d'Estaing has prepared (and Gisela Stuart MP recently confirmed this in her brilliant Fabian Society pamphlet) is a blueprint for oligarchy, warmly supported by all the oligarths of Europe and the UK. That is why Tony Blair dare not permit the people to speak.
The third way of terminating the nation-state is break-up. That is your chosen road. If you can break provincial England into eight parts, an unavoidable development must then be the abolition of District, Shire, and Borough as units of real local government. That is a given, even admitted by Prescott in an unguarded moment.
The second unavoidable consequence must be the reduction to irrelevance of the national government and its Parliament at Westminster. But there must be two levels of government, for the Region cannot be a nation-state on its own. It must defer to something bigger than itself. That 'something' if not Westminster, Crown in Parliament, can only be the Federal Government of the USE in Brussels. QED.
So when you say to me: 'By 2010 the East of England region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe,' you should, if you were to be scrupulously honest, phrase it thus: 'By 2010, following the abolition of this and other outdated nation-states, and in a New Europe of devolved regional territories, the East of England region....' etc.
Your problem is not me but Abraham Lincoln. 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all of the time.' Regionalism, behind its mask of local democracy, enhanced prosperity for all, but in truth standing for millions more unaccountable gravy-slurping jobsworths, has got to fool enough of the people enough of the time; i.e. until the referendum, which will be as rigged as Prescott and Blair can fix it.
But you run into a group of people far more numerous than yourself, just as committed to the retention of England as you are to its disappearance, just as smart and just as moneyed. Before the fight is over you and yours will have learned the hard way that this old country of ours is not yet prepared to be led into the knacker's yard.
So, Mr Caruth, until Philippi, ave atque vale.
Frederick Forsyth - 27 February 2004
For some ten years, since I became fascinated by the sheer duplicity and mendacity of the Europe Project I have studied it with some intensity and no little research. I presume you are in the same position, so we need not fool each other.
We both know that, for the Europe of (say) 2010 (your own choice) there are only two viable visions. One is what we thought, back in 1972, we were being inducted into until we learned we had been comprehensively lied to. This was the Europe De Gaulle had referred to as 'Une Union des Patries.' Brits have always translated this as 'A Europe of Nations'. It is what the Conservative Party has always claimed to support and what New Labour also pretends to seek, though once again it is lying.
Basically, a confederation of self-governing and sovereign nation-states who have chose by free volition to cooperate towards a goal of enhanced mutual prosperity by the creation of a huge Free Market. That vision was effectively terminated by euthanasia in the Maastricht Treaty, though fools and liars continue to employ the phrase.
The other vision can best be described in the title of a recent pamphlet from the Comite des Regions in Brussels: 'A Europe of Cities and Regions in an Integrated Continent.' This is a Europe where so-often pooh-poohed words like 'ever closer union', 'complete political integration' and United States of Europe, have become literal realities. That clearly is the vision to which you and yours aspire with self-denying fanaticism.
But like all Euro-integrationists, you are being less than frank with the public. Behind the Utopian propaganda lie several less happy truths. The creation of the USE and the continuation of the nation-state are quite simply mutually incompatible. The creation of the USE must mean the End-of-Nation, now at last being openly mentioned in print, though a long-held dream of the Post-Modernists.
Now I happen to be one of the (approx) ninety per cent of the citizens of the UK who regard this country with love, affection and loyalty. I find the end-of-nation, with its concomitant partner end-of-democracy anathema. So I look carefully at how this nightmare might be achieved.
Clearly not by free vote, by fair referendum. Therefore, as ever, by deception, mendacity, dissimulation and fraud. But via which vehicles? One is clearly the abrogation and abolition of the national currency. There has never been a single example in history of a nation abolishing its currency to adopt the currency of a larger neighbouring unit which was still a self-governing country ten years later.
Second, there is abolition of the national constitution, or its supercession by another alien constitution. Parliamentary democracy is the only known governmental system which requires as an absolute need the consent of the governed. All other systems are variants of dictatorship. What Giscard d'Estaing has prepared (and Gisela Stuart MP recently confirmed this in her brilliant Fabian Society pamphlet) is a blueprint for oligarchy, warmly supported by all the oligarths of Europe and the UK. That is why Tony Blair dare not permit the people to speak.
The third way of terminating the nation-state is break-up. That is your chosen road. If you can break provincial England into eight parts, an unavoidable development must then be the abolition of District, Shire, and Borough as units of real local government. That is a given, even admitted by Prescott in an unguarded moment.
The second unavoidable consequence must be the reduction to irrelevance of the national government and its Parliament at Westminster. But there must be two levels of government, for the Region cannot be a nation-state on its own. It must defer to something bigger than itself. That 'something' if not Westminster, Crown in Parliament, can only be the Federal Government of the USE in Brussels. QED.
So when you say to me: 'By 2010 the East of England region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe,' you should, if you were to be scrupulously honest, phrase it thus: 'By 2010, following the abolition of this and other outdated nation-states, and in a New Europe of devolved regional territories, the East of England region....' etc.
Your problem is not me but Abraham Lincoln. 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all of the time.' Regionalism, behind its mask of local democracy, enhanced prosperity for all, but in truth standing for millions more unaccountable gravy-slurping jobsworths, has got to fool enough of the people enough of the time; i.e. until the referendum, which will be as rigged as Prescott and Blair can fix it.
But you run into a group of people far more numerous than yourself, just as committed to the retention of England as you are to its disappearance, just as smart and just as moneyed. Before the fight is over you and yours will have learned the hard way that this old country of ours is not yet prepared to be led into the knacker's yard.
So, Mr Caruth, until Philippi, ave atque vale.
Frederick Forsyth - 27 February 2004
http://www.regionalassemblies.co.uk/...ession*id*val*
----------------
Needless to say, Frederick Forsyth has the measure of these EU lackies down to a tee.
pr00ne still likes the idea - probably?
TG
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More ammo
Here is some more ammo against this EU Constitution.
Please do not let these sly Labour elite slip anything through.
TG
Memo to the Rt Hon. Tony Blair, MP:
Nee and Non mean No!
Dear Mr Blair
For your information the Bruges Group would like to translate two important words.
The translation of the Dutch word Nee in English is No. The Dutch use Nee to express refusal or denial or disagreement or especially to emphasize a negative statement. The French word Non has an identical meaning also translated into English as No.
No signifies:
- A negative response; a denial or refusal
- A negative vote or voter
It is used to express strong refusal.
This is what the French and Dutch peoples said to the EU Constitution. But you are still permitting the EU to implement aspects of the EU Constitution including:
- The EU External Action (Diplomatic) Service
- A European President and EU Foreign Minister
- A European Defence Agency
- A European Gendarmerie
- The Rapid Reaction Force
- The Fundamental Rights Agency
- A European Space Policy
- Asylum and immigration policy
Moreover, by not implementing those costly measures, there is less need to surrender any of Britain’s rebate.
If you do not cancel the implementation of those policies then you must honour your election pledge and allow the British people their say on the EU Constitution and the future of Britain’s relationship with the EU.
Yours sincerely,
John Hayes, MP The Rt Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory, MP
Nee and Non mean No!
Dear Mr Blair
For your information the Bruges Group would like to translate two important words.
The translation of the Dutch word Nee in English is No. The Dutch use Nee to express refusal or denial or disagreement or especially to emphasize a negative statement. The French word Non has an identical meaning also translated into English as No.
No signifies:
- A negative response; a denial or refusal
- A negative vote or voter
It is used to express strong refusal.
This is what the French and Dutch peoples said to the EU Constitution. But you are still permitting the EU to implement aspects of the EU Constitution including:
- The EU External Action (Diplomatic) Service
- A European President and EU Foreign Minister
- A European Defence Agency
- A European Gendarmerie
- The Rapid Reaction Force
- The Fundamental Rights Agency
- A European Space Policy
- Asylum and immigration policy
Moreover, by not implementing those costly measures, there is less need to surrender any of Britain’s rebate.
If you do not cancel the implementation of those policies then you must honour your election pledge and allow the British people their say on the EU Constitution and the future of Britain’s relationship with the EU.
Yours sincerely,
John Hayes, MP The Rt Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory, MP
TG
