New World Map: Prescience? Or Pre-planned?

CRYSTAL BALLS REALLY DO EXIST AND REALLY DO WORK IT SEEMS.

Just as today’s map of the world was all planned out, so is tomorrow’s. You can find out how it’s planned if you research.

Bilderberg & The Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1954

Direct evidence of Bilderberg agents in the British Government subverting the value of our currency and covering up the “swindle” that the “Private Interests” (Rothschild, Rockefeller and crew in collaboration with European and British monarchy) have perpetrated on not just the UK but the entire globe.

Not exactly the “Great Rock & Roll Swindle” but,

The GREAT ROCK AND ROTH SWINDLE

 

First we listen to Dennis Healey!

‘Uniting the West’ – by Denis Healey (extract)

From his autobiography ‘The Time of My Life’.  Published by Penguin, 1989.

Dennis Healey - Bilderberger

Before long a benign providence developed another mechanism for assisting impecunious European socialists to learn something of the outside world – the international conference.  Konigswinter performed this function for Germany. The Council of Europe covered Western Europe as a whole.  The NATO Parliamentarians Conference brought politicians from Europe, the United States, and Canada together once a year.  Before long there was also an annual meeting in Bermuda of British MP’s and members of Congress. Then the great American foundations of Ford and Rockefeller took a hand.  There was a proliferation of cultural conferences in all parts of the world, including the Congress for Cultural Freedom, where I could meet people less directly involved in politics such as the poet Stephen Spender, the philosopher Raymond Aron, and the novelist Mary McCarthy. I later discovered that the Congress for Cultural Freedom, like Encounter magazine, was financed by the CIA; both nevertheless made a useful contribution to the quality of Western life at that time.

Of all these meetings, the most valuable to me while I was in opposition were the Bilderberg Conferences – so called after the Bilderberg Hotel near Arnhem, where the first was held in 1954.  They were the brain-child of Joseph Retinger, a Pole who had settled in England after the Great War, married the daughter of the socialist intellectual, E.D. Morel, and worked as a secretary to Joseph Conrad, another Polish ex-patriate.

Retinger was a small wizened man, with a pince-nez on a wrinkled brown face. He was crippled by polio. During the war he had been an aide to General Sikorski, and despite his extreme physical disability was parachuted into Poland to make contact with the Home Army.  After the war he organised the Congress of the Hague, which launched the European Movement.  Convinced of the need for a similar forum to strengthen unity between Europe and North America, he approached Hugh Gaitskell, General Colin Gubbins, who had commanded SOE during the war, and several leading politicians and businessmen who were concerned to strengthen Atlantic cooperation.  They asked Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to act as Chairman, because they rightly thought it would be difficult to find a politician whose objectivity would be above suspicion, and who could call Cabinet ministers from any country to order without causing offence.

I was invited to the first meeting and later acted as convener of the British who attended; Reggie Maudling and I were the British members of the Steering Committee.  Retinger and his successor, the Dutch Socialist Ernst van der Beughel, who later became Chairman of KLM, were extraordinarily successful in persuading busy men to give up a weekend for private discussions, though they found it more difficult to attract ministers than politicians out of office.

The Bilderberg conferences inevitably aroused jealousy, because they were exclusive, and suspicion, because they were private.  In America they were attacked as a left-wing plot to subvert the United States, in Europe as a capitalist plot to undermine socialism.  They were neither.  Immense care was taken to invite a fair balance from all political parties, and to include trade unionists as well as businessmen.  Though the discussions were more carefully prepared than at many such meetings – I myself wrote a paper for most conferences – their real value, as always, was in the personal contacts made outside the conference hall.  Industrialists like Gianni Agnelli and Otto Wolf von Amerongen had to listen to socialists and trade unionists – and vice versa. Experience has taught me that lack of understanding is the main cause of all evil in public affairs – as in private life.  Nothing is more likely to produce understanding than the sort of personal contact which involves people not just as officials or representatives, but also as human beings.

 

Next, we turn to Parliamentary Archive minutes from 1958:

 

FIDUCIARY NOTE ISSUE

HC Deb 01 April 1958 vol 585 cc1160-801160

§        10.3 p.m.

§Mr. John Cronin(Loughborough)

John Cronin MP (1916 -1989)

I beg to move,            That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Fiduciary Note Issue (Extension of Period) Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 326), dated 28th February, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be annulled.            I think that it would be of some value if I said a word or two about the nature of the Order, because it is not absolutely obvious at first glance. The House will recollect that before the war the note issue consisted of two varieties; one backed by the gold coin and bullion held in the issue department of the Bank of England, and the other backed merely by Government securities, and known as the fiduciary issue.

With the advent of the war, the gold coin and bullion were very largely transferred to the Exchange Equalisation Account and, as a consequence, the whole of the note issue was, for all practical purposes, the fiduciary issue. There is, as I am sure the Paymaster-General will agree, a small part of the note issue that is still backed by gold coin and bullion, but that amounts only to about £400,000, as compared with the £2,000 million, roughly, of the full note issue.

This Order refers to the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1954.

PLEASE NOTE THE YEAR OF THE ACT. 1954, the same year Bilderberg first convened.

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” Franklin D. Roosevelt

Mr Cronin continues:

It is interesting to notice the trend of the note issue. Although fixed at £1,575 million in February, 1954, when the Currency and Bank Notes Act received the Royal Assent, it increased and continued to remain at an increased level ever since the month after that Act received the Royal Assent. It was formally fixed by the Treasury on 22nd January at £2,000 million, which is nearly £500 million more than was originally intended by the Act.

1161            The effect of annulling this Order would, at first sight, seem to be that it would require the withdrawal of £500 million from circulation. I see that the Paymaster-General nods assent, but I do not think that that is quite correct, because I believe that the Government have full powers to restore gold coin and bullion from the Exchange Equalisation Account back to the issue department of the Bank of England, and, therefore, to increase the note issue based on gold coin and bullion to a very large extent.

I mention this only because the obvious purpose of this Motion is to receive certain assurances and the answers to certain questions from the Paymaster-General, but, at the same time, I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that, if his assurances are unsatisfactory, I shall hesitate to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House. I should say, en passant, that I am very pleased to see the Paymaster-General in his place. I believe that he has made a rather arduous train journey to be here.

And WHO is the Paymaster General during those years?

Reginald Maudling!

I am fully aware of the fact that modern economic thought tends to place more emphasis on bank advances than on the actual notes in circulation, but I do not think that notes in circulation should be completely ignored; and that has rather been the tendency. The actual note issue is a very useful gauge of inflation. It is worth pointing out that the note issue in 1946 was £1,332 million, on the average, and that in 1951 it had actually decreased to £1,291 million, but that since then it has gone up enormously. The reason was that, under the Labour Government, inflation was largely due to external causes, and under the present Government we cannot quite adopt the same explanation.

Now this is where it gets really interesting:

Mr. Niall MacDermot(Lewisham, North)

I beg to second the Motion.

I should like, first, to express the gratitude which I am sure we all feel for the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) in moving the Motion and giving us the first opportunity since the Act was passed, in 1954, to discuss in the House the fiduciary note issue. The Act provides the machinery whereby the state and level of the issue can be discussed once every two years. When the opportunity arose last, in 1956, there was no Motion of this character, and the large increase in the fiduciary issue passed by without discussion at all.

I understand that it was the object of the provision in the Act to increase to some extent at least the degree of Parliamentary supervision and control over the fiduciary issue.

I confess I find that any belief that there is any kind of Parliamentary control is illusory. My hon. Friend has suggested that if this Order were annulled the Government could retrieve the situation by transferring the bullion from the Exchange Equalisation Fund back to the vaults of the Bank of England. I doubt whether that is a practical measure. The Minister is able to sit with an air of calm confidence on the Government Front Bench in the knowledge that this House would probably not dare, whatever it might feel, to annul the Order for the simple reason that it would plunge the country into economic and financial chaos. We are blackmailed, in a sense, into accepting the status quo.  All we can do is to seek to review what is happening and to discuss the position.

It is through the fiduciary issue that, according to orthodox economic ideas, it is possible primarily to control the supply of money. I see a puzzled expression appearing on the Minister’s face. I do not profess to have his economic ability or knowledge, but in the most elementary researches that I have made into the science of economics, I have understood from the beginning that the control of the quantity of bank credit ultimately rests on the fiduciary issue, because the limitation on the amount of credit which the banks can create at any moment is the necessity for them to preserve their cash ratio, which, before the war, was 10 per cent. and is now about 8 per cent.

In fact, any belief that it is possible effectively to control the quantity of bank credit in that way is, again, illusory. The reason is that in an inflationary situation, where there is a demand for more cash, more notes and more coinage, it is impossible for the Government to say, “We refuse to print any more money”, because, owing to the structure of our financial situation, if they attempted to do that when there was a real need and demand for that money, it would again provoke a financial crisis.

In an inflationary situation in which wages are rising and increased quantities of bank notes have to be drawn out of the banks every Thursday or Friday to pay the wages of millions of people on the following pay day, if the Government said, “We are so fed up with this inflation. We shall print no more bank notes or allow the Bank of England to issue them.”, there would be a panic situation and there would be, in effect, a run on the banks to try to obtain the cash which is being limited. The whole of our financial system, built up as it is on the structure of bank credit, has as its Achilles heel the fact that no action can be taken which might in any way provoke a run on the banks.

It is for this reason that I would like briefly to review the fiduciary issue and to consider what is and what is not the amount of control, either by Parliament or by the Government, which exists over the volume of money. The total volume of money consists, first, of the actual cash, that is to say, bank notes and coinage, and, secondly, of bank credit. And, of course, bank credit or bank deposits represent far the larger quantity of our total money. The fiduciary issue, the actual cash in circulation, represents only about one-quarter of our total money. Bank deposits at the moment are around £6,000 million and the fiduciary issue is about £2,000 million.

It is interesting to compare the prewar figures. In 1939, the total was only about £2,000 million, of which the fiduciary issue represented about £600 million. That is the measure of the inflation. What kind of control is there, either legally or in fact, over the quantity of this expansion of bank money which has taken place since 1939, so that we now have bank money of the order of £6,000 million where before the war it was some £1,500 million?

As I have said, in theory there is the control of the fiduciary issue but, as I have pointed out, that is not a practical control. There is also the control that the banks have to preserve their liquidity ratio, which is about 30 per cent. and which, according to their own practice, they find is a wise and prudent measure. Again, indirectly it is said that the Government have a measure of control over that, since a very large part of the liquid assets of the banks consist of Government securities, above all in the form of the floating debt.

Again, we may question the extent to which, particularly in an inflationary situation, the Government, from a practical point of view, are able to limit the floating debt in a way which would enable them effectively to control at all the supply of money by that means. What is significant is that there is no direct legal way in which the Government can compel the banks to maintain their advances or their deposits at any given level. This is, apparently, the official advice given to the Government, and this was confirmed by the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) at the time of our debate on the alleged Bank Rate leak. He said that the Government  … had also agreed at that time to limit bank advances over the next twelve months to the same level as the previous year’s… An operation such as that upon which we were engaged would have been impossible without seeing the clearing bankers.  The right hon. Gentleman was explaining why he had called them in to consult them. He went on: There is no legislation which can order the level of their advances.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 864.]            I think that the advice given to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct and that there is no legal way in which the Government can control the level of advances.

I find it a remarkable state of affairs that not only this Parliament, but also the Government of the day have no legal way of controlling the level of what constitutes three-quarters of the volume of our money in this country. It is a remarkable surrender to private interests of something which derives originally from the Royal prerogative, and I should have thought would have been of the very essence of executive power.

When we turn to the fiduciary issue itself, with which this Order is directly concerned, there is some legal power in the Government, but, again, it is remarkably restricted. The position is that the Bank of England is limited, as my hon. Friend pointed out, to the figure of £1,575 million, except to the extent that it is authorised by Treasury directions to increase the fiduciary issue beyond that amount for periods of six months at a time.

What is significant is that the Treasury can issue such directions only if it has received representations from the Bank of England. It cannot take the initiative for an increase itself. Equally, the Treasury can alter the amount of the fiduciary issue only to the extent that it is created by the Bank of England. We have not only initiative but control lying with the Bank of England, which is a body independent of the Government. Even when we are dealing with the fiduciary issue, there is only a limited and indirect control by the Government.

[So much for the idea that the Bank of England 1946 Act transfered ownership of the Bank of England to the Treasury! People should seriously read that Act and see the issue for themselves]

It is time for us to review very carefully whether there is proper and adequate machinery for controlling the volume of money. I entirely agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough about the need for further information about the velocity of circulation, because in so far as it is possible to help towards a solution of the problem of inflation by controlling the supply of money that can be done only if we know a great deal more than we do now about the velocity of circulation.

We need to go further than that and to investigate the machinery of control and the machinery of issue, the machinery by which money is created. My hon. Friend made a valid point when he asked the right hon. Gentleman how the profit which derives to the Government when there is an increase in the fiduciary issue is shown in the accounts. Of course, there is such a profit—if that is the right term to use—and it is very right and proper that the benefit which arises when money is created should accrue to the Government, that is to say, accrue to the public at large through public expenditure.

[I have to admit I do not see how there is a profit from increasing the fiduciary issue]

If the volume of money is increased by, say, £500 million, whoever first has that £500 million to spend is getting something for nothing, something for the mere cost of printing the money. It stands to reason that if there is to be an increase that benefit must accrue to someone. It is precisely because a person who first spends new money gets something for nothing that it is a criminal offence for a counterfeiter to forge money.

One of the criticisms which is to be levelled against our present financial system is that as to three-quarters of our money, namely, the money which is created in the form of bank credit, that benefit accrues to private individuals, the persons who borrow the money, and to the banks by way of interest. The country at large does not benefit as it would if that money were created directly by the Government, either through increasing the fiduciary issue, or by whatever other system was adopted.

Secondly, by allowing three-quarters of our money to be created in this way by the banking system, the amount of money that is increased in that way carries with it into perpetuity, so long as bank deposits and bank advances remain the same, the heavy burden of interest, a burden which, under the policies adopted by the Government, is a very heavy burden, indeed. Where that money is created and loaned to the Government, that burden is borne by the taxpayer. Where it is created and loaned to private borrowers, that burden is paid by the private borrowers and borne in general by the economy of the community.

It does not appear to me to be right in principle, or for any other reason, that if it be necessary to expand the supply of money under our expanding economy, that we should be forced to pay a levy, as it were, to the banking system in the form of these interest charges on the new money which is created in that way.

Above all, the complaint that I make about our existing system is that there is a completely divided responsibility between the banking system and the Government. It appears to me that in a matter of this character the responsibility ought to rest fairly and squarely upon the Government, as should the power to discharge that responsibility. Under the present system, which we have the opportunity to discuss tonight, through the machinery of the debate upon this Order, the power does not exist in the Government, and such control as they have is extremely limited.

Now before continuing with the response to this, a quick view of who is responding:  

Major-General Sir Henry Joseph “Harry” d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, 2nd BaronetDSO, MC, DL, TD (10 June 1909 – 11 December 1976), was a British army officer, company director and politician.

Henry d Avigdor Goldsmid - One of the Rothschild Mafia.

Following the Second World War, d’Avigdor-Goldsmid left the army and became a member of Kent County Council from 1946 to 1953. He was made a Freeman of the City of London and became a Justice of the Peace, Deputy Lieutenant (1949) and High Sheriff of Kent for 1953. His business career as a banker and bullion broker was marked by being Chairman of the Anglo-Israel Bank from 1961, and Chairman of Pergamon Press from 1969 to 1971.

What is missed from this profile but which is a rather obvious fact, is the Goldsmid’s are Jewish.

Sir Henry d’Avigdor-Goldsmid(Walsall, South)

The House, and especially hon. Members on this side, ought to be very grateful to the hon. Members for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot) for the sparkling exposition of Socialist economics to which we have had the opportunity of listening for the last 35 minutes.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, North was not in his usual form, as he spoke for only 20 minutes instead of 45. Nevertheless, he achieved the same impenetrability of thought in 20 minutes as he has done on previous occasions. I could not help feeling, as I saw the smiling face of the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), that he and his two hon. Friends will probably form the Treasury Bench of the future. There is the Chancellor, and there, behind him, are the Financial and Economic Secretaries—or perhaps I should say the Nervo and Knox of the Crazy Gang, who no doubt look forward to the time when they will occupy the Government benches.

Nobody can say that the country has not been warned. My goodness! I hope that this debate will go down in our history. We have been here for only 35 minutes, but during that time the world of truth has been more disturbed and muddied than in any other 35 minutes for which I have sat in this House. I do not propose to add to the confusion.

If those interested in the question of the fiduciary issue will consult two rather interesting tables in the Monthly Statistical Digest, which is available in the Library, they will see that Table 139 includes the average estimated circulation with the public and Table 161 includes details of wages and salaries, and that there is a direct co-relation between the total of wages and salaries and the total of money with the public.

That is not surprising. That is what the fiduciary issue is for. It has no more relevance to the financial state of this nation than the amount of money hon. Members carry about in their pockets in order to pay for their lunches. Some hon. Members opposite like to have lunch at the Savoy, and carry large sums of money with them, while others prefer bacon and eggs and carry smaller sums. That fact has no greater relation to the financial state of the nation than has the fiduciary issue.

If the fiduciary issue were to be reduced we should be taken back to the unhappy days of 1920. It was considered to be the financial salvation of this country, after the 1914–18 War, to reduce the fiduciary issue, and that reduction, under Lord Cunliffe’s direction, produced the greatest deflation that this country has ever known. If hon. Members are considering something in those terms they should look at our economic history more closely than they have—and, my goodness, they have not looked at it very closely.

If they reduce the fiduciary issue the result will be that the clearing banks will have to draw on their balances at the Bank of England. One thing that was not mentioned by either the hon. Member for Loughborough or the hon. Member for Lewisham, North is that the clearing banks have to keep balances at the Bank of England, and draw on them in order to meet their needs. The net result of reducing the fiduciary issue would be that the Bank of England would be unable to meet its obligations. That, to my mind, is a perfect example of what would be produced by Socialistic economies carried to their logical conclusion. It has been particularly pleasant to me to hear this logical, interesting and fascinating exposition of the way in which the party opposite propose to conduct the fortunes of this country.

Now, do you recognise the unmistakable “strawman” argument, the put-downs and the sheer evasion and arrogance of the Jew? It is the usual strategy. The well worn one we have all become so used to. The hubris.    

Let’s just take a breather on the money issue for a moment and see where else this name, Major Sir Henry J. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, could lead:

“In any case, the people who have been accused of running the Cold War through  means of drug trafficking, arms trade, false flag terrorist attacks and coups, coincidentally also seem to be at the core of pedophile entrapment networks.

• That there’s  also a clear pattern in international accusations of a cover up in child abuse networks when looking at the liberal establishment. Let’s take Bilderberg. From the United States there has been at least one accusation against Kissinger, together with David Rockefeller the most key person in the Bilderberg meetings. In 2003 the Casa Pia child abuse scandal was linked to a politician invited to Bilderberg. But we can do better than that. In the Belgian X-Dossiers, Bilderberg chairman Etienne Davignon, the European pillar of the Bilderberg group and a good friend of Kissinger, was named as a child abuser. So have the Lippens brothers on half a dozen occassions. Leopold Lippens has been a long-time member of the 1001 Club. Maurice Lippens, a close friend of Davignon, regularly goes to Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission. He is among those accused of having participated in hunts on children, in this case at Chateau de Chimay. Looking at accusations of a cover-up in the Netherlands, they are focused around the royal family, which of course has always been involved in Bilderberg. ISGP reported on a lawyer for the royal family, Prince Claus and a member of an aristocratic family who sits on the Prince Bernhard Culture Fund. However, information received privately indicates that Prince Bernhard himself was involved with the ritual abuse cult of 300 upper class Dutchmen that was briefly mentioned in the X-Dossiers. If the prince himself participated was unclear. The origin of this network may well be the CIA again. In 1959 an officer of Dutch intelligence, who was very close to Brian Crozier and Le Cercle, went to visit the Human Ecology Foundation, a CIA front for MK-ULTRA. In response he set up a Dutch branch of this foundation, financed by major Dutch multinationals.

Looking at the multinationals, their chairmen were all members of Prince Bernhard’s very secret “Tie Club”, set up in the early 1950s. This club also involved Bernhard’s good friend General Walter Bedell Smith, a CIA director and Pilgrims excutive. This may possibly explain the origins of this ritual abuse cult in the Netherlands. But in any case, also in the Netherlands the accusations point right to the Bilderberg crowd, as they do in Belgium.

Then in  2008 we had the Haut de la Garenne case on Jersey, one of the channel islands. Haut de la Garenne was a large children’s home on the island and as it turns out, a very notorious one among children who went there. Abuse in all forms was rampant. Reportedly up to 150 victim-witnesses reported to the police of having been abused there, but not much came of the investigation after key investigators had been replaced (as had happened with the X-Dossiers). One name leaked, because this person had been dead for decades: Senator Wilfred Krichefski. Let’s take a look at the newspaper archives in this case and mention a few sources: September 10, 1962, The Times, ‘New Investment Trust for Jersey’:

“The International Investment Trust Company of Jersey … Its chairman is Major Sir Henry J. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid, M.P., who is chairman of the Anglo Israel Bank Ltd. … On its board are the Hon. N. C. Jacob Rothschild, of N. M. Rothschild and Sons, G. C. Karlweiss, a director of La Compagnie Financiere [de Edmond de Rothschild], Paris [and later chair of Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild], J. Pembroke, president of the Royal Trust Company, H. M. Robinow, a director of Barro Equities Ltd. and associated companies, and two Jersey company directors, Senator W. H. Krichefski, a member of the States’ Assembly, and Mr. R. R. Jeune, a sollicitator of the Royal Court.”

And another article:  July 10, 1972, The Times, Business appointments:

“Following the   acquisition by Star Investments Finance (Jersey) and Drayton Securities   (Jersey) of a one-third interest each in Jersey International Bank of   Commerce the board will comprise of: Senator W. H. Krichefski, Mr. C. H.   Barclay  … Mr. R.   R. Jeune, … Mr.   Philip Shelbourne [of Rothschilds, Drayton  and Samuel Montagu]…” Interesting, so Krichefski was the premier business partner of the British and French Rothschilds on the island, as well as person who reportedly managed  some of the queen’s investments (Shelbourne at Drayton). And both Clifford Barclay and Philip Shelbourne were Pilgrims. R. R. Jeune sounds familiar too. That’s Robert Reginald Jeune, a leading senator in the 1970s and 1980s and a good friend of Krichefski. And although Jeune wasn’t officially accused, he just happened to work at the Haut de la Garenne home where  Krichefski, according to at least one victim-witness,  went to rape boys. That’s not all. Jeune was a partner in Mourant du Feu & Jeune, one of the world’s largest offshore law firms with clients as Rothschilds, Warburg, Barings and other major English banks. In the 1970s he was a director of Warburg Investment Management Jersey and of S.G. Warburg & Co., headed at the time by the leading Pilgrims Society member Lord Eric Roll. Roll joined Kissinger Associates in 1984 and became Bilderberg chairman in 1985. Both the British and American branches of the Warburg family have been Pilgrims too. In other words, Krichefski and Jeune were closely tied to the liberal establishent.

• That there’s  also a clear pattern in international accusations of a cover up in child abuse networks when looking at the Zionist establishment. Krichefski and Jeune obviously were closely working with the Rothschilds and Warburg, while Krichefski was the leading Jewish fundraiser on the island. Add to that  d’Avigdor-Goldsmid,  chairman of the Anglo Israel Bank Ltd. (Bank Leumi), and Israel comes even closer into the picture. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid  was also chairman of Pergamon Press from 1969 to 1971, the firm of the constroversial Robert Maxwell who quite obviously worked with the Mossad (and was in contact with the CIA-backed, Japanese fascist, Moonie backer, WACL ally and Yakuza kingpin Ryoichi Sasakawa). Belgian dossiers actually provide a direct link between Bank Leumi and the Mossad. CEO of the Belgian branch of Bank Leumi in the 1980s was Rami Weinbaum, a “former” agent of the Mossad. Weinbaum was deeply involved in the criminal circuit and ordered at least one assassination. Because of a prominent Jewish community in Antwerp, Belgian dossiers provide many additional links to Mossad/Zionist operatives who work with criminals and the Russian mafia. Some of these Jews/Zionists (Mossad) have worked closely with Belgian establishment officials accused of child abuse and working for the CIA. The ASCO firm of Roger Boas, for example, had  Israeli General Efraim Poran on its board while the Israeli Abraham Shavit was acting as Boas’ “right hand”. Poran was a military liaison officer for prime ministers Menachem Begin (1977-1983), Shamir (1983-1984) and Yitzchak Rabin (1974-1977 and 1992-1995). Shavit was described in a document as a “personal friend” of Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin. This same document reported that the bank of Jewish banker Edmond Safra (1001 Club, like a number of other Zionist/Mossad operatives) was used by the Mossad, Shavit, Roger Boas and Paul vanden Boeynants for money laundering. This is all interesting, because vanden Boeynants was a close friend of Boas (and Baron de Bonvoisin) and has been accused of child abuse by various witnesses. Furthermore,  one X-Dossier victim-witness pointed the detectives to the ASCO factory, claiming that she and other victims had regularly been taken to this place for abuse. She gave a list of names and remembered that the owner of the company was called “Roger”. Also, she stated that a snuff room had been operated here. If that is not enough, ASCO was involved in Iran-Contra (arms) and so was apparently was vanden Boeynants (drug trafficking). And so there are other close links between Zionism and child abuse. “Nebula leader” Felix Przedborski, for example, protected by a team of “retired” Mossad agents in his operations, was a member of Cercle des Nations, ran by the child abusing, CIA-backed Opus Dei elite in Belgium (vanden Boeynants, de Bonvoisin and others). Another questionable Belgian Jew, Pierre Salik, was a friend of Przedborski and of the Neijman family, which ran Geoffrey’s Bank and illegally sold arms to Idi Amin and other questionable regimes. The Neijmans in turn were known friends of Roy Cohn, who was working with the CIA and accused of running a pedophile entrapment network (not to mention that he was on the board of Permindex). Salik reportedly worked with the Mossad. And so there are a number of other hints that there’s a Mossad/Zionist aspect to every illegal operation the CIA is running. But we already know that, of course, from Iran-Contra.”

index.html

 

 

So, back to the money issue:

Mr. R. J. Mellish(Bermondsey)

I should not have intervened in this debate but for the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid). He is the last person in the world who should stand up and criticise the speeches of my hon. Friends. We on this side of the House regard him as a buffoon. If it comes to throwing insults across the Floor of the House, he is the last person who is qualified so to do.

We shall look forward with interest to the speech of the Paymaster-General who, we hope, will explain why it is necessary that this Order should be made. I do not claim to be an economic expert, but I understand that this Order relates to the currency in bank notes in 1954, when it was laid down that the fiduciary issue should be £1,575 million. Since then Statutory Instruments have been applied, one in 1956, to increase this amount to £1,765 million; and I understand that by this Order this sum goes up by over £400 million.

A humble person like myself cannot be expected to be an expert, but it seems to me that over the last few years there have been several hundred millions of pounds required from the point of view of the fiduciary issues. That is an indication that there is a great deal more money in the country, so we hear the ominous word, “inflation.” One has the right to ask the Paymaster-General—

Sir H. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid

rose—

§Mr. Mellish

            No I do not intend to give way. I do not see why I should extend to the hon. Gentleman a courtesy which he was not prepared to extend to my hon. Friend. He must learn that if he starts throwing insults about in the House he will get something back. He is not qualified to refer to my hon. Friends in the manner in which he did.

            Knowing both my hon. Friends very well, I can say that their knowledge in these matters is just as good as that of the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]           In my view, it would not have to be all that brilliant to be equal to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge. He may be well-known in the City, and as a financier, but that does not mean that he has all the experience.

            Other people can study this matter and learn about it without actually being involved in the swindle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Swindle?"] I withdraw that word. The trouble is that when an hon. Member makes the sort of speech which was made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South other hon. Members may be expected to lose their tempers. We shall want to know a great deal more about this matter before agreeing to the Order.

Sir Peter Roberts(Sheffield, Heeley)            I wish to ask one question of my right hon. Friend. If he cannot give me an answer tonight, perhaps he would look into the matter and give me an answer later.

Reference has been made to the balances at the Bank of England which stand against the fiduciary issues. Some years ago there was something called the profit on the fiduciary issues, which was the profit drawn from the bank balances at the Bank of England. May we know what has happened to that old fiduciary profit? The figure may be about £120 million. On looking through the accounts, it is difficult to see where is that profit. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to answer it at this stage, but I would be most interested to know at some later stage the answer to that question.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling) 

Reginald Maudling - Bilderberg Steering Committee

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts) has certainly asked a complicated question. I must say that in these matters one always feels that accountancy sometimes hides things, though not so well as might appear. Any profit which the Bank of England may obtain from holding Government securities is, of course, a bogus profit, because it is only the interest that the Government pay themselves. Therefore, it may in this instance turn out to be self-destroying.

So far as the effects of this Prayer are concerned, I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d’Avigdor-Goldsmid) that they would be rather disastrous. Though the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who moved the Motion, said that we might move more gold bullion across from the equalisation account, I think he knows perfectly well that no one would dream of rejecting this Order. It would simply create chaos to do so.

The purpose of the Order, of course, is to extend for another two years the powers of the Treasury to increase by direction the amount of the fiduciary issue over the £1,575 million laid down in the Act of 1954. I do not think there will be any challenge from either side regarding the fact that the Treasury must have this power.

The real question appears to be what is the economic significance of the fiduciary issue. In other words, what is the economic significance of the note circulation? My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South made the main point when he pointed out that the circulation of bank notes has, roughly speaking, increased pretty well proportionately with the national product and with personal incomes. As people have more money, they tend to hold the same proportion of their money in the form of cash.

With respect to hon. Members opposite, I think they have failed to distinguish between money and cash. If we look at the pressure of inflation, it is important to note that the total volume of cash is almost certainly a percentage of the volume of money.

§Mr. Cronin            The right hon. Gentleman would agree that the volume of notes in circulation is roughly about one-third of the total of effective money. I do not think one can ignore one-third of that total.

§Mr. Maudling            That is the point I was making, that the volume of cash is normally a percentage of the volume of money.

I think the hon. Gentleman was a little off beam. It is the volume of deposits and not the volume of the note circulation with which people are concerned, and, therefore, it is not relevant to this issue. Surely a bank note is a Government security. It is a non-interest bearing security. Therefore, from the point of view of the Treasury, the bank note is  rather a useful thing to have in circulation.

The answer about the profit on the note issue—”profit” is the wrong word—is that the issue of notes represents the issue of Government securities, Treasury bills or long-term Government securities, and appears in the national accounts on that basis. Bank notes, of course, are non-interest bearing.

That leads me to the main point I want to make, that the volume of notes in circulation is entirely determined by the demand for those notes on the part of the public. Clearly, if people want bank notes they must be entitled to have them to the extent to which they own that amount of money. If people have an amount of money at the bank, they must be able to draw bank notes to the value of that money if they so desire. Therefore, the Treasury and the Bank of England must meet the demand for bank notes. No one could envisage trying to control the volume of money by saying that people who want to withdraw money from the bank should not be able to obtain bank notes to the value of that money.

There must be sufficient notes in circulation, therefore, to meet the demand. The Treasury cannot increase the number of notes in circulation beyond the demand, because no one wants to hold Government securities in the form of bank notes which are not interest-bearing securities. Therefore, on either count, it seems to me that the volume of bank notes in issue is entirely determined by the demand for bank notes and by nothing else.

   It really has to be handed to these gits, they are brilliant at the slight of hand and the slippery evasion technique. Maudling turns the core issue of currency issue being in private hands into a secondary (and forgotten) issue by saying “because no one wants to hold Government securities in the form of bank notes which are not interest-bearing securities.”

Yet what absolutely sickens me is that their evasion is so obvious. As with the criminal corrupt lot today, they can only possibly get away with it because they are seen as the “higher echelon” of the political pyramid. There is no other logical explanation for the ease with which they manouevre so obviously.

Macmillan appointed Maudling to the post of Paymaster General and spokesman in the House of Commons for the Ministry of Fuel and Power, which was technically a demotion. Nine months later, Maudling had proved his usefulness and Macmillan brought him into the Cabinet (17 September 1957) where he acted more as a Minister without Portfolio: he had specific responsibility for persuading the six members of the embryonic European Economic Community, who had recently signed the Treaty of Rome, to abandon their proposal for a customs union in favour of a wider free-trade area where each country would preserve their own external tariffs. However, Maudling’s lack of international experience led him to underestimate the importance of the nascent Community and what was constructive in it. Faced with widespread rejection of the proposals, Maudling aroused hostility in Bonn and Paris by seeking to play off the Germans against the French. On 14 November 1958, six months after the election of General de Gaulle, Jacques Soustelle, the French Minister of Information, confirmed to the Press that France would reject the Maudling plan. Two days later, the British delegation to the Community formally called an end to accession negotiations. Maudling later revised his proposals which were to form the basis of the European Free Trade Association.

Meanwhile Maudling became an underwriting member of Lloyd’s of London in December 1957, although his assets were somewhat below average for other ‘names’.

In 1972 Maudling’s business activities were causing considerable disquiet and speculation in the press. In 1966, he had obtained a directorship in the company of John Poulson, an architect Maudling helped obtain lucrative contracts. Poulson routinely did business through bribery and in 1972 was made bankrupt. The bankruptcy hearings disclosed his bribe payments, and Maudling’s connection became public knowledge. Maudling came to the decision that his responsibility for the Metropolitan Police, which was beginning fraud investigations into Poulson, made his position as Home Secretary untenable. He resigned on 18 July, to general sympathy from the press. Shortly after receiving Maudling’s resignation Edward Heath’s government performed a ‘U-turn’ on economic policy and subsequently adopted an approach strikingly similar to Maudling’s.

Heath advised Maudling not to drop out of the public eye and he continued to make many media appearances. In the year after the Conservative Party’s electoral defeat in 1974, Heath was replaced as leader by Margaret Thatcher. She appointed Maudling to the post of Shadow Foreign Secretary. However, Maudling clashed with Thatcher over economics, and was dismissed on 19 November 1976. Maudling then openly attacked the monetarist economic theory she had adopted.

In 1969, he had been President of the Real Estate Fund of America, whose Chief Executive had been imprisoned for fraud; Maudling had also been an adviser to the Peachey Property Corporation, whose Chairman Sir Eric Miller had embezzled company money and later committed suicide. In addition Maudling was revealed to have lobbied for more aid to Malta after obtaining a commission for Poulson there which had led to heavy losses to the Maltese government. These further revelations led to a Parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of Maudling and two other MPs linked to Poulson. This inquiry published its report on 14 July 1977; the report concluded that Maudling had indulged in “conduct inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its members”.

When the report was considered by the House of Commons, the Conservative Party organised its MPs to attend the debate to “Save Reggie”. An amendment was put down to merely “take note” of the report, instead of endorsing it, and carried by 230 votes (211 Conservatives, 17 Labour, 2 Liberals and 2 Ulster Unionists) to 207. No punishment was imposed. An attempt by back-bench Labour MPs to expel Maudling from the House was defeated by 331 votes to 11, and a move to suspend him for six months was lost by 324 to 97.

As Lewis Baston’s 2004 biography recounts, Maudling and his wife became heavy drinkers once his political career was effectively ended by the scandal. The drinking turned to alcoholism and Maudling’s health rapidly deteriorated in the late 1970s.

In early 1979 he collapsed and there were fears his treatment would be hindered by the strikes in the “Winter of Discontent”. He died on 14 February of cirrhosis of the liver and kidney failure in the Royal Free Hospital at the age of 61.

He is buried in the churchyard of the Hertfordshire village of Little Berkhamstead, where a stone seat from the Maudlings’ garden has been placed beside the grave.

Awwwww…. Poor old Reggie! Cunt!

John Cronin died on 3 January 1986 whilst out riding in the New Forest in Hampshire. In the late afternoon his horse returned home without him: it was feared he might have been thrown and that he could be lying badly injured in freezing weather conditions. The Forest Verderers were sent out and found him dead on a forest path, not far from his home at Stoney Cross. A post mortem later found that he had died of a massive heart attack and stroke. His funeral was held at Minstead Church and Sir Ernie Harrison, Chairman of Racal and a close friend of Cronin’s, made a valedictory speech from the pulpit during the service. Cronin lies buried in Minstead Church graveyard.

From Niall MacDermot’s obituary by Tam Dalyell:

At the dispatch-box of the House of Commons Niall MacDermot was the most sure-footed, on-top-of-the- job, confidence-inspiring ministerial performer of all the talented 1964 Labour government, cabinet members included. In hour after hour of the Financial Bill, then taken on the floor of the House (it was MacDermot – in the crucial role of Financial Secretary to the Treasury – who initiated the pressure to have the Finance Bill taken upstairs on the Committee corridor), I never saw him caught out or made to look silly. On the contrary, not even the for- midably clever ex-Chancellor Reggie Maudling or Iain MacLeod, himself a superb parliamentary performer, were keen to get into a fandangle with MacDermot.

Why he was not promoted to the Cabinet at an early stage, I do not know. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else now alive, with the possible exception of James Callaghan, who shrewdly insisted on having MacDermot as his Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1964. But both Wilson, who saw conspiracy all too easily, and Richard Crossman, an ex-Intelligence operator himself, but deeply sceptical of MI5, were united in believing that MacDermot was “compromised on security grounds”.

obituary-niall-macdermot-1321310.html

Too much of a threat to the money power maybe? Just maybe?

The Bilderberg/Rothschild crew strike again!

So now we have the money issue admitted to by individuals as diverse as Captain Henry Kerby, Ben Bernanke, Senator Mark Kirk, Niall MacDermot and Lord Sudeley and others but the world just ain’t listening!

But just one last OBVIOUS point for all the “Royalists” out there:

How is it that it is all the top Cabinet brass and Lords of the utmost significance, throughout the decades/centuries, who justify and protect the currency issuance question (the vast majority of them Knighted and Privy Counsellors) IF her Majestic bitch isn’t involved?

The Rothschild-Disraeli Jewish pact.

Two jews who set the course of corrupt British Government from the mid 1800s until we arrive at David Cameron, Gideon Osbourne and a Rothschild yacht experience with Mandy the Rothschild!

ROTHSCHILD

Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (22 November 1808 – 3 June 1879) was a British banker and politician.

The son of Nathan Mayer Rothschild and Hanna Barent Cohen, he was a member of the prominent Rothschild family.

Baron Lionel de Rothschild and his family had “contributed during the Irish famine of 1847 … a sum far beyond the joint contributions of the Devonshires, and Herefords, Lansdownes, Fitzwilliams and Herberts, who annually drew so many times that amount from their Irish estates.”

In 1847 Lionel de Rothschild was first elected to the British House of Commons as one of four MPs for the City of London constituency. Jews were at that point still barred from sitting in the chamber due to the Christian oath required to be sworn in so Prime Minister Lord John Russell introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to remove the problem with the oath. In 1848, the bill was approved by the House of Commons but was twice rejected by the House of Lords. After being rejected again by the Upper House in 1849, Rothschild resigned his seat and stood again winning in a by-election in order to strengthen his claim.

In 1850, he entered the House of Commons to take his seat but refused to swear on a Christian Bible asking to use only the Old Testament. This was permitted but when omitting the words “upon the true faith of a Christian” from the oath he was required to leave.

In 1851 a new Jewish Disabilities Bill was defeated in the House of Lords. In the 1852 general election Rothschild was again elected but the next year the bill was again defeated in the upper house.

Finally, in 1858, the House of Lords agreed to a proposal to allow each house to decide its own oath. On 26 July 1858 de Rothschild took the oath with covered head, substituting “so help me, [using a Hebrew word for] God” for the ordinary form of oath, and thereupon took his seat as the first Jewish member of Parliament. He was re-elected in general elections in 1859 and 1865, but defeated in 1868; he was returned unopposed in a by-election in 1869 but defeated a second time in the general election in 1874.

Rothschild was proposed as a member of the House of Lords in 1868, but Queen Victoria refused to elevate him to this status. She denied that this was because Rothschild was a Jew. Instead the monarch claimed it was because of Rothschild’s business activities, but few believed her. In 1885 the Queen did raise Rothschild’s son Nathan to the peerage. Nathan Mayer de Rothschild became the first Jewish member of the House of Lords.

In 1836, Lionel de Rothschild married Baroness Charlotte von Rothschild (1819-1884), the daughter of Baron Carl Mayer Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of Naples. They had the following children:

1.Leonora (1837-1911)

2.Evelina (1839-1866)

3.Nathan Mayer (1840-1915)

4.Alfred Charles (1842-1918)

5.Leopold (1845-1917)

Nice incestuous relationship there then!

 

Lionel de Rothschild died in 1879 and his body was interred in the Willesden Jewish Cemetery in the North London suburb of Willesden.

 

OATHS OF JEWISH MEMBERS—BARON DE ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

 

HC Deb 29 July 1850 vol 113 cc396-437396

§ On the Clerk proceeding to read the Order of the Day for resuming the Ad- 397 journed Debate on Sir R. Inglis’s Motion, with reference to the request of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild to be sworn on the Old Testament,

§MR. HENLEY said:  Before the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate is read, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask you this question—whether, to give a proper locus standi for the discussion of the important question which is about to be raised by the Amendment put upon the notices by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, it would not be expedient that some further question should be put

Baron Lionel De Rothschild being presented to the House of Commons

to Baron de Rothschild, one of the hon. Members for the city of London, in order to get upon the records of the House the fact that to take the oath in the way he has requested—the only answer he has yet made being, that he requests to be sworn upon the Old Testament—is binding upon his conscience, and the reason why he requires so to take it?

oaths-of-jewish-members-baron-de#S3V0113P0_18500729_HOC_30

It is as clear as daylight then, that Rothschild did NOT accept that the Christian and Jewish “God” is one and the same. IF he had argued that religion had no place in politics and that he would not swear on ANY “Holy Book” then that would present a different (and, perhaps, even acceptable) picture. But no, Rothschild demanded (and he eventually got) to swear upon the Old Testament (The “Torah”) and even IF so “binding upon his conscience”, it is clear that one’s conscience must be dealt with differently in the two books. This is unarguable logic. The question is: What IS this difference? Could it POSSIBLY include the following:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

 

 

D’ISRAELI

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS, (21 December 1804 – 19 April 1881) was a British Prime Minister, parliamentarian, Conservative statesman and literary figure. Starting from comparatively humble origins, he served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Although his father had him baptised to Anglicanism at age 12, he was nonetheless Britain’s first and thus far only Prime Minister who was born into a Jewish family—originally from Italy. He played an instrumental role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party after the Corn Laws schism of 1846.

Disraeli’s biographers believe he was descended from Italian Sephardic Jews. He claimed Portuguese ancestry, possibly referring to an earlier origin of his family heritage in Iberia prior to the expulsion of Jews in 1492. After this event many Jews emigrated, in two waves; some fled to the Muslim lands of the Ottoman Empire, but many also went to Christian Europe, first to northern Italy, then to the Netherlands, and later to England. One modern historian has seen him as essentially a marrano.

Disraeli turned towards literature after a personal financial disaster, motivated in part by a desperate need for money, and brought out his first novel, “Vivian Grey”, in 1826. Disraeli’s biographers agree that Vivian Grey was a thinly veiled re-telling of the affair of “The Representative” (a plagiarist then), and it proved very popular on its release, although it also caused much offence within the Tory literary world when Disraeli’s authorship was discovered. The book, initially anonymous, was purportedly written by a “man of fashion”, perhaps Ross M. Brown – someone who moved in high society. Disraeli, then just twenty-three, did not move in high society, and the numerous solecisms present in his otherwise brilliant and daring work made this painfully obvious. Reviewers were sharply critical on these grounds of both the author and the book. Furthermore, John Murray believed that Disraeli had caricatured him and abused his confidence–an accusation denied at the time, and by the official biography, although subsequent biographers (notably Blake) have sided with Murray.

Wyndham Lewis (7 October 1780 – 14 March 1838) was a British politician and a close associate of Benjamin Disraeli. Lewis married Mary Anne, daughter of John Evans, in 1816. They had no children. He died in March 1838, in London’s Mayfair, aged 57. His widow married Benjamin Disraeli in 1839 and was created Viscountess Beaconsfield in 1868.

So 1 year after his death, Benjamin Disraeli marries his widow? While Lewis was a close associate of Disraeli?….. Nice!

In 1839 he settled his private life by marrying Mary Anne Lewis, the rich widow of Wyndham Lewis, Disraeli’s erstwhile colleague at Maidstone. Mary Lewis was 12 years his senior, and their union was seen as being based on financial interests, but they came to cherish one another.

In 1847 a small political crisis occurred which removed Bentinck from the leadership and highlighted Disraeli’s differences with his own party. In the preceding general election, Lionel de Rothschild had been returned for the City of London. Ever since Catholic Emancipation, members of parliament were required to swear the oath “on the true faith of a Christian.” Rothschild, an unconverted Jew, could not do so and therefore could not take his seat. Lord John Russell, the Whig leader who had succeeded Peel as Prime Minister and like Rothschild a member for the City of London, introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to amend the oath and permit Jews to enter Parliament.

Disraeli spoke in favour of the measure, arguing that Christianity was “completed Judaism,” and asking of the House of Commons “Where is your Christianity if you do not believe in their Judaism?” While Disraeli did not argue that the Jews did the Christians a favour by killing Christ, as he had in Tancred and would in Lord George Bentinck, his speech was badly received by his own party, which along with the Anglican establishment was hostile to the bill. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and a friend of Disraeli’s, spoke strongly against the measure and implied that Russell was paying off the Jews for “helping” elect him. Every member of the future protectionist cabinet then in parliament (except Disraeli) voted against the measure. One member who was not, Lord John Manners, stood against Rothschild when the latter re-submitted himself for election in 1849. Bentinck, then still Conservative leader in the Commons, joined Disraeli in speaking and voting for the bill, although his own speech was a standard one of toleration.

In 1852, the primary responsibility of a mid-Victorian chancellor was to produce a Budget for the coming fiscal year. Disraeli, as Chancellor, proposed to reduce taxes on malt and tea (indirect taxation); additional revenue would come from an increase in the house tax. More controversially, Disraeli also proposed to alter the workings of the income tax (direct taxation) by “differentiating”–i.e., different rates would be levied on different types of income.

The establishment of the income tax on a permanent basis had been the subject of much inter-party discussion since the fall of Peel’s ministry in June of 1846. Since that time, no consensus had been yet been reached, and Disraeli was criticised for mixing up details over the different “schedules” of income. Disraeli’s proposal to extend the tax to Ireland gained him further enemies, and he was also hampered by an unexpected increase in defence expenditure, which was forced on him by Derby and Sir John Pakington (Secretary of State for War and the Colonies) (leading to his celebrated remark to John Bright about the “damned defences”). This, combined with bad timing and perceived inexperience led to the failure of the Budget and consequently the fall of the government on 17 December 1852.

With the fall of the government, Disraeli and the Conservatives returned to the opposition benches.

 

NEW WRIT FOR LONDON.

HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc162-82162

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, that yesterday he took the liberty of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether, under the provisions of what was commonly called “the Contractors’ Act,” Baron Rothschild had not vacated his seat for the City of London, by having entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service, and whether, consequently, a new writ ought not to issue for the City of London? His hon. and learned Friend then answered that, if the question were put to the House, not in a speculative, but in a practical form, he would give his 163 opinion upon it. He now rose for the purpose of bringing the matter before the House in a practical form, and he had, therefore, put a Motion to that effect on the paper. He might have moved that the matter be referred to a Select Committee, but that would have been a sneaking and cowardly course, entertaining as he did a strong conviction that, according to the common sense and literal construction of the Act of Parliament, Baron Rothschild had vacated his seat. The House would recollect when the Act in question passed, and the purposes for which it was designed. The Act passed in 1782, and was brought forward with the avowed object of promoting the freedom and independence of Parliament. When the Rockingham Administration came into office they took up that Bill, which had been before Parliament for two or three years, and gave it their warmest support on the principle that the House of Commons was getting day by day more corrupt and the people of this country were becoming more dissatisfied with it. He would not insult the memory of the Rockingham Administration by calling them “Administrative Reformers.” They were something more, for they were Parliamentary Reformers. They struck at the root of the evil, for they said that, if there were corruption in the State, it must be the fault of the House of Commons, and so far as they could remove that blot they would do it by reforming the House itself. That Administration contained among its Members Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Dunning, who had previously moved the well-known Resolution, that the power and influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. He should show by the Act itself, and by the debates upon it, that it was the intention of those who framed the Act, and of the Parliament that passed it, that contractors of Government loans should vacate their seats in Parliament, and he contended that the case of Baron Rothschild came clearly within its meaning. The heading of the contract was— ‘The contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty’s Government, on or about the 20th day of April last, for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service.’ Now, the preamble of the Act said— ‘For further securing the freedom and independence of Parliament, be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament 164 assembled, and by the authority Of the same, that, from and after the end of this present session of Parliament, any person who shall, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any person whatsoever in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in the whole or in part, any contract, agreement, or commission, made or entered into with, under, or from the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, or of the Navy or Victualling Office, or with the Master General or Board of Ordnance, or with any one or more of such Commissioners, or with any other person or persons whatsoever, for or on account of the public service; or shall knowingly and willingly furnish or provide, in pursuance of any such agreement, contract, or commission, which he or they shall have made or entered into as aforesaid, any money to be remitted abroad, or any wares or merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public, shall be incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons, during the time that he shall execute, hold, or enjoy any such contract, agreement, or commission, or any part or share thereof, or any benefit or emolument arising from the same.’ The Act also went on to say— ‘And if any person, disabled and declared incapable by this Act to be elected, shall, after the end of this present Session of Parliament, presume to sit or vote as a Member of the House of Commons, such person so sitting or voting shall forfeit the sum of 500l. for every day in which he shall sit or vote in the said House to any person or persons who shall sue for, the same in any of His Majesty’s courts at Westminster.’ It was contended by some that Baron Rothschild, not being ineligible by reason of this contract at the time of his election, had not incurred the penalties of the Act, and that, because for other reasons he had not sat or voted in that House, he had not forfeited his seat on that account. But he apprehended that there were very few hon. Members who would maintain that opinion, because, supposing for an instant that fifty or sixty Members held contracts with the Government for twelve months’ duration, would the House say that they had not forfeited their seats because for that period they might abstain from sitting or voting in the House? The case of the Jewish question was a very different one. The hon. Member was incapable of sitting or voting in that House because he could not use the words “on the true faith of a Christian,” and in that case the House was not justified in issuing a writ. But the hon. Member stood in a very different position as a contractor. It was alleged by some that hon. Members might contract for money, although they could not enter into contracts with the Government for ships or provisions. When the Bill was 165 under discussion, it was at first proposed that contracts for loans should be excepted, but if hon. Members referred to the debates they would find that that proposal was scouted by the House. Mr. Fox said, he rejoiced to see that a new sprit of government seemed to be rising, and that a period was approaching when corruption would be banished from the Senate; and those who had the management of public affairs might safely trust to the merits of their measures for support, without having recourse to corruption. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not know whether the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) would be disposed to indorse that opinion. Mr. Fox moved that the exception in the Bill should be withdrawn, and that no contractor whatever should have a seat in Parliament. It was also contended that contracts for money were more dangerous than any other species of contract. The exception was withdrawn upon the understanding that a special Bill should be brought in for the purpose. No Bill, however, was brought in for the purpose, and the only Bill bearing at all upon the subject confirmed the view which he had now stated—the 48 Geo. III., chap. 1, wherein persons were exempted from losing their seats who entered into any contract with the Government for Exchequer Bills on behalf of the Bank of England. If they entered into such contracts on their own behalf, they were not exempted; so it was quite clear that Parliament, with its eyes open, had intended by the 22 Geo. III., chap. 45, that no contractors whatever should sit in Parliament. He could not possibly understand how there could be any doubt upon the subject, and, as Baron Rothschild by other circumstances had been prevented from sitting and voting in the House, he had incurred no penalties, and so far the loss to him would not be, and ought not to be, very great. He particularly wished it to be understood that he made this Motion entirely upon public grounds, and without any reference whatever to the Jewish question. For eight Sessions Baron Rothschild had been nominally a Member of the House of Commons, but the question of Jewish emancipation did not seem to have been much advanced thereby. A short time since he asked Her Majesty’s Government whether it was their intention to introduce a measure in the present Session for the removal of Jewish disabilities, and the answer he received was, that they had no such intention. The noble Lord the 166 Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) had since addressed a letter to some of his constituents, in which he told them fairly it was a hopeless case, in consequence of the decisions which had been come to in the House of Lords, and he believed the noble Lord was perfectly right in forming that estimate of the position of the question. He believed the prejudice elsewhere was so great, and the indifference of the public out of doors was also so great, that during the present generation, at least, there was not the remotest chance of gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion sitting in that House, so long as the House of Lords had any voice in the matter. Therefore Baron Rothschild had been thus long disabled, and the citizens of London had been deprived of their fourth Member. If three Members were quite enough for the City of London, let the House be told so, and let them give that Member to some other place. But this very disablement of Baron Rothschild had relieved him from any penalties with regard to this contract. What he said was, that from the moment a Member entered into a contract with the Government, not only was he disabled from sitting and voting, but his seat became vacant. He should be extremely glad to hear the opinions of hon. and learned Gentlemen upon this subject, but he contended that, according to the honest and fair interpretation of the Act, it was quite clear there was a vacancy in the City of London at the present moment, and would so continue, as far as regarded Baron Rothschild, until the 18th of December next, when the contract ceased. Under these circumstances, therefore, ought not the House to issue a new writ? They did not want any peddling or quibbling opinions. He knew lawyers could make that opaque which was clear to all minds but their own, but he hoped that would not be the case on this occasion, and he appealed to the House to restore to the citizens of London the power of electing a forth representative by agreeing to the Motion he now proposed, that the Speaker be instructed to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the City of London.

MR. MILNER GIBSON  Sir, my difficulty is to make up my mind whether the disqualifying clauses are to stop with Baron Rothschild. He has admitted a great number of persons, possibly Members of this House, to have shares of this loan, to enjoy what the Act calls the “profits, benefits, and emoluments arising from the same.” Now, all these Members enjoy the “profits, benefits, and emoluments” arising from the loan, and, if I have taken a correct view of this Act, they are in jeopardy as well as Baron Rothschild, and it would be competent for him or any other hon. Member, if the House at once agrees 174 to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to find out some hon. Member upon this list and take the House by surprise to-morrow evening, and move that a new writ be issued for the borough or county which he represents. We must therefore be cautious in this matter. For myself, I confess I have no particular knowledge of the law. I have read the Act, and I understand from it that any person who enjoys any benefit arising from the loan, either directly by having contracted himself, or indirectly through another, is equally affected.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL  said, he wished the House to observe that it was dealing with a Statute which had not been enforced or applied for a long space of years. It was reasonable to suspect, therefore, some impediment or obstacle in the way of its application. If any Gentleman were bold enough to pledge himself to the opinion that the law had not been affected by any of our legislation subsequent to 1782, he might be competent to pronounce upon this question at once; but he (the Solicitor General) could not be so confident.

So, it becomes abundantly clear by this stage in the proceedings, that while there had been a long standing ACT (Law) regarding any “Contractors” (individuals loaning the government money) then being disallowed to hold a seat in the House as an MP or Lord, a vast number of them had done it with impunity. They broke the law! But it didn’t matter because it’s a BOYS CLUB. But then Rothschild comes along and he loans the government and they don’t like that (some of them at least). While Rothschild had not only, himself, provided the money but he ensured he had many other members involved which would make them speak for him AND it would make it far more difficult for the Parliament to act otherwise they’d be dismissing a great number of people – some very powerful no doubt. Furthermore, that would send a message to the public saying “We’re corrupt as hell”. Just like today!

Now THIS section is quite literally incredible. Benjamin D’Israeli, attempts to provide “cover” for Rothschild. Hard to believe he got away with this:

MR. DISRAELI  said, it appeared to him that a subject of this nature should be considered with great calmness, and that the House should not rashly adopt any course upon it without due deliberation. Now, what he felt was that they wanted that distinct proof which should be in the possession of the House, and which could be easily obtained, before they could come to a decision on a question of such consequenee. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said that there could be no doubt that Baron Lionel de Rothschild had contracted with Her Majesty’s Government, and then he took up a contract, and pointed to it as containing that proof. But he (Mr. Disraeli) was not satisfied on this point; for if that was the only proof that the hon. Member for the City of London had entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government, the evidence was very imperfect, as the contract bore not the signature of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, but of N. M. Rothschild and Sons.

So D’Israeli argues that, because the contract did not have the Baron De Rothschild’s personal signature on it, it could not be considered a loan from Rothschild to the government EVEN THOUGH it was “N.M Rothschild & Sons”. In-Fing-credible! So perhaps it had a Rothschild stamp or perhaps it was signed by an officer of the company. The fact is ROTHSCHILD OWNED THE FCUKING COMPANY! It’s like suggesting every loan Goldman Sachs makes is signed by Lloyd Blankfein (and even then, Blankfein is just the CEO!).

This was OUTRAGEOUS “chutzpah” by D’Israeli. You can bet he was in on it.

Remember 16Million was one shitload of money back then! It was the equivalent of £billions today!

Also remember that Rothschild was the Trustee of D’Israeli’s Last will and Testament! So let’s just say they were “good friends”.

Now consider THIS little exchange:

 

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  said, that, as the Motion now stood, it stated that the contract had been entered into by Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, though there was nothing on the face of the contract to show that such was the case.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild did not in his presence sign this contract.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  I think the question just put to me is a proof of the inconvenience of discussing this question in its present form. I did not mean to state that it was not Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild who had virtually entered into this contract with the Government, but my remark merely applied to the wording of the Motion which states Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild entered into the contract with the Government, of which there was no evidence on the face of the contract.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  But that is no answer to my question. I put a direct and straightforward question, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel de Rothschild did not in his presence sign the contract in question.

§MR. DISRAELI  said, he objected to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbary, which, if it were sanctioned, would place it in the power of a Minister who wished to turn a Member out of his seat to get up and put a question, having previously agreed upon the answer which would be given by one of his supporters, and they all knew how ardent a supporter of the Government was the hon. Member 182 for Finsbury. The question put by him was most unconstitutional, and one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be justified in answering.

new-writ-for-london#S3V0139P0_18550626_HOC_52

At this point in time (1855) D’Israeli and the Conservatives were in opposition.

Disraeli was accused by William Ewart Gladstone of undermining Britain’s constitutional system, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from the Rothschilds.

William Gladstone

Disraeli was, according to some interpretations, a supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. In spite of the objections of his own cabinet and without Parliament’s consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Before this action, though, he had for the most part opted to continue the Whig policy of limited expansion, preferring to maintain the then-current borders as opposed to promoting expansion.

Here are some exchanges in Parliament during that time. Make of them what you wish. I know what I make of them: Utter pish!

 

QUESTION.

HC Deb 28 February 1876 vol 227 cc1019-201019

§MR. BIGGAR  asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, or not, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, the proposed payment to Messrs. Rothschild, one of which firm being also a Member of this House, of a commission of 2½ per cent. on the amount of the Suez Canal Purchase, brings the said Member within the provisions of the Act 22 Geo. 3, c. 45; and, if so, what action the Government propose to take on the subject?

§MR. DISRAELI  Sir, it does not appear to me that this Question ought to be addressed to Her Majesty’s Government, and I may say further, that on referring to the statute which the hon. Member has mentioned, I am doubtful whether it ought even to be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown. I read in that statute that which indicates that it is a question neither for the Government nor for the Law Officers, but one for Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. It says that any Member of this House offending under the circumstances referred to shall forfeit the sum of £500 for every day on which he sits or votes in this House to any person who shall sue for the same in any of Her Majesty’s Courts at Westminster. In these circumstances, as it appears to be open to any of Her Majesty’s subjects to sue for that penalty, I think it is not for the Government or for the Law Officers of the Crown to give any information 1020 on the subject, but for those who are directly interested in the question.

§SIR NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD  Sir, I hope the House will allow me to make a personal statement on this matter. I feel it my duty to declare that I am not a partner in the house of which my father is the head, either in London or Paris. I have no doubt that the House will accept that statement from me; but, if it is necessary, I am authorized by my father to say that the deed of partnership of the firm of Rothschild, both in London and on the Continent, can be inspected by any one whom this House may choose to appoint.

question#S3V0227P0_18760228_HOC_7

And this concerning the detail (and complete obfuscation) of the payment:

 

RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.

HC Deb 21 February 1876 vol 227 cc562-661562

§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

§ Question again proposed, ‘That a sum, not exceeding £4,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to enable Her Majesty 563 to pay the Purchase Money of the Shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal, and the Expenses attendant thereon, which will come in course of payment during-the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876?’’

§MR. LOWE, in resuming the adjourned debate, remarked that the first question to be settled was, oddly enough, the nature of the transaction they were about to discuss. The matter might be thought to be perfectly clear, but there was really an amount of doubt about it which it was desirable to dispel, and which he would endeavour to explain. On the first night of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said— ‘We asked the house of Rothschild to purchase those shares on our engagement to ask the House of Commons to take them off their hands. It was a great risk.’ Now, if that were really the question which the House had to consider there would be a very great probability that the House, having carefully considered the matter, would think that that was a transaction which it was not called upon necessarily to ratify at all; because the house of Rothschild having made the purchase only on the faith that the Government would recommend the House of Commons to take the purchase off their hands, no money would have passed, and it would have been open to the House of Commons to consider the whole question as if no pledge had been given. But that was not the case, he was sorry to say. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in his statement, though the real facts of the case were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Properly speaking, the question was not of our taking the shares off Messrs. Rothschild’s hands, but of our having purchased the shares and borrowed money from Messrs. Rothschild to pay for them. That was a simple description of the transaction, and disposed of the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury on the first night of the Session, made no doubt from the erroneous view that no money had passed. So far from no money having passed, the fact was that £4,000,000 had been lent to the English Government on the faith that they would apply to Parliament for repayment, and that was an extremely different question from the question whether we were not bound to 564 take upon ourselves the purchase made by other persons even under the recommendation of the Government. Nor was it therefore true that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was a great risk, because when money had been borrowed on behalf of the English Government—when they had had the money and actually spent it—the House of Commons would not be likely to say—” We have had the money and will not repay it.” This point, as the Committee would see, was not an unimportant one. He had now, singularly enough, to charge the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with inaccuracy—a circumstance so unlikely that it would require the strongest proof. In this case, however, he did not think there was any room for doubt. The right hon. Gentleman had moved for a Vote of £4,080,000, and that Vote was made up in this way—there was £3,976,582, the purchase money of the shares, and there was £99,414 for the commission of 2½ per cent to Messrs. Rothschild. Then there was about £4,000 for small expenses; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid these sums before the House as being the whole cost of the shares. So far, however, from that being the whole cost, the fact was that there had to be added a sum of £37,000; and for this reason, that the Messrs. Rothschild were not only to receive a commission of 2½per cent on the amount of the purchase, but were also to charge interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the £4,000,000 until the date of repayment. There was the difficulty. No doubt there was some misunderstanding here, for there were two accounts of what was to be done—one contained in the Treasury Minute, and the other in a letter written by Messrs. Rothschild themselves. In the Treasury Minute it was distinctly stated that the Messrs. Rothschild were to charge a commission of 21 per cent on the £4,000,000 which they undertook to provide, and also that they were to receive the interest of 5 per cent from the Khedive upon the amount advanced from the date of the advance until the date of repayment of such advance by Her Majesty’s Government. On the other hand, the Messrs. Rothschild, having been asked by the Secretary to the Treasury to state their terms in writing, gave a very different version of the affair. They write— 565‘It is also understood that we are to charge Her Majesty’s Government a commission of 2½ per cent upon the £4,000,000, and 5 per cent interest per annum until the date of repayment.’ So that it appeared from the Treasury Minute that this was to be paid by the Khedive, whereas according to Messrs. Rothschild’a Minute it was to be paid by the Government. Now, if it was worth while to write to Messrs. Rothschild to ask them to put their contract in form, one would have thought that it would have been worth while to ascertain who was right and who was wrong. That, however, did not appear to have been done, and so the matter remained in its present state. There was, however, no doubt about it. Of course Messrs. Rothschild’s letter was what they would be bound by and not the Treasury Minute, and it was the duty of the Government to pay them this 5 per cent, and they ought not to look for it from the Khedive. Of course, if the Khedive did pay it, it would really be we who would pay it all the same, because it would be intercepting money that was to come to us from the Khedive. He maintained that it was the duty of the Government to have made this sum for interest, whatever it happened to be, part of the Vote.

resolution-adjourned-debate#S3V0227P0_18760221_HOC_55

ONLY 135 years ago. That is like yesterday in terms of how this all works:

 

Lies, damned lies and corruption and it exists to this very day in another Conservative “BRITISH CHRISTIAN WITH JEWISH VALUES” Prime Minister and his sidekick, Gideon.

"Having jewish values are great Gideon, just keep well away from yachts would you? The public might just catch on!"

 ”I worked for a prominent Jewish business leader for seven-and-a-half years, Michael Green… and in my downstairs loo, you’d see the proud gift I received after speaking at the 350th anniversary dinner, [a print] of Benjamin Disraeli’s house”

david-cameron-my-values-are-yours

So PLEASE, do not suggest, and try to dismiss the facts, that history from 135 years ago has no bearing on the present. The Rothschilds have been at the core of almost every privatisation and major British government policy ever since. Just do the reading to find out!

It is interesting to note that Gladstone once sent a letter to D’Israeli, the latter asking Gladstone to join the new government, where Gladstone states the following:

“I state these points fearlessly and without reserve, for you have yourself well reminded me that there is a Power beyond us that disposes of what we are and do, and I find the limits of choice in public life to be very narrow”.—W. E. Gladstone to Disraeli, 1858

What I find interesting about it is that, while one can consider that Gladstone is speaking of “God” as the “power beyond us”, he then goes on to state that the LIMITS in public life are “very narrow”. I just wonder who/what could possibly be imposing those limits?

Although born of Jewish parents, Disraeli was baptised in the Christian faith at the age of twelve, and remained an observant Anglican for the rest of his life. Adam Kirsch, in his biography of Disraeli, states that his Jewishness was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Much of the criticism of his policies was couched in anti-Semitic terms. He was depicted in some antisemitic political cartoons with a big nose and curly black hair, called “Shylock” and “abominable Jew,” and portrayed in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia. In response to an anti-Semitic comment made by Daniel O’Connell in the British parliament, Disraeli memorably defended his Jewishness with the statement, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honourable Gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the Temple of Solomon.” One apocryphal story states that Disraeli reconverted to Judaism on his deathbed.

 

Judaism’s Redefiner

By ANTHONY JULIUS   

Benjamin_Disraeli,_1st Earl_of_Beaconsfield

Published: January 23, 2009

Benjamin Disraeli was a novelist, a statesman and a professing, practicing Christian, but to understand him one also needs to know that he was born a Jew. It was in the working out of the implications of this bare fact that his literary and political career, as well as his confessional affiliation, are to be understood. Or this, at least, is what Adam Kirsch contends in “Benjamin Disraeli,” his contribution to the “Jewish Encounters” series. “Disraeli’s Jewishness,” Kirsch writes, was “the central fact about him.” It was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Does Kirsch, a contributor to The New Yorker and other publications, make good on his thesis?

For sure, he offers a rounded account of his subject. We learn that the proximate cause of Disraeli’s baptism was a quarrel his father had with his synagogue, that Disraeli himself had an incomplete education, that he was a novelist before he became a politician and was a politician for many years before he became a statesman. Kirsch acknowledges his political skills, his ability to outmaneuver his opponents (with Rothschild backing – it helps!), both by compromise and by an even greater radicalism, even his unattractive habit of identifying himself with the powerful instead of the powerless. Disraeli’s positions on the principal issues of the day are identified — his early opposition to free trade and his championing of the cause of empire, his criticism of Victorian utilitarianism and materialism, his defense of the established Church of England, his willingness to extend the franchise to defeat his liberal enemies and the eccentric grounds of his support for Jewish emancipation. All this can be obtained elsewhere, but Kirsch sets it out succinctly and authoritatively.

Disraeli was born in 1804, more than half a century before Jews were permitted to sit in the British Parliament. He died in 1881, just months before the first pogroms in Russia. That is to say, his life spanned the final years of one kind of anti-Semitism and the first years of a much more dangerous kind. The first kind sought to preserve the Jews in their pre-­emancipation condition, as far as was possible. It resisted liberal efforts to bring Jews into civil society on equal terms; in politics it maintained Christian suspicions of Judaism. It was not violent so much as exclusionary. When it failed at the legal level, it persisted at the social level — keeping Jews out of clubs, societies, universities and so on. It expressed itself in snobbery and ill-tempered condescension.

The second kind of anti-Semitism was quite different. It was predicated on beliefs in the immense power of the Jews, their malignity, their responsibility for everything that was wrong about the modern world. It was based, as Kirsch writes, “no longer on contempt but on fear and hatred.” It was lethal in its ultimate object. Jews here constituted not a vexation, but a menace.

It was in relation to the first kind of anti-Semitism that Disraeli defined himself. He sought to arrive at a self-definition that made him immune from being regarded as contemptible. He invented a bogus pedigree for himself (out of Spain, from Venice) (similar to Obama’s “Hawaii” story?), and he talked up whenever he could the intellectual and social distinctions of the Jews as a whole. As part of this project, however, he inadvertently contributed to the emergence of the second kind of anti-Semitism.

Disraeli redefined Judaism as a matter of race rather than religion, and in his ­novels “Coningsby” (1844), “Sybil” (1845) and “Tancred” (1847), he celebrated occult Jewish power, always exercised behind the scenes, and always determinative. The mysterious Sidonia (who figures in all three novels), Kirsch correctly observes, “looks like nothing so much as an anti-­Semitic hate figure.” In “Coningsby,” Disraeli has Sidonia confide, “You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.” “Russian diplomacy,” he says, is “organized and principally carried on by Jews”; the “mighty revolution” that will come in Germany is “entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.” “The myth of Jewish superiority,” Kirsch writes, “which Disraeli had advanced to counter the fact of social inferiority, now interacted with the paranoid superstitions of anti-Semites to disastrous effect.”

There IS no “jewish superiority”, there is ONLY “Rothschild superiority” (in terms of financial wealth and that is all he needs).

Disraeli was himself the object of anti-Semitic attack in the late 1870s because he insisted that the British national interest lay in supporting the Ottoman Empire against its Christian minority communities. For this piece of “realist” international politics, he was abused as “a very Hebrew of Hebrews,” the “Jew Earl, Philo-Turkish Jew and Jew Premier,” and the “traitorous Jew,” the “haughty Jew” and the “abominable Jew.” He was a leader of the “Turkophile party,” its “most rabid element.” He was the premier of a “Jew government.” He was a wizard, a conjurer, a magician, an alchemist. He was a “man of the East,” an “Asiatic.” “For the past six years we have had an Asiatic ruler.” He was a “wandering Jew,” “sprung from a race of migratory Jews.” He was raised “amid a people for whose ideas and habits he has no sympathy and little respect.” He was a “sham Christian and a sham Englishman.” He was the “charioteer” of a “Juggernaut car,” dragging “the whole of Christendom” over the rights of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Most cartoons gave him an immense nose and curly black hair; he was represented as “our modern Shylock.” Many of the illustrations related him to the Devil (“the most authentic incarnation of the Evil One”). At least two portrayed him in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia, and in one of these his great adversary, the liberal politician Gladstone, is the distressed mother, arriving perhaps too late to save her child. And there was a note sounded for the first time, but to be repeated many times thereafter: the Jews want war, against the national interest.(and still do)

The anti-Semites of his day insisted that Disraeli was bogus in every respect but his identification with Jews and Judaism. A superficial reading of Kirsch’s book might conclude that its author agrees with this judgment. But that would be mistaken. First, because Kirsch shows that on the specifically political issues, Disraeli was promoting British interests, rather than anything that could be identified as a “Jewish” interest. And second, because Kirsch also demonstrates that Disraeli’s engagement with Jews and Judaism was an almost entirely literary affair. It was in his fiction, not in his political judgments, that he endeavored to counter “the myth of Jewish vulgarity and greed with an empowering myth of Jewish talent and influence.” “Disraeli’s imagination of Jewishness did what he needed it to,” Kirsch concludes. “It gave him the confidence to compete with the best-born men in England.”

Kirsch argues that the alternative career of Jewish leader was ever before Disraeli but that he did not want it. Though what Kirsch describes as “the dream” of Zionism had a “powerful allure” for Disraeli, “neither the conditions of Jewish life in Europe nor his own personality allowed Disraeli to play the role that would eventually fall to Theodor Herzl.” He imagined Judaism in ways that were psycho­logi­cally empowering, but paid little attention to the condition of actually existing Jewry. (As I keep saying, these people do not truly give a rat’s ass about average jews)

Disraeli was not a man who was easily discouraged. His strong desire to impress others led him in the unusual direction of provocativeness rather than ingratiation. He did not want to escape his English milieu, he wanted to triumph within it. He did indeed triumph, achieving everything in his life that he set out to achieve. It was an extraordinary career, one to which Kirsch, in this elegantly written book, does considerable justice.

Julius-t.html?pagewanted=2&ref=books

ALL FACT, ALL PARLIAMENTARY RECORD. BLATANT CORRUPTION, DECEPTION and LIES.

AND DAVID CAMERON CARRIES ON THOSE “VALUES” AS DID HIS PREDECESSORS BECAUSE THEY ALL BOW TO ROTHSCHILD AND HIS JEWISH MONEY!

The Queen/Crown: The quiet Dictator!

The Bitch of Buckingham!

An Overview Of The Whitlam Dismissal

A Vice-Regal Sacking

On Tuesday November 11th, 1975, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Mr Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister and appointed Mr Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker Prime Minister.

The dismissal was the most dramatic event in the history of the Australian federation. For the first time, an unelected vice-regal representative had removed from office a government which commanded a majority in the House of Representatives. (equivalent to the UK’s House of Commons)

Now, let’s consider the Governor General’s role and responsibilities/authority:

The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative in Australia at federal/national level of the Australian monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II). He or she exercises the supreme executive power of the Commonwealth. The functions and roles of the Governor-General include appointing ambassadors, ministers and judges, giving Royal Assent to legislation, issuing writs for elections and bestowing honours. The Governor-General is President of the Federal Executive Council and Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force. All these things are done and all these posts are held under the authority of the Australian Constitution. Further, the Governor-General acts as vice-regal representative to the Australian Capital Territory.

The Constitution provides that a “Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth . . .” The Constitution grants the Governor-General a wide range of powers, but in practice he or she follows the conventions of the Westminster system and (with rare exceptions) acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia or other ministers. Even in the appointment of the prime minister, the Governor-General rarely exercises any discretion, usually appointing the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties in the House of Representatives.

Interestingly, then, in the 1975 case, the Governor General DID NOT keep to convention nor the Constitution and did NOT listen to the advice of the Prime Minsister – which demonstrates what utter shit this is! They keep to convention as long as it pleases Her Majesty! Who ELSE has the power to change the way the Constitution is interpreted by a Governor General who is not meant to have such power? And neither does it fall to Garfield Barwick. These men acted upon the instruction of a higher power! A power that the British people fail and refuse to acknowledge!

A Double Dissolution election was held on December 13th, 1975, at which the Whitlam Government was soundly defeated.

The dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government was the culmination of a series of dramatic events which began in October, 1975 with the refusal by the Senate to pass the government’s budget bills.

---

Out of the Wilderness

The Labor Government had been elected on 2 December 1972 after 23 years of Liberal/Country Party coalition rule. The ALP slogan, “It’s Time”, seemed to capture the mood of the nation, although the ALP’s margin of victory was relatively slim.

Gough Whitlam

Whitlamwas the first of the new-style Labor leaders. He had been elected to Federal Parliament in 1952, became Deputy Leader in 1960 and Leader in 1967. He had experienced early success in a number of by-elections and had won 17 seats at the 1969 election to take Labor close to victory.

Whitlam took office determined to implement a wide-ranging program of reforms. Such was his devotion to his “program” that Whitlam and his deputy, Lance Barnard, ran a two-man government between December 5-19, 1972, after which the full ministry took office.

[So Whitlam was a reformist: Something the Monarchy just can't allow to happen. His ideas were entirely contrary to the Constitution and, therefore, the Monarchy. He seems to have believed in government by the people for the people - far too dangerous an idea for Liz and her crew]

---

Gair Affair

Following an attempt by Whitlam to appoint the former leader of the Democratic Labor Party, Senator Vince Gair, as Ambassador to Ireland, the Opposition Leader, Bill Snedden, threatened to force an election by blocking Supply in the Senate. Whitlam responded by calling a double dissolution election for 18 May 1974 at which the government was returned.

[What is "blocking supply? Well it is very simple but one needs to read and understand the following:

A "Money Bill" is a Supply bill. The Hose of Lords (or, in this case, Senate) is by convention, AND by Constitution, disallowed from REJECTING a Money Bill.

In the Westminster system (and, colloquially, in the United States), a money bill or supply bill is a bill that solely concerns taxation or government spending (also known as appropriation of money), as opposed to changes in public law.

It is often a constitutional convention that the upper house (Senate or House of Lords) may not block supply. There is often another requirement that non-money bill type clauses may not be attached to a money bill.

Loss of supply in the lower house (House of Commons or House of Representatives) is conventionally considered to be an expression of the house's loss of confidence in the government resulting in the government's fall.

Now, bear in mind that the Gough Whitlam Government had both a majority in the House of Representatives AND the Senate! There was NO "loss of confidence" in this case whatsoever.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides that the House of Lords may not delay a money bill more than a month. It is at the discretion of the Speaker of the House of Commons to certify which bills are money bills, and his decision is final and is not subject to challenge. Section 1(2) of the Act states:

A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, the National Loans Fund or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this subsection the expressions "taxation," "public money," and "loan" respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.

In Australia's case in 1975, Fraser's Opposition rejected supply; they merely refused to consider the Bills which meant that no vote was ever taken.

The wording of the Australian Constitution on their actions is interesting. The Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, thought that the Senate had the power to do what it did. It did not! But do you seriously believe that Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice, would not know this?  Having been briefed in many of Australia's defining constitutional cases (e.g., the Airlines case, and the Bank Nationalisation case), he was knighted in 1953. Knighted in 1953 by Her Majesty - think about that. A Knight does NOT work against his Crown!

From Wikipedia:

"During the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, he controversially advised Governor-General Sir John Kerr on the constitutional legality of dismissing a prime minister who declined to advise an election when unable to obtain passage of supply. This was significant, because Barwick and Gough Whitlam, whose government Kerr dismissed, had a history of antipathy dating from the mid-1950s."

Barwick's Awards:

Garfield Barwick

In June 1953, he was made a Knight Bachelor, “in recognition of service to the Public service”.

In 1964 he was appointed a Privy Counsellor.

In January 1965 he was appointed a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG), honouring his contribution as Chief Justice of the High Court.

In June 1981 he was appointed a Knight of the Order of Australia (AK), “in recognition of service to the Australian Parliament, government and the law”.

{Meanwhile, as an aside, recognise what a bastard “the law” is when it can free 12 and murder 1:

A famous example of Barwick’s astute advocacy involved thirteen Malaysians sentenced to death who appealed to the Privy Council. Twelve retained Barwick, who duly found a technical deficiency in the arrest warrants and secured their freedom. The last, whose counsel was not so thorough, was executed.

The man was executed because he did not choose the right counsel! It’s not law, it’s how well you can argue it!}

But the wording of the Constitution on this point is very interesting. Section 53 which deals with this supposed power does say, expressly, that the Senate may not amend any proposed taxation or appropriation bills. As was his way, Barwick read this to mean that the Senate could do everything else but it could not amend the legislation.

Barwick’s reading of the Constitution is therefore at odds with what the Constitution actually says. Why would a Constitution remove a particular power from the Senate but, according to Barwick, provide it with as many practical alternatives of achieving the same end as malicious minds can invent? Who needs the power to amend if an Opposition controlled Senate can hold an elected government penniless until they agree to its amendments?

If we look at what the Australian founding fathers intended, we find that section 53 incorporates, quite succinctly, the traditional understanding of the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in respect of appropriations and taxation bills. The following passage from Wikipedia states the practice accurately:

Even before the passage of the Parliament Acts, the Commons possessed pre-eminence in cases of financial matters. By ancient custom, the House of Lords may not introduce a bill relating to taxation or supply, nor amend a bill so as to insert a provision relating to taxation or Supply, nor amend a Supply Bill in any way.

This convention, which vests the power of the purse in the popularly elected chamber, was, like the convention that the monarch only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, incorporated implicitly into the Australian Constitution by their Founding Fathers. Both conventions had been long recognised and adhered to in the United Kingdom at the time of the Constitution’s drafting. We may suppose that the conventions were so well known at the time, that it was not considered necessary by those men, that anything more than a general statement of principle was needed. It was, after all, such a reasonable and practical way of acknowledging the source of the government’s power in the people. Barwick and the Liberal Opposition thought differently. They thought differently because they were instructed to think differently in this case. The BITCH of Buckingham Palace wields her power subtly and quietly through her Knights.

Now compare with the United States:

 United States

While the United States of America is not a parliamentary democracy, Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all bills raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with British constitutional practice; by convention, appropriation bills (bills that spend money) also originate in the House. Unlike in most Westminster systems, there are no limits on the Senate’s ability to amend revenue bills or any requirement for the Senate to approve such bills within a certain timeframe.

We will come back to this United States situation in a moment when we introduce Evelyn Rothschild into the equation.

---

Changing the Senate Numbers

Despite this, the Senate continued to frustrate the government, resulting in the first and only Joint Sitting of the Parliament, allowed for under Section 57 of the Constitution.

• Listen to debate from the Joint Sitting on the Electoral Reform bills. There is a second extract here.

Following the appointment of the government’s Senate leader and Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, to the High Court bench in February 1975, the Liberal government of New South Wales, under Premier Tom Lewis, refused to follow convention and appoint a Labor replacement for Murphy in the Senate. The independent Mayor of Albury, Cleaver Bunton, was appointed instead. On his departure from parliament, Lewis was permitted by Queen Elizabeth II, on the Governor’s recommendation, to continue to use the title “The Honourable”.

Following the death of Queensland Labor Senator Bert Milliner, the Country Party Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, also refused to appoint a Labor replacement, opting instead to appoint Albert Patrick Field.

Bjeke-Petersen’s uncompromising conservatism (including his role within the downfall of the Whitlam federal government), his political longevity, and his leadership of a government that, in its later years, was revealed to be institutionally corrupt, made him one of the best-known and most controversial political figures of 20th century Australia. An ironic feature of his government was that while Premier Bjelke-Petersen relentlessly preached the maintenance of law and order as a reason to suppress political opposition, a number of senior government figures, including a Police Commissioner he appointed, were subsequently jailed for corruption.

Ma’am, you make your appointments and choose your friends well!

---

Now, the following is a very interesting and telling point wrt the reasons of why Whitlam was under attack by the establishment:

Overseas Loans Affair

The Loans Affair, also called the Khemlani Affair, is the name given to the political scandal involving the Whitlam Government of Australia in 1975, in which it was accused of attempting to borrow money illegally from Middle Eastern countries by bypassing standard procedure as dictated by the Australian Treasury.

Note, however, the following re the Australian Treasury:

Treasury’s independence:

Treasurer Wayne Swan has previously called Henry an independent economic regulator, similar to the governor of the Reserve Bank. When asked after the 2009 Budget about Treasury’s independence, Henry replied:

Strictly of course we’re not. The Treasury Department is a department of state. It is part of the executive government. It works to the government of the day, whatever the political persuasion of the government of the day. And so in that sense of course the Treasury is not independent from government and it can never behave as if it is independent from government. But there’s another sense in which it does have a degree of independence and that is that the Treasury conducts its analysis without government interference. It’s up to the government of the day to decide whether to accept that analysis or whether to reject that analysis.

—ABC Radio, Tuesday, 19 May 2009

“Bypassing Standard procedure” then? Or just rejecting the Treasury’s analysis?

The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, Treasurer Dr. Jim Cairns, and others, were prime identities in the scandal.

The Whitlam Government attempted to raise a loan of approximately US$4 billion. The money was intended to be used to fund a number of natural resource and energy projects, including construction of a natural gas pipeline, the electrification of interstate railways and a uranium enrichment plant.

Tirath Khemlani (1920 – 1991) played a pivotal role. He was employed by Dalamal and Sons, a London-based commodity-trading firm^.

The raising of foreign loans for the Australian Government at the time required the authorisation by the Loans Council. It was common knowledge that funds were usually borrowed from European banks or financiers. Connor’s attempt to secure the loan was unusual for several reasons:

1. The size of the loan was extremely large for the time.
2. When a project of this scale and cost is undertaken, governments often attract foreign investment and ultimately form a business partnership, whereby the foreign investor would retain partial ownership and/or rights over the resources once the project is complete. (So there is an insight as to how the bankers take control and in this case, the zionist west was not going to allow cheap Islamic money gain leverage in any shape or form in a western and commonwealth nation). However, this option was rejected by Connor who was renowned for his desire to have Australian resources controlled and owned by Australians.
3. The Minister for Minerals and Energy was raising the loan independent of Treasury. (Can’t have that now can we?)
4. Rather than attempting to raise the loan from US financiers, Connor attempted to raise the loan from Arab financiers, with Khemlani acting as the intermediary. There are unconfirmed reports that Arab financiers offered lower interest rates on governmental loans than US Banks/financiers. The Middle East at the time was awash with “petro-dollars”, as the price of oil quadrupled between 1973 and 1974

Connor was duly authorised to raise loans through Khemlani in late 1974. Between December 1974 and May 1975, Khemlani sent regular telexes to Connor advising that he was close to securing the loan.

However, the loan never eventuated and, in May 1975, Whitlam sought to secure the loan through a major US investment bank (name undisclosed). As part of the loan procedure, this bank imposed an obligation on the Australian Government to cease all other loan raising activities pertaining to this loan and accordingly, on 20 May 1975, Connor’s loan-raising authority was formally revoked.

A special one-day sitting of the House of Representatives was held on 9 July 1975, during which the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam tabled the documents containing evidence about the loan and sought to defend his government’s position.

Beset by economic difficulties at the time and the negative political impact which the Loans Affair conjured, the Whitlam Government was very vulnerable to further assaults on its credibility. Gough Whitlam was prompted to sack Dr. Cairns from his cabinet.

Although Rex Connor’s authority to seek an overseas loan was withdrawn following leaking of the scandal, he continued to liaise with Khemlani. The Herald Newspaper based in Melbourne published documents confirming this and Connor was forced to resign from the cabinet. He was replaced by the future Prime Minister, Paul Keating.

[Note: The Melbourne Herald was owned by Sir Keith Murdoch, father of Rupert Murdoch. The latter then took over ownership in 1987]

Rupert Murdoch: His father, Sir Keith Murdoch, owned Melbourne Herald,

The Melbourne Herald newspaper journalist Peter Game tracked down Khemlani in mid-late 1975 and following an interview, he broke the story that ultimately opened up the Loans Affair. When Connor directly denied Khemlani’s version of events, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Khemlani flew to Australia in October 1975 and provided Peter Game with telexes sent to him from Connor that refuted Connor’s denial.

On 13 October 1975, Khemlani provided a statutory declaration and a copy of the incriminating telexes sent from Connor’s office, a copy of which was forwarded to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Upon receiving the documents, Whitlam dismissed Rex Connor from his government for misleading parliament. In his letter of dismissal, date 14 October 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam wrote: “Yesterday I received from solicitors a copy of a statutory declaration signed by Mr Khemlani and copies of a number of telex messages between office Mr Khemlani’s office in London and the office of the Minister for Energy. In my judgment these messages did constitute “communications of substance” between the Minister and Mr Khemlani.”

The loans affair embarrassed the Whitlam government and exposed it to claims of impropriety. The Malcolm Fraser-led Opposition used its numbers in the Senate to block the government’s budget legislation in an attempt to force an early general election, citing the loans affair as an example of ‘extraordinary and reprehensible’ circumstances. Whitlam refused, and this led to the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

The Loans Affair was dramatised in the 1983 ABC miniseries called “The Dismissal”.

We can’t have a western government accepting “unacceptable” Islamic financing now can we? You get your loans from the Zionists and no-one else do you hear? Otherwise non-usury may just catch on in the West! So we get our Zionist press to break open the scandal and then we have our Knights in the Senate and judiciary turn the screws even in opposition to what the Constitution says because it doesn’t matter what it says as long as you do what you’ve meant to do.

After the resignation of Rex Connor in October 1975, the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, announced that the Senate would defer passage of the Supply Bills until Whitlam called an election. Whitlam refused. There followed three weeks of constitutional crisis as the parties confronted each other in Parliament and the country.

---

Constitutional and Political Issues

The crisis raised a number of crucial questions about Australian democracy and centred on a disagreement between Whitlam and Fraser over the rights of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Whitlam asserted the primacy of the House of Representatives and his right to govern so long as he retained a majority there, whereas Fraser claimed that a government denied Supply by the Senate should resign. This was a fundamental dispute about how we choose Governments. The conflict also highlighted the importance of constitutional conventions in the Australian system.

---

Kerr & Barwick

The Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, took an active interest in the crisis, talking to both Fraser and Whitlam at various points during the period following October 15. At one point, Fraser offered to pass Supply, provided an election was called by the middle of 1976.

It is now known that Kerr sought the advice of Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice of the High Court. Barwick and Kerr met on Sunday 9 November and Barwick endorsed Kerr’s decision in writing the next day.

---

Remembrance Day

On November 11, 1975, Whitlam proposed calling an immediate half-Senate election, but the Governor-General rejected this advice and instead dismissed Whitlam from office. Later, Kerr issued a statement of reasons for the dismissal.

Fraser was offered a commission as caretaker Prime Minister which he accepted, and immediately sought a double dissolution election for 13 December. In the meantime, the Senate passed the Supply Bills, with the Labor senators unaware that their government had been dismissed. The House passed several motions of confidence in the Whitlam Government and instructed the Speaker, Gordon Scholes, to relay this to Kerr. The Governor-General refused to see the Speaker until after he had dissolved the Parliament. Scholes subsequently wrote to the Queen and received a letter in which the Queen indicated there was no place for her involvement in an Australian political conflict.

The Bitch of Buckingham Palace suggests she has no involvement while the letter is written to her because the people writing it KNOW it is HER government and HER Constitution! But she can’t be recognised for what she truly is now can she? Yet it is all so obvious to a 10 year old child!

At the ensuing election, Fraser’s conservative coalition was resoundingly elected.

---

Aftermath

The dismissal remains a controversial subject in Australian history. It is central to any understanding of the current debate about becoming a republic. The constitutional and political effects of the Dismissal remain of importance to anyone interested in Australian politics. OR ANY POLITICS WHERE THE BITCH IS INVOLVED!

The main players in the Dismissal have experienced different fates. Sir John Kerr’s Australia Day Address on 26 January 1976 belied the crisis about to beset him. After a drunken performance at the 1977 Melbourne Cup winner’s presentation, he was forced by public outrage to relinquish an appointment as Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. He lived in England for some years and died on 7 April 1991. Even in death, he remained controversial, the parliamentary condolences provoking a spirited intervention from Paul Keating.

Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister for seven and a quarter years, before losing an early election in 1983. Ostracised by many in the Liberal Party during the 1980s for failing to capitalise on his majorities in both houses of parliament, he was rehabilitated in the public mind during the 1990s. He campaigned against racism and media monopolies, supported an Australian republic and acted as Chairman of Care Australia. HOW IRONIC THAT FRASER THEN WENT ON TO SUPPORT A REPUBLIC!

Gough Whitlam retired from Parliament in 1978, following another massive election defeat in 1977. Ironically, he was appointed by the Hawke government as Ambassador to UNESCO in the early 1980s. When he turned 80, even Prime Minister John Howard issued a congratulatory press release.

Whitlam published an account of his years in office in 1985, calling it simply “The Whitlam Government”. Named a “living national treasure” in 1997, “Abiding Interests” is a recent publication.

Now, back to the US Senate and it’s Constitutional place.

The US Senate is filled with Lawyers top to bottom. Members of the BAR. And THIS man knows what that means. Just listen to his first response (and the veiled threat):

Now why is this piece of shit so confident? And why does he snigger at the fact the Senate is the more powerful? (and why is it so?) And if it doesn’t go through then there will be consequences which he says we will have to learn from?

Then we have this from House Representative Brad Sherman:

Now who do you think OWNS you America? Do you REALLY believe in your “Democracy”? Well you’d be right because a democracy is the worst thing you or anyone could have. Your Founding Fathers knew this but you’ve forgotten why!

ROTHSCHILD AND THE CROWN OWNS YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

LOOK UP AND RESEARCH FOX ROTHSCHILD AND LOOK UP AND RESEARCH THE TREATY OF 1783.

“It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc……”

Prince Elector of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?

text.html

I suggest you read it and recognise that America was simply granted privileges. You do not negotiate a peace agreement if you win a war. YOU dictate terms!

Your Federal Government is in Washington D.C. for a reason and your Federal Government and Federal Reserve are owned by Globalists (primarily British/Israel/European) and your Armed Forces do THEIR will – nothing at all to do with keeping YOU safe! The same goes for the British Armed Forces. THEY take oaths to a Crown which they think is the Queen and that the Queen gives a shit about the people of the UK.

As Kissinger said: “Dumb and stupid animals used in foreign policy”.

The EU: The BASTARDS knew all along!

Every step of the way, from 1972, these BASTARDS, these lying, criminal, whipped, bribed, coerced SCUM knew it all along. They knew that every treaty was a step leading up to total loss of sovereignty and they IGNORED their oaths. Not ONE of them (except perhaps Lord Stoddart of Swindon) brought to the government’s attention (or the Monarch’s) – as if it were needed – that that BITCH’s Coronation Oath and the Privy Council Oath and the Bill of Rights (The British Constitution then in large part) – Fundamental LAW on STATUTE (so THEIR kind of “law”) was being ripped apart steadily, slowly and deliberately no matter which party was in power. Because EACH of those three parties create a TRIPOD supporting the REAL power: The Crown Corporation and City of London!

Each and every one of these bastards – in the Lords, in the Cabinet and in Parliament:

TOTAL TRAITORS!

Every last one of them (including its Majesty) then should be hung drawn and quartered for treason against the REAL Crown of this country which is a CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE not a PERSON in the shape of its majesty! She/It is simply the acting (and acting is the right word) “CEO” of that office. The Constitutional Office exists to SERVE the people of this country. In THEORY that is until you recognise that its majesty is every bit a dicatator. Ask Gough Whitlam the ex PM of Australia!

You think a British PM like our Davey boy can dissolve the Australian Parliament and substitute a new government? Do you?

Well in the 1970s that’s exactly what happened but it wasn’t the UK government, it was the Governor General of Australia who did it and who does the Guv Gen report to? Davey Cameron? hahaha

The Guv Gen reports to its majesty!

And if I hear another BASTARD in Parliament saying we have no Constitution or some fcuking IDIOT like David Cameron, who must be laughing out of his asshole when he talks the shit he does and you all believe it because its coming from a fcuking politician, saying, effectively, “Well we do and we don’t”, OR some mug on Facebook or some other internet forum with no more than two braincells to rub together, talking more ignorant, illogical, incompetent, uneducated SHITE, well……..

So then get this and for christ’s sakes get it good because I’m sick of fcuking stupidity and lethargy!

THE EU WAS PROVIDED “LEGAL PERSONALITY” IN 2009. UNTIL THAT TIME, IT WAS NOT AND COULD NOT BE RECOGNISED IN LAW (THEIR “LAW”, THE LAW OF ACTS AND STATUTES). THEIR “LAW” CANNOT RECOGNISE (“SEE”) ANYTHING UNLESS THAT “THING” – NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, A CORPORATION, A NATION STATE OR EVEN YOU (YES YOU!) – UNTIL IT IS GIVEN A LEGAL PERSONALITY!

YOU ARE “CONFERRED” A LEGAL PERSONALITY BY THE STATE WHEN YOU ARE REGISTERED AT BIRTH!

NOW THE EU (AND EVEN THE UK AND EVERY RECOGNISED SOVEREIGN NATION STATE) CAN CONTRACT (OR DECIDE NOT TO OF COURSE) ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE A LEGAL PERSONALITY. NOW IF YOU WISH TO ARGUE THAT A NON LIVING ENTITY – WHETHER IT IS A CORPORATION OR A STATE, HAS ANY GREATER RIGHTS IN ITS EXISTENCE THAN YOU DO THEN BY ALL MEANS BE MY BLOODY GUEST YOU INCOMPETENT MINDED IMBECILE!

SO YOU, AS A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING HAVE BEEN “CONFERRED” (actually coerced into having) A LEGAL PERSONALITY AND, JUST AS IS THE CASE WITH A CORPORATION OR A STATE, YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CONTRACT OR NOT!

DO YOU WISH TO ARGUE THAT POINT EN MASSE WITH A BRITISH COURT?

DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD DARE ARGUE WITH THE MASS OF BRITISH PEOPLE? NO THEY WOULD NOT!

WHAT THEY DO IS USE THE MAJORITY’S IGNORANCE TO ENSURE THEY CAN COERCE AND BEAT THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF ANYONE WHO DOES NOT COMPLY BECAUSE THE MAJORITY (IN THIS “DEMOCRACY” – A WHIPPED PARLIAMENTARY DICTATORSHIP IN REAL FACTUAL TERMS) KEEP THE INFORMED, EDUCATED MINORITY AT BAY. THE LATTER TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AND HOW YOU CAN ACHIEVE FREEDOM WHILE THIS UNINFORMED, IGNORANT AND MANY TIMES WILLFULLY IGNORANT MAJORITY “BAAAH” LIKE SHEEP BECAUSE THEY NEED THE CONFIRMATION FROM A DICTATORSHIP THAT IT IS, IN FACT, A DICTATORSHIP!

YOU STUPID BASTARDS! SINCE WHEN DOES A DICTATOR PROCLAIM HE’S A DICTATOR AND HOW HE DICTATES? ARE YOU SERIOUSLY THAT FCUKING NAIVE AND STUPID?

SO WHAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE?

WELL THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS:

YOU are a legal person.

The STATE (whether the UK or EU) is a legal person.

You ask a judge: “Are all legal persons equal under the law?”

What will he say? What does he HAVE to say?………. “YES”.

So the question then is this:

Do YOU wish to contract with the State?

The State already “contracted” you with your registration but they did not offer you “FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE”. In the eyes of THEIR OWN LAW then, the “contract” is null and void.

The ONLY issue then is this: The State will send the big boys round (Police and Judiciary) and kick your human shell to pieces.

And THAT, my friends, is SOVEREIGNTY.

Because WHAT is “Sovereignty”? Well just look up the “Great Powers” in Wikipedia and see who they are. Then consider this: Who has the nukes?

So, if you’re in a bank one day (let’s say………. Goldman Sachs for example) and you shut the door behind you and you’re carrying an Uzi, tell me: Who has the “sovereignty” in that building right there and then?

YES IT IS THAT SIMPLE!

 

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

HL Deb 13 July 1993 vol 548 cc202-30202

§        Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

§Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 32:        After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

§Revision of Treaty: reporting proposals

203

§(“. Whenever proposals are made by any Member State or by any institution of the Community or of the Union for revision of any of the policies or forms of co-operation introduced by the Treaty on European Union, the Secretary of State shall       

1. (a) lay before Parliament a report setting out the nature of the proposals and their potential effect on the interests and obligations of the United Kingdom; and
2. (b) ensure that the United Kingdom’s conduct in the Community and in the Union in relation to such proposals is in accordance with Parliament’s opinion of them, as manifested in the form of Resolution, Motion, enactment or otherwise.”).

§        The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35. There is no doubt about the meaning of these amendments. There may have been some doubt about the meaning of some amendments during Committee stage but these amendments state quite clearly what they seek to achieve. Perhaps I may go briefly through them.

§        Amendment No. 32 seeks to allow Parliament to have an influence on the conduct of any revisions of the treaty or policies or the form of co-operation introduced by this treaty. Amendment No. 33 seeks to involve Parliament directly in revisions of treaties by making any proposed revision subject to its consent before any review. Amendment No. 34 seeks to limit the term of the Act to 1996, when there is to be an inter-governmental conference. The objective is to examine what has happened between the ratification of the Treaty on European Union (and what has been said during these debates) and what in fact is happening in 1996. That gives us a chance to repeal the Act if it is not doing what it was thought it should do and ensure that it is doing what was intended.

§        I seek to have Parliament involved at every stage. The treaties relating to the European Community are different from other treaties. They are different in that they constitute a series of “mini” written constitutions, designed to lead eventually to complete economic and political union. So they are different from other treaties which seek to do something quite specific.

§        This is a series of treaties which has as its ultimate objective complete political and economic union. So it is necessary to treat them differently. They embrace every facet of government, including foreign policy and defence. As we have heard in our debates, the issues are indeed complicated. They are varied and the interpretations put on them can be quite different. Therefore it is all the more important that everything should be clear, especially since a European supreme court will make decisions on the basis of what is written into the treaties. It is supremely important that Parliament should know exactly what is in the treaties, has been involved with the content of the treaties, can have a say about what is in them and should eventually decide what should be in the treaties in absolute detail.

§        We have seen all too vividly how government can be at odds with Parliament and how both the Government and the Opposition can be split on these issues. It is desirable that Parliament should be involved at every stage, both supervising the negotiations of treaties and finally agreeing the terms of treaties before they are finally concluded by        204        Ministers with other member states. Only in that way can we obtain the true acquiescence of Parliament and, through Parliament, the acquiescence and involvement of ordinary people, who are, of course, represented in another place.

§        Such a system would be a unifying experience for Parliament and the people. I suggest that it would restore confidence that Parliament is more than a rubber stamp. People would feel that their representatives had a genuine say in what was happening. If people were involved at every stage and had the final say on the details of the treaties, they would feel that they had an influence on what was done in their name. They would have confidence that they were not being bulldozed into a system which they did not want by a bureaucracy which was completely out of touch with their aspirations and was careless, even contemptuous, of their fears.

§        To involve Parliament in all those matters and to do so at every stage is not to try to put the Government into a straitjacket. It is to try to form a new partnership between government and Parliament, so that it is not simply a matter of the Government saying, “We have made this treaty. If you don’t agree with us on the treaty, we shall look bad in the eyes of the international community and lose face. You really can’t do that to us”. Arising from that is the absurd situation of Members on both sides being whipped into the Lobbies, very reluctantly indeed in many cases. These amendments show the way to a new and genuine partnership between the Government and Parliament and Parliament and the people.

§        Amendment No. 35 seeks to obtain from Her Majesty’s Government for Parliament’s consideration a White Paper concerning the process for making further revisions to the Treaty on European Union, the use of prerogative powers and the extent to which Parliament may in future be directly involved in discussing and approving individual articles in future treaties (I suppose that that is an alternative to the other provisions but it comes together with them). It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not in the Chamber. We are suggesting something similar to what he has proposed. I expect that he has been very bored and very angry, as have many other noble Lords, because we have had to deal with the Bill and this treaty in a particular way, since that is the absurd manner in which we deal with such matters.

§        Amendment No. 35 seeks to persuade the Government to think of what the future process should be in regard to Parliament’s involvement. Bearing in mind the problems that they and the Opposition have had during the passage of the Bill to ratify the treaty, I should have thought that the Government would want to discuss a new way of doing things. Then, when we have future treaties—I suppose we shall have them, which will be a pity—we can discuss them in a way which everybody understands and in which everybody is able to participate.

§        I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to that amendment. They may have some difficulty with the others; I appreciate that. But we are trying to plot a new and future course where                205        Parliament becomes more rather than less important. We are trying to chart a course where, far from losing sovereignty, Parliament gains more sovereignty. I should have thought that that was something we would all want, including the Government.

§        The amendments are interesting and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

§Lord Beloff            My Lords, as my name is down to Amendment No. 35, which is part of this group, perhaps I should state my position.

I do not altogether share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in regard to the likely reaction of Her Majesty’s Ministers. It does not seem to me that the evidence suggests that they are prepared to take into account the genuine feelings of Parliament—I do not mean the people who are whipped through the Lobbies—and still less, as we shall hear tomorrow, the genuine concerns of the population of these islands.

For some time there has been a commitment on the part of Her Majesty’s Government to the belief that Britain’s problems are incapable of solution if Britain is left to govern herself and that the only hope for this country is continuous integration in a supranational framework. That is clearly exploitable by other countries which have a clear idea of where they would like to go from the political, economic and social points of view. They know that they can play upon the determination of Her Majesty’s Government to he “at the heart of Europe”, to coin a cliché.

It is interesting, and historians will regard it as extraordinary, that we should come round to that essentially defeatist position when so much is going for this country in terms of its capacities and material resources. In successive conferences which have revised the Treaty of Rome, a bargaining situation has emerged in which carrots are held out and eagerly nibbled by our negotiators but which, in the end, proved to be only carrots, and the inexorable course towards total integration proceeds. Though naturally one would like to see Parliament associated in the early stages and receiving warnings of what is afoot, I doubt that will happen.

We have been talking of 1996—the year which the treaty prescribes for the next conference. But, as I said al an earlier stage, we have no guarantee that it will be 1996; it could be sooner. For instance, it is obvious that, since Belgium is in an internal mess and badly needs an international triumph, it would like to mark its presidency with a further move towards integration. At one point the Belgian Prime Minister suggested that there might usefully be a conference this coming autumn. That now does not look likely but we must expect a series of forays of that kind. Because of our determination to be involved in the process, we will see what is and what will go on happening; that is to say, the use of whatever article in any of the three treaties comes to hand to progressively impose upon our economy and our environment the desires of the nucleus striving in Brussels and some of the capitals for further integration.

Ministers say. “We fought against the 40-hour week directive; we fought against other directives. But            206            it is necessary for us not to break with our great European partners, so in the end we gave way”. What is striking about the process, which came out in our lengthy and, I fear, elongated debates on the Bill, is that the Government are doing all that while themselves holding no brief for most of what the Community is doing.

Yesterday we heard that there was nothing to be said. Indeed, Ministers said nothing in favour of the common agricultural policy. They all say that it is awful, dreadful, costly, damaging to us and to the developing countries. But they then add, “But we are only one and can do nothing about it unless we repudiate the Treaty of Rome”. I dare say that that would be a striking step. But as long as one says that, one puts up with it.

It is equally the case—there has been a great deal of press comment upon it—with the dmectives on the environment. We may have to charge enormous sums of money to those who drink water—mistakenly, but they drink it—because of the totally absurd demands being made under directives of the European Community, which have no relation to the health of our people. They are not supported by statistics or health arguments. In other words, they are matters wholly within our own grasp. We used to run the support of our agriculture and run it rather well. We are perfectly capable of deciding what are the proper levels of purity of water and other environmental questions.

Any country which has a well-established government, with ministers, civil servants and Parliament, could do this for themselves. But because we are besotted with this idea that we must be “in” with the Europeans we abandon our own capacity for dealing with our own problems. That is why I think that there is a great deal to be said, although I am not optimistic about it, and we have to see that the public is awakened to what is happening. As we are a parliamentary country, associating Parliament with any further accretion of powers to the centre, or any further negotiations for the accretion of powers to the centre, must be a sensible course. Therefore I support this group of amendments.

§Lord Thomson of Monifieth            My Lords, we always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with a great deal of interest because he always puts his case so fluently and in a way that is stimulating, even when one does not agree with him. However, it seems to me that when he was complaining that the mood of Britain was defeatist in its approach to Europe, he himself was immensely defeatist in the whole tenor of what he was saying. The picture he presented was of a rather pusillanimous or a rather weak British Government that was incapable of looking after any British interest in Brussels and was a push-over for anything that other members of the Community do. I am no uncritical admirer of Her Majesty’s Government but, even to someone coming from these Benches, I think that was a grossly unfair caricature of the reality. The reality goes a great deal deeper than the noble Lord’s analysis.

The fact is that this country used to be a great imperial power, with a Commonwealth with which it                        207            was very closely associated, and it had an international role of a special character. The world changed greatly in the post-war period and the United Kingdom had to decide how to adapt itself to those changes in the world situation. The view was taken by successive British governments and by the majority of the British political community over many years that the best way of adapting to these new circumstances, when we could no longer be a substantial world power with an international world-wide base through the Empire and Commonwealth, was to become part of a European community.

It was a very positive decision. It is of course possible to argue about it but it was a very positive decision; and I think that has been the position of successive governments. That is the underlying reality that we are dealing with here. For my part, I regard the process from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Maastricht as a beneficial one for the peoples of Europe, including the peoples of the United Kingdom. Although we may be critical of the way the Government handle particular issues, I think that the underlying position of the British Government in relation to Europe is very different from the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Of course it is possible to find areas of European Community life of which one is completely critical. It is possible to find areas of United Kingdom life of which we are very critical. The common agricultural policy is a sitting target for that kind of thing. I suspect that the issue of clean water is a rather more complicated issue than the common agricultural policy.

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who has a very real feel for these issues of national power, standing and so on, that he seems to be, by picking on these particular issues, ignoring the fact that 90 per cent. of the entire British business community believes that the real interest of the British people, from the point of view of economic welfare, lies in being part of a European Community. That, I think, he totally overlooked.

The first of these amendments emphasises the importance of Government having adequate machinery for parliamentary consultation, as events develop within the European Community. In a general way, I think that we are all in sympathy with that particular purpose. For my part, although I have many complaints about the way that Her Majesty’s Government have behaved in these matters—I totally disagree with the opt-out on the social chapter, for example—I do not think that Parliament can complain about the way the Government have sought to consult it throughout the whole process of the Maastricht affair. They held very full consultations before the Maastricht Treaty was finally signed and there was endorsement in Parliament after that.

If I have a criticism it is that instead of standing on our own feet in the matter we allowed our timetable to be determined by the views of the Danish people rather than by the views here in the United Kingdom. I do not think one can complain about the parliamentary consultation. The role that this House plays through its select committees in European affairs            208            is a very positive one. No doubt some things could be improved, but the underlying position is that the British interests for the future lie in a more integrated European community and in Britain being at the heart of that.

§Baroness Blackstone            My Lords, I very much agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has just said. Turning in particular to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, of course it is desirable that Parliament should be involved and I very much endorse what my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has said about this. But surely it is quite inconceivable that this or any future government which follows it should fail to take into account the views of Parliament with respect to any proposals regarding the amendment of the treaty. No doubt the Minister will give us this assurance when she replies.

Let me give my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon this assurance. We from this Bench will hold the Government to their political obligation to consult Parliament at the time of renegotiation of the treaty. If I may say so, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said. The peoples’ representatives have certainly had a very good say on the ratification of this treaty. Some would say that they have had almost too much of a say and too many hours of parliamentary time have been devoted to it. But I am sure that they will also have plenty to say when renegotiation takes place.

If I could turn for a moment to Amendment No. 34, it seems to me that this amendment, if accepted, would tie the Government to replacement of the Act by a particular date, which really makes no sense whatever. The treaty is actually concluded for an unlimited period, and the Act ratifying it should also be for an unlimited period. After the member states’ governments have met in 1996 to consider those parts of the treaty for which revision is provided, there can be no doubt that the government of the day will bring forward to the British Parliament any proposals for legislation or legislative change if and when that is needed. Again, I give my noble friends who are concerned about this an assurance that this is a political obligation on the part of any government that is in power at that time that must be enforced.

Turning to Amendment No. 35, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has his name, I do not want to get into the issues of substance on European integration which I think he was raising, because it does not seem to me that they are terribly germane to this amendment—even the purity of water, much as I am also concerned about that—and nor do I think it would be right to get into tomorrow’s debate on a referendum. We shall have many hours to discuss something that he also mentioned: the question of whether the people, rather than the peoples’ representatives, should be consulted. I think that this is a question for tomorrow.

I have little objection to this amendment in principle, although the timescale of nine months is very short. I have not been convinced by the arguments put forward by the two noble Lords supporting the amendments that it is necessary to put this provision on the face of the Bill. Again, we in                        209            Opposition would want to ensure that the Government fulfilled their political obligations in this respect. That does not need to be embodied in statute. I regret to say that the Labour Party cannot support these amendments. We consider them to be either unnecessary or damaging in the case of Amendment No. 34.

§        9 p.m.

§Baroness Chalker of Wallasey            My Lords, out of these four amendments, three of them, led by Amendment No. 32 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, seek to guarantee Parliament’s role and involvement in any future treaty revision. I can give the assurance which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was seeking. There is already going to be a role for Parliament. There will be involvement for Parliament in any future treaty revision. The exceptional amendment to the four is Amendment No. 34 to which the noble Baroness also took, exception. I am not surprised that this amendment was tabled limiting the duration of the Act to 31st December 1996. I have to say “thank you” to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his magnanimity in allowing us three whole years’ grace to sort out what is going on.

But it is not practicable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, the period should be unlimited. If there are elements in this treaty, as in any previous treaty—and as I outlined in answer to Amendment No. 31—which requires amendment, then it must be taken up at the next opportunity. With the Maastricht Treaty we have closed certain loopholes which we found to exist in previous treaties.

I now turn to the three main amendments, Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 35. Amendment No. 32 would require a report to Parliament whenever proposals are made for the revision of the Maastricht Treaty and that the United Kingdom follows a negotiating mandate approved by Parliament. Amendment No. 33 requires the Government to gain the prior approval of Parliament to any further treaty revision. Both these amendments reflect ones debated at Committee stage. They were Amendments Nos. 414 and 408.

No one will dispute the legitimate right of Parliament to influence legislation. But I believe that that is best ensured by following what is consistent UK practice on treaties; namely, that any domestic legislation is passed after signature but before ratification. The treaty itself contains a clear procedure for amendment. Currently Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome is replaced by Article N of the Maastricht Treaty which states:            The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”.            Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I shall not go down that path tonight. We shall have our full debate tomorrow. In the United Kingdom substantive amendments to the Community treaties will of course require an Act of Parliament as was the case with the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. Parliament will have every opportunity to have its say. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said,            210            with the Maastricht Treaty we did indeed seek the approval of Parliament for a negotiating mandate before my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went to Maastricht. When they returned, the outcome of that negotiation was put to both Houses of Parliament. Therefore. it is not only possible but certain that the Government would seek a mandate from Parliament for the negotiating strategy and treaty negotiations, particularly if they are major. That is a decision for the government of the day. I see no way of proceeding in these matters of making—

Lord Morris            My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps I may ask one point for clarification which is very important. Will Parliament have the opportunity of seeing in draft the terms of any treaty which is in the process of being negotiated?

§Baroness Chalker of Wallasey            My Lords. I know what my noble friend is asking. What one can fairly say is that Parliament, as in the case of the Maastricht negotiations, can certainly see in outline the detail of what it is intended to negotiate. That is exactly what was done in the period leading up to December 1991. On return the detail of the outcome of those negotiations was put to both Houses of Parliament.

Whether the exact words can be put to Parliament—certainly not in advance but after the negotiations—is perhaps asking too much only because it takes some time for the lawyers to make sure that there is a watertight expression of the intentions of the heads of government at their meeting. I remember well a debate I had with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He was asking me about changes in words. I explained to him that it was for clarification that words were changed. In the case that he cited, the words were very minor. I managed to satisfy him on that occasion. I am not seeking to provoke him now to any disagreement.

I understand what my noble friend Lord Morris asked. He asked whether the exact words would be put. I do not think that is practicable. It is not that the Government are unwilling. They are perfectly willing to make sure that all the tenets are set out as we did in the case of the Maastricht Treaty and which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Tebbit in the debate in another place in December 1991 and which I quoted in our debate on 17th February last.

The decision is always for the government of the day as to how they will proceed. There will be different circumstances from time to time and that is why I do not believe that we can enshrine in legislation Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.

Perhaps I may make perfectly clear our intention to consult and inform Parliament about Community activities. We already provide notification of proposed Community legislation and, of course, we take the views of Parliament into account when negotiating even minor directives and when voting in Council. Ministers are well aware of the need to justify their actions and new directives to Parliament. I can well remember during the three-and-a-half years when if was associated specifically with such directives the trouble that was taken to seek to inform and to get the                        211            information through to those who were interested. I welcomed then, and I welcome now, any Member of this House or of another place who is interested, because it is much better to have an interested Parliament than to have an uninterested Parliament when one wishes to make what one hopes will be the right decision.

The matters of scrutiny which are covered in the amendments are really matters for the Procedure Committee and not, I believe, for legislation. The procedures to which the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, refer, would be laid down in statute and therefore made far less flexible. In fact, they would be made inflexible. I fear that if the noble Lord’s amendments were to succeed, not very much time would go by before we would require further legislation to change them and to make them less inflexible.

I turn now to Amendment No. 35, which I shall call the favourite amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The amendment draws attention to the role of national parliaments. A declaration on this subject is attached to the Maastricht Treaty. That declaration notes the importance of encouraging greater involvement by national parliaments in the activities of the European Union. The declaration calls for increased exchanges of information between national parliaments and the European Parliament. It calls for national parliaments to be given the Commission’s legislative proposals in good time for scrutiny, and for increased contacts between national parliaments and the European Parliament, in particular through the granting of appropriate reciprocal facilities and regular meetings between Members of the parliaments who are interested in the same issues.

The Birmingham European Council reaffirmed that national parliaments should be more closely involved in the Community’s activities, and member states undertook to discuss the issue with their national parliaments. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary put a number of ideas to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities of your Lordships’ House and to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation of another place. In the Government’s view, both the Maastricht and Birmingham declarations offer new areas of involvement for Parliament which we believe to be right. They also offer real opportunities to mesh the views of Parliament with Community business. But ultimately it will be up to Members of your Lordships’ House and of the other place to decide whether or not the proposals that come forward for discussion should be accepted.

My noble friend Lord Beloff made a number of interesting comments but I, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, felt that he was being defeatist. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that some of the noble Lord’s descriptions were grossly unfair. I certainly would not be defeatist. I have always said that many things need to be improved in the European Community, but we now have the basic co-operation that was so urgently            212            needed after 1945. That has been built up. We in the United Kingdom are intimately interconnected with our partners in the European Community for our economic well-being. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for what he said.

My noble friend Lord Beloff made some comments about the Belgian presidency. Having lived in Belgium at one time and having a part-Belgian family, I often feel that I know better than most just how intractable and difficult the Belgians can be, but I hardly think that they will gain some great international triumph from their presidency. I think that my noble friend Lord Beloff knows full well that, whereas they may try to distract other members of the Community from time to time, there are certainly a good half-dozen members of the Community which are absolutely determined to get the future of our Community right, and particularly to concentrate on the economic rebuilding that is necessary within the Community. I do not think that any of us will allow ourselves to be knocked off course during the coming five-and-a-half months.

My noble friend also said that the British Government had given way over the 48-hour working directive. I must tell him that that really is not so. I know that my right honourable friend who is now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but who was previously the Secretary of State for Employment, worked exceedingly hard to make sure that we had a minimal directive—something which I know will not please the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Nevertheless, she succeeded in that. We all believe, and we still believe, that the wrong treaty basis has been used. That is why we are taking a minimal directive, as it now is —it is far less dangerous than it once was—to the European Court of Justice. I ask my noble friend Lord Beloff not to say that we gave way on something for which we fought exceptionally hard. We succeeded in the art of the possible.

I shall not go through all the rest of the things that my noble friend said about water purification. I gave that directive as an example in our previous debate. It is right that we should awaken the public to what is going on, but we should do it with facts. We should not base it on myths or stories. We should ensure that the communication is open, balanced and fair. I shall always stand by that approach.

We do not need the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I hope that he will think again. Should they be pressed, I would advise your Lordships to vote against them. I cannot see, with the outcome of the discussions, especially at Birmingham on greater openness and those which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had with the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee in this place and the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee in another place, that Parliament will be less informed than ever before. It is going to be much more informed, and we do not need the amendments.

§        9.15 p.m.

§Lord Stoddart of Swindon            My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I thank all those who have taken part in it. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord                        213            Beloff, was saying when he talked about defeatism. He was not talking about the defeatism of the British people. He was talking about the defeatism of the British establishment. It does not have confidence in the people of this country to manage their own affairs. It therefore believes that they have to be integrated with other people. As I said on Second Reading, the very same people believe that everyone else should have independence but that this country cannot manage other than by interdependence. I think that that is what the noble Lord was talking about, and I very much agree with him.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He said that in his view the road from Rome to Maastricht had been beneficial. Our debates have shown the reverse, quite frankly. I, my noble friend Lord Bruce and noble Lords on the other side of the House have often challenged those who say that there have been beneficial effects from our entry into the EC to have a cost-benefit analysis. That has never been provided.

THE EU IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION!

Lord Bruce of Donington            Hear, hear!

§Lord Stoddart of Swindon            My Lords, it would be interesting to have a cost-benefit analysis before us before we enter into any treaties.

My noble friend Lady Blackstone gave me the assurance that the Opposition would hold the Government to consultations with Parliament. That is not what I want. I am sorry, I do not want consultations with Parliament. I want Parliament to be supreme. That is what the amendments are all about. They are not about consultations. They are about supervision. They are about supervising government, which is Parliament’s right, to ensure that Parliament is involved at every stage, even at the negotiation stage, and eventually, through the proper procedures, able to examine any treaties in detail and not through a five or six clause Bill. That is what it is all about. That is what the amendment is about.

The Minister said that there would of course be many more opportunities for Parliament to be involved in matters European. Good, good, good! I just wish that Parliament had never rid itself of the powers, which now means that it has to have some formal involvement in the discussion of the powers which it has handed over to others. Again, the Minister has it wrong. She says that the procedures are adequate. She had better ask her honourable friend Bill Cash and others whether the procedures are adequate. Another place did not think so. Members of another place had great difficulty, first, in tabling proper amendments, and then being allowed to vote on them when they had tabled them. That was what all the terrible fuss was about. The procedures simply are not good enough. We have shown in this House that those procedures are not good enough. I must say to the noble Baroness, whom I respect, like and admire, particularly for the way that she has handled this Bill, that we are about ensuring that Parliament can examine every clause line by line, dot by dot and comma by comma as is done with domestic legislation. That is what we want and nothing else will do.

214            Having said that, and having had this helpful discussion, I shall not put the House to the trouble of voting on the amendment this evening. I believe that the amendments are extremely good. I shall withdraw the amendment in the hope that the noble Baroness and others will reflect upon it for a future occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 not moved.]

§Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 37:        After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:

§European Union: legal personality

§(“. Her Majesty’s Government shall ensure that the United Kingdom does not, without the prior approval of Parliament, give its agreement to any proposal under which the European Union (as distinct from the European Community) shall have legal personality.”).

§        The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not an easy amendment but I shall move it as quickly as I can in view of the lateness of the hour. The Treaty on European Union, which is what we are discussing, states quite clearly in the first paragraph of Title I that:        By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union hereinafter called the ‘Union’”.        That has no juridical effect. It merely means that the European Community—I use the politically and legally correct term—has decided to change the name of the band, so to speak. It is rather strange. It must be rather more than that because it has imposed upon the citizens of every single nation state of Europe a citizenship of that Union.

§        The bald heading of Title II states:        Provisions amending the Treaty establishing the. European Community”,        which is the Treaty of Rome,        with a view to establishing European Community”.        The word “economic” has been dropped. That sends an enormous signal to so many people in the United Kingdom who say, “Ah, here we go. Look to the language and you will find the truth. As soon as people start mucking about with the language, you know that there is dirty work afoot”.

§        What concerns me more than anything else—and that is why I have tabled the amendment—is that there is an intention among many, not least in the European Parliament, to give the European Union a legal personality which now resides with the European Community and all its institutions. If there is any movement in that direction, it should be looked at with immense care.

§        The reason for that is extremely simple. The two-pillar principle which has been aclumbrated with great skill by my noble friend Lady Chalker will go out of the window. It is for that reason that I am concerned that immense care should be taken if a legal juridical personality is given to the European Union. I should like to know what the Minister has to say in that regard. I beg to move.

§Baroness Chalker of Wallasey            My Lords, I thought for a moment that my noble friend Lord Morris was not going to deal with the question of the legal personality to which his amendment refers. The                        215            amendment seeks to require Parliament to approve any proposal which gives the European Union a legal personality.

The amendment also draws attention to an important distinction between the European Union and the European Community. I believe that the Union is best characterised as an association of member states which, for certain purposes and in certain ways described in the treaty, act in common. The Union acts through its component parts—namely, the Community on the one hand (covered by Titles II to IV) and on the other the member states, which act intergovernmentally under the common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs pillars of the treaty (under Titles V and VI).

The Union is simply an over-arching concept which links the different methods of operation and co-operation; but legally it is the Community that acts under Community business and the member states will, act under each of the two pillars. In my view, it would be a mistake to try to fit the Union into other international models; for example, the Community, a state, or an international organisation like NATO or the United Nations. The Community is quite unique and so is the Union.

My noble friend raised the question of conferring a legal personality on the Union in the Maastricht Treaty. There is no clause conferring such a legal personality on the Union in the treaty. That contrasts with Article 210 of the Treaty of Rome, which expressly provided that,            the Community shall have legal personality”.            Therefore, the functions which one would expect the Union to exercise if it had such a personality—which it does not —are exercised by the Community; for example, all provisions on concluding external treaties are actually in the Community section and give the Community power to act at the behest of the member states. Citizenship of the Union is also in the Community section. That is given effect by Community measures and enforced by Community procedures.

I hope the points I have made in answer to my noble friend show that there is a clear intention of the parties not to confer any legal personality on the Union. I should simply point out to the House that the question was raised during the negotiations. The Dutch presidency said very firmly that the Union would not have legal personality. That was supported by the Community legal service; there was no dissent from any country and the director of the Commission’s legal service has also, in evidence to the European Parliament, taken the view that the Union lacks legal personality.

I believe that the fears of my noble friend Lord Morris are unfounded and that the amendment is both unnecessary and undesirable. In the light of what I have just said, I trust that he will agree that his fear is not a real one. I hope, therefore, that he will not press the amendment. However, should he do so, I must advise your Lordships to resist it.

Lord Morris            My Lords, I listened with as much care as I could to my noble friend. She answered me            216            most fully and there is much in what she said from which I draw great comfort. However, my noble friend seemed to suggest that I am seeing ghosts; that is not so. Although my noble friend sees no prospect of the Union having a legal personality, if she has read—and I am sure that she has—the draft by the institutional affairs committee of the European Parliament, she will know that that draft is determined to give a legal personality to the European Union. Article 2 of Title I—that contains the fundamental principles of that draft constitution—agrees that the union is of a juridical nature.

I know this is only a draft. However, many Members of Parliament and their clerks and assistants do not go to an immense amount of work constructing draft constitutions of a union just for fun. This matter is not just a figment of my imagination; it is a fear which has led me to move this amendment. However, I have listened to what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§        9.30 p.m.

§Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 38:        After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:

§Social Policy

§(“. This Act shall not come into force until all Member States of the Community have entered into an agreement that is legally binding under the law of the Community that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Treaty on European Union or any of the Treaties or of the Community Treaties as from time to time defined by the European Communities Act 1972, the Community will not introduce or implement any Regulations or Directives under any of the said Treaties which could be introduced under the provisions of the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy agreed at Maastricht.”).

§        The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I have much pleasure and some indignation in moving this amendment. I refer to a familiar theme. What divides us more than judgments about policy are differences on how seriously to take the particular terms of the Maastricht Treaty embodied in this Bill. We need to draw on our experience of the Single European Act.

§        The proposed new clause in Amendment No. 38 seeks to strengthen the opt-out that we treasure and trust to be fireproof. We believe that our opt-out should not be frustrated by any devious or perverse effort on the part of the Commission to develop under some other heading directives that would normally appear under the heading of social policy.

§        Why are we so sceptical and so cynical as to suppose that there might be an effort to frustrate our opt-out? I must dig a little into the history of the Single European Act. I shall try to do that as briefly as possible as I assume we are all totally knowledgeable about the precedents in this matter.

§        A little earlier we heard that fears of the kind we are raising now were placated at the time of the passage of the Single European Act. Lynda Chalker, as she then was—she is now the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker—gave an assurance to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons on 7th May 1986. I do not                217        wish to quote her comments in full and I do not wish to be accused of taking the comments out of context. However, her key sentence was:        Majority voting will apply in the areas where we wish it to apply. When we do not wish it to apply, it will not do so”.

§        The extension of qualified majority voting under Articles 100a and 118, was to be confined to very particular aspects of European policy. Article 100a sought to extend qualified majority voting only for the purposes of completing the single market. It specifically excluded fiscal provisions, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employed persons.

§        In the most blatant violation of that simple distinction we saw the draft directive on employment conditions for part-time workers under Article 100a. The directive to apply to part-time workers—

§Lord Hacking            My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for giving way. We all have sympathy with the noble Lord for the short notice with which he has had to move the amendment, but I believe that I should draw to the attention of your Lordships that the noble Lord has not said one word about the amendment which he is moving, which relates to social policy.

§Lord Harris of High Cross            My Lords, I am trying to explain why the amendment has been put forward. The purpose is to avoid the frustration of our opt-out on social policy. It stems from our anxiety about the deceits which have been practised in the past, that those deceits might be practised again, and that our opt-out will be bypassed by social policy directives being raised under other headings where qualified majority voting would apply.

The example that I am giving is the part-time workers directive which has been drafted under Article 100a. That would normally have been thought to be excluded because it concerns the rights and interests of employed persons. But no, the directive was presented by the Commission on the basis that there had been an increase in the use of part-time or temporary workers, that the arrangements vary from one country to another, that those variations comprise a distortion of competition and that the differences in costs in relation to entitlement to holidays and so forth distort the single market. Therefore, a social policy measure was introduced as though it was really to complete the market. It is that kind of twist and devious interpretation which has caused us to have the greatest anxiety.

There are many precedents of that kind. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others may pounce on me and say that I am moving away from the amendment. However, it seems perfectly clear to me that our opt-out is not the watertight shield which we expected against further incursions on British sovereignty in the matter of the shaping of social policy.

The reason is twofold. First, our European partners take a different view from us on the conditions for the single market. It is rather sweet in a way. They believe that a single market can only be fairly competitive if costs are equalised at the outset. That is perfectly            218            preposterous. It is a rather childlike and innocent notion that there is equality and solidarity in these great phrases. Our partners say that we should start by equalising conditions but totally ignore the elementary observation that competition involves striving between firms or countries with differing, levels of cost. They say that we have to equalise costs at the outset in order to make competition fair. Such thinking, which is tenuously called economic analysis, pervades the argumentation emanating from the Commission.

We are very worried about that, not least because our opt-out protocol indicates that our protection is:            without prejudice to the provisions of this Treaty, particularly those relating to social policy which constitute an integral part of the ‘acquis communautaire’”.Acquis communautaire is the highbrow phrase for the whole ragbag—the accumulated pile of law, directives and so forth.

We are anxious that the acquis communautaire will be held intact and that the Treaty of Rome will be ransacked to find ways in which measures from which we would normally have obtained exemption will be brought up under different headings. Not only the Commission but the European Court in various judgments has preferred measures brought forward under those titles on which qualified majority voting rather than unanimity applies. In some cases a motion can be brought under one of two headings: in one case unanimity is required; in the other case qualified majority voting is required. The Commission, and the European Court confirming the Commission, would always prefer the application of qualified majority voting. Therefore we believe that the opt-out is not satisfactory.

Finally, our anxiety is based not merely on the obvious observation that our European colleagues have a quite different view about the nature of competition and the acceptability of initial inequalities of cost. It is that the European Court takes a quite different approach from that with which we are more familiar in this country. I have the weighty authority of a standard textbook on European law. It is the fifth edition by Lasok and Bridge. The European Court’s approach to interpretation has been described in the textbook as,            references to the spirit or the aims of the Treaties [to] enable the Court to fill the gaps in the system and so ‘up-date’ the text. In doing so, the Court has consciously acted not only as the ‘Constitutional Court’ of the Community but also as an architect of European integration”.            That is a summary to indicate that the European Court takes a different view from the British courts, which rely on common law in which we try to go back to the text and relate each new proposal to the letter of the text.

In this situation we have the expansion of the development of the law. It is called creative accountancy when local authorities adopt a similar course. The evidence is that the European Court is anxious to strengthen what it calls solidarity and cohesion, which it interprets as strengthening the centralised decision-making power, rather than leaving those decisions within the hands of the separate communities. I have indicated our anxiety. I beg to move.

219

§Lord Carr of Hadley            My Lords, hitherto during the debates I have not found it too difficult to resist the temptation to intervene. However, one or two recent amendments have driven me beyond the point of endurance. I had thought that noble Lords who objected to the treaty had two main principles in mind. First, I thought that they were resisting the treaty because they wished to preserve our present system of parliamentary democracy and government. However, as we heard during one recent debate on an amendment, one of their objectives is to tie the hands of future parliaments and governments in a way which is totally contrary to what they seek to preserve. In fact they would change the nature of our parliamentary democracy far more than the treaty ever could, even if some of their worst fears proved to be true—which I do not believe they will.

Secondly, I thought that noble Lords who took that view wanted a Europe of partnership between countries rather than a federal unitary state. With that I wholly agree. I do not share their terrible spectres. But if you want a partnership, you have to enter into discussion with your partners as free and equal participants. That is not what the noble Lord wants in an amendment like this. He wants the British partner to talk to the others with hands and feet firmly tied. Whenever a partner or would be partner wants to raise something, the British delegate will have to say, “Sorry, I have no negotiating room at all. I must go back and ask nanny before I can talk to you”. I hope that this kind of amendment will be firmly rejected, if it is not immediately withdrawn.

§        9.45 p.m.

§Lord Hacking            My Lords, I have two sympathies with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The first relates to his endeavours to move an amendment when his time for preparation, through no fault of his, was on the short side. Therefore, I congratulate him on the second half of his speech and on getting into the tram-lines of the amendment that he was addressing.

My second sympathy is more substantive. The noble Lord referred to the posted workers directive. Sub-committee E, on which I sit, of our European Communities Committee put the directive under scrutiny and provided a number of comments on it. I was going to take up the directive with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he made his very persuasive speech in Committee on the social chapter, but by that stage I had been restrained by my Front Bench from making an intervention. If the noble Lord, Lord Richard, again raises the issue of the social chapter, as I anticipate he may do, I shall certainly come in and use some of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has used on the posted workers directive.

It was not under Article 100a that the Council was proposing to implement the directive. It was another article in the treaty. Indeed, your Lordships’ committee was somewhat doubtful about the propriety of choosing another article under the treaty for the adoption of the directive.

Having said that, I would ask your Lordships to look at the amendment—I have said before that we must have some discipline in our proceedings—to see            220            what it says. The amendment is a wholly wrecking amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has told us that he is supportive of the Treaty of Rome, a view that we have not heard very clearly during his submissions to your Lordships. But he made it plain earlier today that he is supportive of the Treaty of Rome. I join other noble Lords in agreeing that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not a wrecker. But this amendment, which he had the misfortune at very short notice to introduce to your Lordships, is a wholly wrecking amendment.

All other member states except Great Britain and Northern Ireland are committed to the protocol on social policy. For this Government to say to other member states, which the amendment is seeking to state, that we will not ratify that treaty unless all the other member states which are committed to the protocol agree not to bring in directives and regulations under it is to have the reality of compelling Her Majesty’s Government not to ratify the treaty. That is why the amendment is a wholly wrecking amendment. I ask your Lordships to look at the amendment and at all other amendments to see what they say. If they turn out to be, as this amendment turns out to be, totally wrecking, they should be rejected as such.

§Lord Tebbit            My Lords, I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Carr in that I suspect that his patience snapped just a little too late. I think that his remarks were addressed to Amendment No. 31, which has already gone, rather than to Amendment Nos. 38 and 39, on which we are now engaged. I say that I have some sympathy with him because I was caught in rather the same way in that I was still sitting quietly reading outside when we reached Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, having assumed that we would still be on Amendment No. 31 at this time.

§Baroness Trumpington            My Lords, we dealt with Amendment No. 31 before dinner.

§Lord Tebbit            Yes, indeed, my Lords. So I say what I do with some considerable feeling of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Carr in that matter.

If he looks at the amendments, which consist of new clauses, he will see that they have a simple and clear purpose; namely, to ensure that directives are not forced upon us by using what one might describe as the easy option for the Commission of going through a route where qualified majority voting applies rather than what would appear to be the more appropriate route, which might be blocked because of the need for unanimity. I shall come back to that point. But first I think it is essential to look at the background to this amendment.

When the Prime Minister returned from Maastricht, there was a widespread welcome, at least among Conservatives, for his success, as it would seem, in securing what has been wrongly described as Britain’s opt-out from the provisions of the social chapter—wrongly described of course because it is not an opt-out for us; it is a mechanism by which, as noble Lords know, we have agreed to allow the others to use                        221            the machinery of the treaty and its institutions to impose the social chapter on themselves, leaving us, in theory, on one side and free from it.

However, since then, the treaty has come under quite close scrutiny. And indeed, we have also already had our first experience of social legislation being forced upon us, not through the route which one would expect, which is perhaps debarred, one might say, by the unanimity requirement, but under provisions where it could be forced through by qualified majority voting. We had a debate about this matter at Committee stage and I do not propose to go over that ground again; although there were some aspects of the Minister’s reply which left me somewhat less than satisfied.

We cannot come to a conclusion on the merits of these amendments without some brief remarks about the nature of the social chapter itself. I do not believe that there is any difference between any of us in this House or indeed in the other place over the desirability of good working conditions and good pay. I think that that can be taken for granted. But there is a difference between us over the question of how those objectives are best achieved—whether by legislation in a corporatist style or, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggests, through the mechanism of the market.

There is a further difference between those of us who believe that the argument is best settled in these islands by the people of these islands, and those who believe that these are matters which are not suitable for being settled in this country by the people of these islands; that they are much too important, and the people of these islands are, as we are frequently told, not able to take decisions for themselves. Even the question of whether they should approve or disapprove the ratification of the treaty is much too complicated for them, we are told, and they should be protected from such things by much wiser and more competent people—in that case, in Parliament; and in this particular case by those wise people in Brussels.

The snag is that if the matter is settled in Brussels, it will be settled by a government in which we are always a minority partner by definition. So it will not be settled by the people of these islands in a manner which I think appropriate and where I am glad to say—and I know that this will warm the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—that I have the support of such good Socialists as Mr. Tony Benn. Indeed, Mr. Benn is a very good Socialist. He believes that whether we have a Socialist country or not should be decided in this country and not elsewhere.

Continental practice and the nature of continental law have brought about what we would describe as an essentially corporatist treaty. The Commission behaves in an essentially corporatist way. That is the nature of the beast. Corporatism is not necessarily a bad thing. There have been bad corporatists and good corporatists in history. I believe that it is a less than satisfactory system and frequently open to wide abuse. From time to time we in this country have tried it, most notably under the Government led by my right honourable friend Mr. Heath. All such attempts have ended in tears in one way or another.

222            On the whole we have favoured market solutions, using the law only to outlaw specific abuses. Again, that is essentially the nature of British law. It is not general in its nature. If it sees an abuse, it deals with it in a specific manner. So our practices are essentially discordant with those of our partners: first, on the question of whether these forms of social protection are desirable; and secondly, as regards how they should be introduced.

Until recently it has been possible to argue that continental practice has been accompanied by higher living standards and greater economic success than we have enjoyed. It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has made on more than one occasion during our debates. If we had had these debates a few years ago, he might have had a little more justification on his side. However now we see the German motor industry, for example, losing ground to the British motor industry and we begin to question that practice. As we see France going more deeply into recession and Germany in very considerable economic difficulty, we wonder whether or not it is axiomatic that their approach is better than ours.

But those difficulties, in particular as German industry becomes non-competitive, are not leading to a change of practice on the continent. Instead, there is recognition of growing non-competitiveness, accompanied by a resolve to make the competition less competitive. Our German and French friends, finding that the burdens that they carry are so heavy that they are becoming non-competitive, have called upon us to encumber ourselves with their high-cost policies in order to reduce our competitiveness. That is quite understandable. As we heard earlier today, the fixed exchange rate system plays a role in reducing our competitiveness—or rather it did, but no longer—and so does the weight of the social chapter.

Once we succumb to the chapter and all Europe is at the mercy of the competitive economies of the outside world, the French will lead the pack which calls for protection from low-priced imports and the gospel of protection will again be promoted. That is why it is so important that we put some barriers in the place of those uncompetitive practices that are being wished upon us in a manner which we would regard as contrary to the treaty. It is certainly contrary to what the Prime Minister thought was the intention of the treaty.

It is important to look at the changes that have occurred in the treaty, or rather through the treaty, to the Treaty of Rome. The new Article G(2) (on page 9) states:            Article 2 shall be replaced by the following”.            It is important to look at the article as it was before, otherwise we do not see the full impact of the treaty and why it is necessary to protect ourselves further by amendments of the kind that are before the House.

The treaty did not refer originally to anything much in the article beyond what might be called “economic” matters. The new insertions relate to the high degree of convergence of economic performance; the high level of employment and social protection; the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion among member states.                        223            All that is well and good and no doubt is of noble purpose. The question is whether or not, by inserting those new words, we have opened up a new way in which one section of the treaty is used in conjunction with another to take us in directions in which we do not wish to go.

All that was expressed clearly by politicians on the Continent. It was the French Minister for European Affairs who said of the Hoover affair,            It is unacceptable that this social dumping goes on, that people want to level wages down. That is why there is the Maastricht Treaty and, if there were not Maastricht, there would be the law of the jungle everywhere”.            We do not yet have the treaty of Maastricht, so we can question whether at this moment in Europe there is, in her words,            the law of the jungle everywhere”.            There is no doubt as to what is in her mind about the treaty; that is, that the treaty exists to prevent social dumping, as she calls it. It is to prevent this country. having a competitive advantage over Brussels in the way we thought we had secured through the Social Protocol. It is not inconceivable that she could be wrong. But I happen to believe that she is right. That is one of the principal reasons why the French Government are anxious to ensure that the treaty is ratified.

We have seen Articles 100a and 118a. Article 100a is concerned with the single market and competitiveness, and 118a is concerned with health and safety. They are being used in a manner which goes around the protection that we believed we had in the Social Protocol.

§        10 p.m.

§Lord Richard            My Lords, the argument in relation to the health and safety provisions and working hours has nothing to do with the protocol. It is under the existing treaty. Maastricht has not yet been introduced. Is that not so?

§Lord Tebbit            My Lords, of course they come under the existing treaty. the noble Lord is missing the point.

Lord Morris            Deliberately, my Lords.

§Lord Tebbit            My Lords, my noble friend says “deliberately”; I am not sure. The point is, first, that it was the Single European Act—we must not forget this—which introduced majority voting on matters of health and safety and Article 118a. That indicates the goodwill of the British Government towards getting the matters of health and safety through. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, will remember the saga of the lead and asbestos directives in which both he and I featured.

§Lord Richard            And on the same side, my Lords.

§Lord Tebbit            My Lords, indeed, we were “collaborateurs”, if I may use that expression. We dealt with such difficult matters as the Danish objection to giving greater protection to women workers than to men, maintaining that that was sexually discriminatory. We eventually got round that. But the point I am making is that those articles            224            are there for specific purposes: the protection and health of workers in one case, and the elimination of unfair practices to restrict competition in the other. Of course they are not there for the promotion of social legislation, and I think it will be made very much easier for them to be used for that purpose now that the social chapter is part of Community law and now that paragraph 2 of Article G of Title II has been changed.

That is why we are going to see an increasingly aggressive stance by the Commission in bringing matters forward which might have been brought under provisions which require unanimity. But instead of that they will bring them forward under provisions which allow qualified majority voting. The purpose of these amendments is, broadly speaking, to say that if an item could have been brought under a section of the treaty which requires unanimity, it should not be brought under a section which only requires qualified majority voting. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable protection. That is the purpose of these amendments, and that is why I believe they should be supported.

§Lord Richard            My Lords, the terrible thing sometimes is that one actually reads the amendment before one listens to the speeches. The noble Lord says that this is all about avoiding a situation in which decisions can be taken by qualified majority, which he assumes would then be binding upon the United Kingdom. The amendment says that in any situation in which a regulation or directive could be brought either under the treaty to which we are a party or under the social protocol to which we are not a party, then, ipso facto—never mind the merits of the issue or the argument about whether it is good for British workers or not—that is the determining test. If it passes that test, it goes off into the protocol machinery which by definition, because of this marvellous opt-out the Prime Minister negotiated for us, is not applicable to the United Kingdom.

That is what it is all about. I see the noble Lord shakes his head. In other words, what it is all about is that Community social legislation for the future shall be pushed into the provisions of the social protocol and shall not be subject to the provisions of the treaty. That is what it is all about, despite the fact that under the protocol certain decisions have to be taken by unanimity and not by qualified majority voting. It does not matter whether it is something that British workers would find desirable or whether British industry would find it desirable, whether it is to do with social security and social protection of workers, whether it is to do with collective representation, collective defence of the interests of workers and employers—not even whether it is to do with encouraging consultation between management and labour. Never mind: if it comes under this label, it has nothing to do with the United Kingdom and it goes off there. I am bound to say that if ever there was a narrow view—an extraordinarily narrow and limited view—of the position of the United Kingdom inside the European Community, that is it.

Can I leave just one last thought with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, because I listened to him for a                        225            quarter of an hour talking about this, and I think that the point is a very simple one. With great respect to him, he could put it in 30 seconds. He talks about democracy and about democracy within the European Community. I remember that many years ago I was in Alabama in the south of America. A rather nice lady came up to me with a microphone and thrust it under my nose and asked: “Mr. Ambassador, what do you think about all these undemocratic goings-on at the United Nations?” I paused for a moment and asked: “What undemocratic goings-on?” She said: “Well, you know, Mr. Ambassador, they are always voting us down”.

In a sense, running like a continuous thread through the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is that somehow or other this country is in a unique position so far as concerns our Community partners. He puts “the Continent” in inverted commas almost as if it were “that lot over there”. He refers to the Continental view of the law, social policy and economics. He suggests that somehow or other we have no part in that. It is so different that Britain cannot adapt to the Continent; it has no relevance to what goes on in this country and therefore we should retreat from it. I find that an absolutely astonishing attitude with which to approach the affairs of Britain in the late 20th century.

I leave the House with one final thought. Whether something is done under the health and safety regulations or under other provisions of the treaty; whether something is done under the old provisions of the treaty or under the terms of the Social Protocol, were the noble Lord’s amendment to be carried, protection is provided by the European Court. His noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross did exactly the same; when in doubt, attack the Court. Why attack the Court? Because they are all wicked Continentals whose main purpose in life is to do Britain down on any issue upon which we come before the Court. What absolute nonsense!

Anyone who has observed the Court at work will know that it is an extremely high-powered, skilled and distinguished group of jurists who do their best to interpret the Treaty of Rome and the other treaties in a strictly legal way. I am beginning to resent the continual sniping at the good faith and integrity of members of the European Court.

Lord Morris            My Lords, I would like to leave the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with a little thought—

§Baroness Trumpington            My Lords, no, not “a little thought”.

Lord Morris            My Lords, with a question. Will he consider this view? The fundamental difference in essential matters between the United Kingdom and the Continent is that the laws of England and those of the United States, the Dominions and those now independent Afro-Asian states, were and are based on the libertarian principles of common law. In contrast, the European system of Roman law is based on didactic codified readings of authority derived from Justinian and Napoleon. It is not merely a juristic difference, but also a fundamental divergence of            226            outlook, the one favouring freedom and the other emphasising authority. Does the noble Lord agree with that view?

§Lord Richard            My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I admire the jurisprudential skill of the noble Lord in putting such a complicated question in such a clear and unambiguous way. I do not agree with it because the law is not static. Anglo-Saxon law and Continental law have changed. If anything, there has been a coming together rather than a growing apart.

§Lord Tebbit            My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that essentially what he has said is that in his belief it is no longer appropriate for the people of this kingdom to decide their own affairs in these matters and that where there is a difference between ourselves and a majority of the others, we must bow the knee to them in all respects? I find that is a not an idea which is attractive to me nor to most people in these islands.

§Lord Richard            My Lords, neither is it attractive to me. It is a total travesty of what I was saying. Some of these matters are in the interests of the British people. If they are in their interests then any sensible government will pursue them. At the moment the real question is whether it is in the interests of the United. Kingdom to co-operate with our European partners in the manner set out in the treaty. I believe that it is. The noble Lord regards himself and the people of this country as so different from our Continental neighbours that such co-operation must, almost by definition, be against the interests of the British people. I totally reject that.

§        10.15 p.m.

§Baroness Chalker of Wallasey            My Lords, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that he had my sympathy also for being almost outside the Chamber as we approached Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. Nevertheless, he asked some cogent questions and I shall do my best to answer them.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was absolutely right in his description of Amendment No. 39. It can best be summarised by saying that it requires the Government to veto any proposal for action in the social field by the Community that relates to any matter contained in the agreement between the Eleven on social policy. We are not part of the Eleven. By virtue of our agreement, we are separate from the Eleven.

Similarly, I can summarise the purpose of Amendment No. 38. It is to delay the Act coming into force until there is an agreement that the agreement between the Eleven on social policy, rather than the existing provisions of the Treaty of Rome, will be used for all proposals for legislation on employment and social affairs. That is undesirable both in terms of delaying the coming into force of the Act and because it requires an agreement that simply would not be negotiable.

I understand why there is anxiety. This has not been an easy part of trying to decide what is best for British industry and British workers, and we do have a                        227            difference of opinion with our continental partners. But the very fact that we faced up to that difference of opinion and sought to get a protocol which allowed the Eleven to go their way on the issues on which they wished to combine while we have an opt-out which is valid and which will be useful seems to me to be honest, direct and open. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the opt-out was not water-tight. I could not disagree with him more. The Eleven could go far further under the social chapter than they do currently in the social field under the treaties. However, our opt-out leaves us aside from the decisions of the Eleven. That is why the protocol is powerful for us.

We regularly succeed in reducing the proposals that are put forward by the Commission. Obviously, as I have described in previous debates both in Committee and earlier on Report, it is open to us to challenge in the European Court of Justice any proposals which are adopted which we believe go beyond the powers in the treaties. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, clearly, there are eminent judges—some from this country; not all from other countries—in the European Court of Justice. In any case, saying that we can go to the European Court of Justice in challenging a decision taken in the Community is an argument against the existing treaties and not an argument against Maastricht because our opt-out has limited our further involvement.

I do not believe that the other 11 would have argued so strongly for such provisions if they were an unnecessary duplication. There is a separate way of doing things, and the social protocol unequivocally states that measures adopted under the protocol will not apply to the UK. That was unanimously agreed by all 12 member states. The protocol has treaty status and I am confident that the European Court of Justice will give it effect. Clearly, the official Opposition think so too, which is why they have gone to very considerable lengths to have us opt-in.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the present position on social affairs is admittedly difficult. Through the opt-out, we seek to ensure that it does not get any more difficult. I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has used this phrase—and I may have used it previously—that although it may not be perfect and just because a burglar may climb in through the window, it is no reason to open the front door to him. I believe that in going down the path of the opt-out we are making a sensible provision.

To sum up on the amendments—

§Lord Tebbit            My Lords, would my noble friend kindly give way?

§Baroness Chalker of Wallasey            My Lords, I shall give way just this once.

§Lord Tebbit            My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Will she assure me that she is confident that we shall not have legislation which the Government believe is appropriate to the social            228            protocol—that is, social legislation—foisted upon us through other sections of the treaty where majority voting applies?

§Baroness Chalker of Wallasey            My Lords, should, under any circumstance, the other 11 seek to foist upon us legislation which is not applicable to us, we have our option to take that to the European Court of Justice. One can never be 100 per cent. certain, as my noble friend will realise if he thinks back over his many years.

§Lord Tebbit            My Lords, my noble friend cannot be certain.

§Baroness Chalker of Wallasey            My Lords, I cannot be certain, but I am confident—those were the words that I was going to use—because of the advice that I have received and because of the difference of the drafting of the social protocol and of the agreement which, as I said just now, was agreed unanimously by all 12 member states.

The reason that I advise your Lordships against the amendments is that they misunderstand the nature of the protocol on social policy. They misunderstand why we negotiated it at Maastricht. The Treaty of Rome provides us with the basis for EC action in the social field. We expect the Commission to continue to bring forward proposals for legislation by the 12 on the basis of the Treaty of Rome, even when the Maastricht Treaty and the protocol are in force.

We remain committed to sensible policies in the social field under the existing provisions, but as I have sought to make clear previously in your Lordships’ House, we are not prepared to support the extra measures envisaged by the agreement between the 11. That would involve increased powers for the Community in the social field; a wide extension of qualified majority voting; and a decline in European competitiveness. It would do nothing to help solve the European-wide problem of unemployment with which, as we well know, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and all our Ministers are committed to dealing with their partners in the Community.

I know that there are some overlaps between the existing treaty provisions in the social field and the provisions of the agreement of the other 11 member states. I am not surprised at that because the agreement of the 11 started life as proposals to substitute for the existing treaty articles on social policy. For example, minimum standards in the field of health and safety at work are covered by Article 118a of the Treaty of Rome and the health and safety of workers more generally by Article 2 of the agreement.

Taking the blanket approach which Amendment No. 38 proposes, or forcing the UK to veto any proposal for Community action in areas that might be covered by the agreement, as Amendment No. 39 seeks to do, is just not appropriate. It would mean that policies that we support such as minimum standards in health and safety, where Britain’s record is second to none, could not be adopted by the European Community but rather only by the other 11 member                        229            states. That would not be in our interests, and that is one further good reason why I urge your Lordships to reject the amendments should the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, press them to a vote tonight.

§Lord Harris of High Cross            My Lords, it has been useful to have this run around the track once again, not least because it brings into the open the contrast between the approach of the Government Front Bench and the Labour Front Bench. We heard from the Minister a frank admission that there are differences of opinion with our European partners on this matter, and that the position on social affairs is difficult. Their hope is that those difficulties will be contained by the protocol. In the sharpest contrast, we have the view of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that all is well and could hardly be better.

§Lord Richard            I never said that.

§Lord Harris of High Cross            My Lords, by implication, any criticism that is levelled is outside the admissible bounds of debate. We are parodied more or less as being anti-European and so on. I have heard about people going native in Brussels but the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has become a full blown native chief. He puts on that performance.

230            Our anxieties are genuine. We hope that they are misplaced. I hope that in a year or two’s time the Government can demonstrate that the protocol has afforded us full protection against the worries that we have and that are shared.

Since it is approaching what I define to be the standard European bedtime, I propose that the amendment shall be withdrawn and we shall save our strength for tomorrow.

§        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§        [Amendment No. 39 not moved.]

§Baroness Trumpington            My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Now, for those of you “disgusted” by the language. Trust me, your disgust pales in comparison to mine at your lethargy, stupidity, your political correctness (which has been a huge help to thse traitors) and my disdain and disgust at these traitors.

Half of you I read on news sites etc crying “treason” toward Muslims in the UK who speak out against our troops for doing what they are doing to people around the world on ORDERS from the REAL traitors to your country who use the troops as human cattle, human sacrifice and dogs in THEIR wars for THEIR benefit not yours! You’re a bunch of ill educated fcuking idiots!

YOU DON’T KNOW SHIT! And you’re happy with it while you bleat and moan about the state of this country!

The Oil Kings, Golda Meir, a Phantom Jet and a nuke!

This is just a short post more for the purposes of reminding myself about this book.

I was in Waterstones yesterday glancing though a few books – one called “The Oil Kings” basically all about the connections between the US/UK and the oil nations in the ME while taking you through the story of the 1970s oil crisis, Kissinger, Nixon, Ford etc. Looked a bloody interesting book. While I was sitting reading a few pages and looking up a few names in it (yes Rockefeller was in there and when you recognise what this bastard is, you see how he manipulates things even though the book doesn’t develop that side of the story – do they ever?) it discussed the 1973 Arab/Israeli war (and a lot of what is in the book is taken from previously unreleased Whitehouse transcripts). It states that Israel was within a hair’s breath of losing that war until the US covertly stepped in with further supplies for them. BUT, the thing is, Golda Meir had actually put a nuke on a Phantom Jet and was ready to drop it because Israel had run out of conventional weaponry and tactics. Meanwhile, Kissinger, while supporting Israel to the hilt, was pissed off with them big style because he considered them incompetent tactically.

"SHE WAS A LOVELY OLD DEAR. USED TO MAKE US TEA AND NUKIES!"

Now, consider that fact re Meir with this:

(Prof Creveld) “Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under.”

Speaking during an interview which was published in Jerusalem Friday, Professor Martin Van Creveld said Israel had the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons.

“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.“

See: Israel: “The Mad dog”

This is THEIR words and THEIR actions, not mine! You CANNOT describe someone as “anti semite” because they point out the words of mentally instable people! It’s like having a murderer state he did it and would do it again but when you go to call him a psycopath, you are attacked for being “anti semite” when people recognise the murderer’s name is COHEN!

“Oh you’re just calling him a psycho because he’s jewish!” Give me a break!

While there was a hell of a lot more in the book and what gave me immense pleasure, in a “recognising hypocrisy of the nth degree” sort of way was when I read details regarding how Europe and the US were perfectly content with Iran developing Nuclear technology while under the Shah. You must remember that the author of this book is not writing it from the perspective of today and what so many people now recognise as the New World Order. He is simply writing in the fashion of historical facts relating to that time and using previously unreleased material to boot. The passages refering to the Shah’s nuclear development were treated in a nonchalant manner because the facts were that, under the Shah, as a western puppet installed after the downfall of Mossadegh (an unfortunate name for an Iranian leader I always thought) due to the CIA instigated coup in 1953, “we” (our lovely hypocritical bastards in our western governments) had absolutely no issue, at first, with Iran developing nuclear technology which was AGAIN at that time, suggested by the Shah as being primarily for civilian power purposes.

But then the Shah had been battling for a long time with cancer – unknown to the Americans and others – while Kissinger started to wonder if he was really “the hard man” Kissinger had hoped he would be.

President Gerald R. Ford and the Shah of Iran confer over a map during the Shah's May 1975 visit to Washington, D.C. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sits in the background. (Photo courtesy of Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library)

U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations in 1970s Featured Shah’s Nationalism and U.S. Weapons Worries Newly Declassified Documents Reveal Remarkable Continuity with Today’s U.S.-Iran Nuclear Controversy
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 268
Edited by William Burr Posted – January 13, 2009
For more information contact: William Burr – 202/994-7032

Washington, D.C., January 13, 2009 – During the 1970s the Shah of Iran argued, like current Iranian leaders today, for a nuclear energy capability on the basis of national “rights,” while the Ford and Carter administrations worried about nuclear weapons possibilities, according to newly declassified documents published today by the National Security Archive for the first time.  Uranium enrichment capability is now the major point of controversy between Tehran and the world community, while during the 1970s Washington’s greatest concern was that Iran sought a capability to produce plutonium, but in both instances the implication was that a nuclear weapons option might not be far away.

The documents, obtained by the Archive through a mandatory review request, show that two U.S. presidents dealing with the Shah of Iran, Ford and Carter, put concerns over proliferation and the Shah’s possible desire to build a nuclear bomb front and center when they approved negotiating positions for a deal to sell nuclear reactors to Iran.  While Iranian officials argued then, as they do today, that Iran had “rights” under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to develop nuclear technology, the U.S. government successfully sought an agreement that put nonproliferation controls over U.S.-supplied nuclear material.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution derailed the agreement, but the approach that the Ford and Carter administrations took shows significant continuity with contemporary U.S. and world policy, which holds that Iran must not use its technological capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. The documents contradict the 2005 claim by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that non-proliferation was not an issue in the 1970s negotiations; this was a “commercial transaction,” Kissinger told The Washington Post.

index.htm

From what I read yesterday (again taken from Whitehouse transcripts), while there may have latterly been concern re nuclear proliferation due to the Shah’s ailing health and a consideration that some leadership may then arise which is not “American friendly”; While Kissinger, Ford etc considered Iran stable under the Shah, they were perfectly happy with supplying nuclear technology. I’d disagree with the above, therefore and agree that Kissinger saying it was a “commercial transaction” was, in fact, the way it was because it also surrounded the Shah’s escalating oil prices.

The strange thing is this however: It seems clear as day that these “superb minds” like Kissinger et al, will actually make decisions (i.e. nuke or no nuke) on the basis of the terms America have with an existing regime. Now considering regimes are always changing (a man only lives a certain length of time), this means that they then need to deal with their previous decisions at a later date and it is a constant battle between their long term goals and the short term goals they strive for which scupper their long term goals. If you see what I mean? They trip over themselves. What they do in the 1970s comes back to haunt them in the 90s etc. It’s that mentality of sweeping the mess under the carpet hoping it goes away while the mound just grows and grows. The height of sheer stupidity. But ALL down to short term greed. They think of no-one but themselves while they build a world which will impact their own offspring. Their offspring may well find themselves in a world where they are hunted down for the crimes of their fathers because people will wish to eradicate these psycopathic family bloodlines (like the Bush’s).

Lastly, there was mention of Standard Oil and how, at the time when America and UK were doing so much business with Iran for oil, Esso (Standard Oil) only had a 7% stake in the consortium. Just by coincidence then, you understand, the Americans and the west dropped Iran as a prime source and developed Saudi Arabian oil as the primary source. Within THAT consortium, Esso ended up with a 40% stake.

America: Destroyed by Executive Orders!

Dear America,

It was nice knowing you! You never quite managed Independence (even though you may have thought you did but then you know how immensely deceptive these people are now and have always been) but you were the closest thing to freedom – note I do not use that disgusting, deceptive term “democracy” – that the planet ever had. However, even all the way back to George Washington, you were never quite free. But that detail, perhaps, is for another time, another blog and will take a long, arduous explanation.

How America was founded – the principles in a nutshell:

A Republic, If You Can Keep It
Jacob G. Hornberger, November 2001

AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Regardless of one’s judgment concerning the type of government that the Constitution brought into existence in 1787, no one can deny that it was truly the most unusual and radical in history.

Consider: With the tragic exception of slavery, the United States was a society in which people could, by and large, engage in any occupation or economic enterprise without a government license, permit, or regulation.

Where people could travel anywhere in the world without restriction (no passports) and trade with whomever they pleased without the permission of their government officials.

Where people could accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth without government interference, because the Constitution did not permit the government to levy taxes on income.

Where people were free to do whatever they wanted with their own money — save, spend, donate, invest, hoard, or even destroy it.

Where government was not permitted to take care of people — no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, education grants, or foreign aid.

With a few exceptions (e.g., 1850s Massachusetts), there were no compulsory public (i.e., government) school systems.

No wars on drugs, poverty, or wealth.

And open borders for the free immigration of people from anywhere in the world.

Like I say, regardless of how you might feel about the political and economic philosophy of the Founders of our country, no one can deny that the political and economic system that they brought into existence was the most unusual and radical in history.

Our Founders’ philosophy toward foreign affairs was also an unusual one. A primary responsibility of the U.S. government, they believed, was to protect the nation from invasion or attack and not involve itself in the affairs or conflicts of other nations.

The Founders clearly understood that horrible things would be seen all over the world, such as brutal tyrannies and cruel dictatorships — after all, they themselves had only recently been the victims of the brutality and cruelty of the British Empire.

But they believed that the best gift that America could give to the world would be a model for a free, peaceful, harmonious, and prosperous society — a beacon for the rest of the world to follow. And they believed that that goal would be not be served if their government had the imperial power to straighten out messes all over the world.

Here’s what George Washington counseled to all succeeding generations of Americans in his Farewell Address:

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns…. Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”

Celebrating American freedom on July 4, 1821, U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered a speech to the U.S. House of Representatives setting forth the vision of the American republic:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart…. She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own…. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence … the fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world.

Thus, when our 18th- and 19th-century ancestors celebrated the Fourth of July each year, the concept of freedom that they were celebrating was totally different from the concept of freedom that Americans today celebrate on the Fourth. The freedom they celebrated involved a way of life in which government had little power to take their money, regulate their peaceful activities, or take care of them. It was also a freedom arising out of their government’s noninterference in the conflicts of foreign nations.

No one can deny that somewhere along the way, America changed direction, both domestically and internationally. How about a national debate as to which vision — the vision of Washington, Adams, Franklin, and Madison, or that of Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Nixon — should guide our nation into its third century of existence?

Meanwhile, let’s look at the reality behind what is termed an “Executive Order” by your President:

Executive Orders: The authority to use Executive Orders isn’t even provided for in the US Constitution! It’s clear that when a President is sworn in he is the Executive and has the power to ensure the law is faithfully/properly executed but the following is essentially all that refers to the Executive power of the President within your Constitution….

“The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

But that does not, in any way, suggest that he has any power to create laws and yet that is what all these EOs do!

The Constitution clearly means that he ensures law (as created by the CONSTITUTION not him!) is executed properly! They have seriously gone way beyond their powers and remit!

Washington himself was the first to issue an Executive Order. Unfortunately, however – and rather ironically, it was he who created the precedent so early into this Republic governed by the rule of law NOT Executive Order!

President Rutherford Hayes once warned that although  American chief executives had to that point been conservative men wedded both to  precedent and to modesty in the exercise of presidential power, a future  president committed to concentrating power in his hands could make of the office  what he wished.

Attorney William J. Olson spoke to those gathered for Y2K and the Presidency, the May 8 conference sponsored by The Conservative Caucus, concerning the unconstitutional use of Executive Orders. Excerpts from his talk follow:

“President Washington issued the first Proclamation; it was…to declare a Day of National Thanksgiving. It was…pursuant to some Congressional action… certainly that’s a Proclamation that’s perfectly legitimate. …

“Even his Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation…was pursuant to a 1792 statute.”

“But then we get to the Neutrality Proclamation, which did not cite any Congressional or statutory authority. It sought to impose penalties on U.S. citizens who would deal with European powers at war. …it was viewed by others in government as an abuse of Executive authority.

“And, when prosecutions were begun under that statute, the
court said, ‘No, that does not have the force of law, Mr. President. That is your opinion. You do not have the Congress’s concurrence. …’ The Congress then passed the law, and the prosecutions continued. But in any event, it was very instructive time because people had then read the Constitution. …”

[Note this last proclamation forbade any dealings with European powers at war. A GOOD call actually considering the fact that the Bush patriarch and so many other so called "Americans" (actually all globalists no matter whether they hold an American passport) funded the Nazi war machine even after war was declared and so many of the Allied Powers troops were slaughtered by the "machine" - well oiled let's say - which these so called "patriots" funded. Why is America (and yes Britain too) so stupid an sleepy-headed to acknowledge the facts that our governments and their Corporate/Banking paymasters play both sides and kill our own?]

Before leaving George Washington however, it is immensely enlightening to read incredibly prophetic words from the man regarding the introduction of political parties – Republican and Democrat not existing until after Washington’s Presidency (although there had been Federalists and Anti Federalists there were no specific parties):

The Dangers of Political Parties

Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton’s Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation with Great Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.

[Note: It is then obvious from this that the Federalists exist today in the form of Republicans while the Democrats have been more aligned with the French/German EU concept albeit that in the past 10 years or so Democrat and Republican, just as with Labour and Conservative in the UK, have been far more strongly aligned. Such is the influence of the real powers: Bankers, Bilderberg etc. There is still this split however to a degree whereby, in Europe, the British Conservative party, on the whole, still wish to have the greater say in Europe than the Labour Party which ties in with the Federalist/Republican attitude toward the UK and Europe. They all want the EU, it is just there is a little "negotiation" going on as to who has the greatest power within it. I am sure the Pilgrim Society will be working hard on this!]

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents.

Moreover, Washington makes the case that “the alternate domination” of one party over another and coinciding efforts to exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities, and “is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.” From Washington’s perspective and judgment, the tendency of political parties toward permanent despotism is because they eventually and “gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual.”

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies among groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.

Back to Executive Orders:

“Presidential executive orders are a particular type of presidential document that has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute. There is no law defining “executive order”, the meaning of the term has varied over the years. Prior to 1936, a document was an “executive order” because the president himself designated it as such. On February 18, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 7298 prescribing a uniform manner of preparing executive orders”.

guide_prespapers.html

Isn’t it interesting to read how the University of Oregon puts this? “has the force of law founded on his authority derived from the Constitution or a federal statute”.

The reality is nothing of the kind. There is NO authority derived from the Constitution or a Federal Statute whatsoever as we saw earlier. They even indicate this when they say  “There is no law defining “executive order”". We have to then assume that American law students just accept this on face value! Not very prudent of them then and indicates a concerning lack of diligence on their part!

Can Executive Orders be Overridden or Withdrawn?

The president can amend or retract an executive at any time. The president may also issue an executive order superseding an existing one. New incoming presidents may choose to retain the executive orders issued by their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely. In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an executive order, and they can be declared unconstitutional and vacated by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, let’s be clear here: Executive Orders are NOT “Law” at all in ANY shape or form. They are purely the wishes of the incumbent President. Period! That is purely and simply a dictator’s dream!

Theodore Roosevelt did not merely extend executive prerogative here or  there; he put forth a full-fledged philosophy of the presidency that attempted  to justify his dramatic expansion of that office. He contended that the  president, by virtue of his election by the nation as a whole, possessed a  unique claim to be the representative of the entire American people – a position  taken by Andrew Jackson during the 1830s and for which he was sharply rebuked by  John C. Calhoun. Each member of the executive branch, but especially the  president, “was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do  all he could for the people.” He could, therefore, “do anything that the needs  of the nation demanded” unless expressly prohibited in the Constitution. “Under  this interpretation of executive power,” TR later reflected, “I did and caused  to be done many things not previously done. … I did not usurp power, but I did  greatly broaden the use of executive power.”

Since TR believed himself to be doing the people’s will,  and since he believed his own rhetoric that portrayed the president as the  people’s unique representative in American government, his need to fulfill this  special mission overrode concerns about the separation of powers. He remarked  privately that in the United States, “as in any nation which amounts to  anything, those in the end must govern who are willing actually to do the work  of governing; and in so far as the Senate becomes a merely obstructionist body  it will run the risk of seeing its power pass into other hands.”

It was TR who pioneered rule by executive order as a  governing style among American presidents. Many Americans rightly howled during  the 1990s when Bill Clinton’s aide Paul Begala famously said of executive  orders, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.” But Clinton, who once  called Theodore Roosevelt his favorite Republican president, was only exercising  a power that TR had made a major feature of the presidential office early in the  century.

To appreciate the transformation that occurred in  American government under TR, consider the number of executive orders issued by  the presidents of the late 19th century. Presidents Hayes and Garfield each  issued none. Arthur issued three, Grover Cleveland (first term) six, Benjamin  Harrison four, Cleveland (second term) 71, and McKinley 51. TR issued  1,006.

Now, it is true that TR served nearly two terms. But  that figure is so much higher than that of his predecessors that it reveals a  vastly different philosophy of the presidency from that held by those who  preceded him.

To take just one domestic example, TR intervened in the  United Mine Workers strike in 1902, ordering the mine owners to agree to  arbitration. Should they instead remain obstinate, he threatened to order the  Army to take over and operate the coalmines. When informed that no  constitutional authorization existed for such a brazen act of confiscation, he  replied, “To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!”

Vice President Dick Cheney recently told the Washington  Post that when the Bush administration entered office, it was determined to  reinvigorate the presidency and reverse the steady reduction in executive power  and prerogative that had persisted since Watergate. But what reduction could the  vice president have had in mind? “The vice president,” noted Sen. John E. Sununu  (R-N.H.), “may be the only person I know of that believes the executive has  somehow lost power over the last 30 years.”

Whether or not the vice president was correct in his  analysis of the state of the presidency in the year 2000, there can be no  question that since then George W. Bush has dramatically expanded the powers of  the president – primarily though not exclusively in matters pertaining to the  war on terror.

One of the most notorious examples involved the torture  of prisoners, a power the administration claimed in the face of law and  international agreements to the contrary. “The assertion in the various legal  memoranda that the President can order the torture of prisoners despite statutes  and treaties forbidding it was another reach for presidential hegemony,” wrote  Anthony Lewis in the New York Review of Books. “The basic premise of the  American constitutional system is that those who hold power are subject to the  law…Bush’s lawyers seem ready to substitute something like the divine right of  kings.”

The Limits of Presidential Power:  Domestic Surveillance

Arguably the greatest controversy of all was the  revelation at the end of 2005 that the Bush administration had engaged in  domestic surveillance without the necessary warrants. James Bamford, author of  two books on the National Security Agency, points out the pertinent aspects of  what would appear to be the relevant law: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance  Act (FISA), passed in 1978. According to Bamford, then-Attorney General Griffin  Bell testified before the intelligence committee that FISA acknowledged no “inherent power of the President to conduct electronic surveillance.”

As Bell himself put it, “This bill specifically states  that the procedures in the bill are the exclusive means by which electronic  surveillance may be conducted.”

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush administration  officials spoke again and again of the president’s inherent powers. But the  pertinent statute in this case disclaims any such powers and requires that the  president proceed according to the guidelines set out by Congress, which  involves securing warrants from a special court. As things stand, the president  is claiming a right to engage in surveillance of any American, unrestrained by  any institutional check, in the service of the war on terror – a war that by its  very nature must go on indefinitely and, indeed, that we can never really know  is truly over.

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the  reason the administration did not seek to revise FISA to give the president the  clear and unambiguous power to order these wiretaps was that even a Republican  Congress would not have gone along. In a Dec. 19 press briefing, the attorney  general said, “We have had discussions with Congress in the past – certain  members of Congress – as to whether or not FISA could be amended to allow us to  adequately deal with this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be  difficult, if not impossible.”

The administration’s claim, as set forth by the attorney  general, is that Congress implicitly agreed to such wiretaps when in the days  following Sept. 11 it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators and  their allies. Of course, if Congress really had authorized them, it is not clear  why it would be so difficult for the administration to persuade Congress to  amend FISA accordingly in light of this permission.

The Limits of  Presidential Power: The New  Deal

Gonzales’s argument calls to mind H.L. Mencken’s 1937 “Constitution for the New Deal,” a satirical rewrite of the U.S Constitution,  which says of the attorney general, “It shall be his duty to provide legal  opinions certifying to the constitutionality of all measures undertaken by the  President.”

As the controversy over the wiretapping developed, it  was only a matter of time before the “even Lincoln did it” argument would be  heard. GOP apologists did not disappoint, reminding Americans that Honest Abe  engaged in massive violations of civil liberties while president. But Tom  DiLorenzo raises the proper reply to such claims in the form of remarks by  Supreme Court Justice David Davis – a personal friend of Lincoln – in the 1866  case Ex Parte Milligan: “The constitution of the United States is a law for  rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its  protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No  doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit  of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great  exigencies of government.”

As DiLorenzo suggests, if the government were to be  given carte blanche during wartime, all that would be necessary to whittle away  the people’s liberties would be to concoct – or to provoke – an endless series  of crises.

This is all deeply disturbing, to be sure. But to hear  much of the Left tell it, the presidency of George W. Bush is a bizarre  aberration in the history of the presidency and more or less sui generis. I have  no objection to those who describe the Bush presidency as utterly disastrous,  and I do not mean to excuse the president by recalling that the ideological and  institutional roots of the imperial presidency extend back at least a century.  My point, rather, is that a bit of history can enrich our  understanding.

Now, with all that in mind, perhaps you would wish to read the following Executive Order (just one of MANY bad ones which has been formulated to destroy America) written by George H.W. Bush:

?pid=23625#axzz1cxzNkkB0

He put America on sale to the highest bidder. While REMEMBER, all of that infrastructure (and natural resources) was built by you, the American people and funded by your tax dollars! The important Executive Orders for the people truly in charge never get repealed and the ones that do not quite do the job, get amended.

And note:

“Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No.
12612″

Federalism = “Monarchism” = Despotism

And now, it is so ingrained into your psyche that the Federal Government is all there ever has been and ever shall be that you have lost sight of what it SHOULD have been! You therefore, have lost your liberty and freedom America as so mant said you would. But it’s been out of sheer ignorance and misplaced pride. But pride comes before a fall.

The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that claimed a new centralized, disguised “monarchic” power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties. Some of the opposition believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others believed that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong. Another complaint of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution provided for a centralized rather than Federal Government (and in the Federalist papers James Madison admits that the new Constitution has the characteristics of both a centralized and federal form of the government) and that a truly federal form of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation.
With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalist movement was exhausted. It was succeeded by the more broadly based Anti-Administration Party, which opposed the fiscal and foreign policies of U.S. President George Washington.

Noted Anti-Federalists

Patrick Henry Samuel Adams George Mason Richard Henry Lee Robert Yates James Monroe

Mercy Otis Warren George Clinton Melancton Smith Arthur Fenner James Winthrop

One can also argue that Thomas Jefferson expressed several anti-federalist thoughts throughout his life, but that his involvement in the discussion was limited, since he was stationed as Ambassador to France while the debate over federalism was going on in America in the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

And who is it, do you think, who demands all of these Executive Orders and for what purpose?

It’s VERY simple. When you wish to destroy the sovereignty of a nation which has a working Constitution based upon the rule of law, you ensure you can change the law.

My question is: How do you make a “Conspiracy Theory” out of a blatant confession?

Rockefeller’s 2002 autobiography “Memoirs” he wrote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

A child could understand this and say “There you go dad! There’s the culprit! Well at least the main “American” one!”

NB: Portions of this blog have been taken from various sources including Wikipedia and The Daily Reckoning.

Thomas Paine re-affirms the illigitimacy of the UN Articles of Human Rights!

Having written the blog entitled “U.N. inadvertently confirms Freeman concept” u-n-inadvertently-confirms-freeman-concept  a week or so back, I must admit that I had no idea that such an ideology expressed within that blog would be further supported by such a figure as Thomas Paine. I have also, here, to admit my own ignorance in much of historical and political writings up until a few short years ago. Life, career and family tends to keep one busy and the last thing I was interested in, like so many still today, was politics and the finer details of Human Rights and other legal acts.

So, I am immensely surprised and delighted in stumbling over this book today by Thomas Paine because I couldn’t have asked for a better affirmation of what was written in the above blog.

The “Rights of Man” was written by Paine in 1791 and posits that popular political revolution is permissible when a government does not safeguard its people, their natural rights, and their national interests. Using these points as a base it defends the French Revolution against Edmund Burke’s attack in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).

The publication of Rights of Man caused a furor in England; Thomas Paine was tried in absentia, and convicted for seditious libel against the Crown, but was unavailable for hanging, having departed England for France.

Principally, Rights of Man opposes the idea of hereditary government — the belief that dictatorial government is necessary, because of man’s corrupt, essential nature. In Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) Edmund Burke says that true social stability arises if the nation’s poor majority are governed by a minority of wealthy aristocrats, and that lawful inheritance of power (wealth, religious, governing) ensured the propriety of political power being the exclusive domain of the nation’s élite social class — the nobility.

Rights of Man denounces Burke’s assertion of the nobility’s inherent hereditary wisdom; countering the implication that a nation has not a right to form a Government for governing itself. Paine refutes Burke’s definition of Government as “a contrivance of human wisdom”. Instead, Paine argues that Government is a contrivance of man, and it follows that hereditary succession and hereditary rights to govern cannot compose a Government — because the wisdom to govern cannot be inherited.

The arguments put forward in the “Rights of Man” are:

Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few… They… consequently are instruments of injustice.

The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

Government’s sole purpose is safeguarding the family and his/her inherent, inalienable rights; each societal institution that does not benefit the nation is illegitimate — especially the Monarchy, the Nobility, and the Military.

In essence then, Paine is stating (as expressed in bold type above) precisely what the blog regarding the UN’s Human Rights Charter based upon the deception of “LEGAL rights” is saying.

Isn’t it then interesting to note the British monarchy and nobility’s reaction to such simple, straightforward expression of man’s inherent rights and freedoms? Even today we see they do not wish you to simply have them but that THEY must bestow them upon you. Privileges therefore and not Rights. People MUST wake up and smell the coffee!

Thank you Mr Paine!

“Rights of Man”: index.htm

ADOLF HITLER DID NOT WANT WAR!

 

I have NEVER been a fan of Hitler nor the Nazis, nor the IRA or any Dictator during the vast majority of my life. Who the hell would be if they were sane individuals?

But, in recent years – just the past handful – I have researched so much into history and particularly hidden history and peered beneath the surface because I was compelled to do so by events which unfolded in my own life and left me speechless about the lies, deception and guilt of my own government, judiciary and western governments in general, that my entire belief system has been turned inside out. I have to say that this “research” of mine has not been minimal in any shape or form. It has been wide and deep and has taken up 4 solid years of my life (luckily I have immensely enjoyed it) and the blinkers are off and the eyes are wide open.

I can’t point the reader to every single book and text and paragraph and documentary that I have read or watched, nor regurgitate the entirety of the hours and days I have spent reading congressional and parliamentary minutes so as to crystallize everything which has led me to the conclusions and statements I make in my blogs. I would love to write a book but it would be enormous and I wouldn’t know where to begin (or end), This jigsaw puzzle is just so immense such that it involves every single subject associated with life and history and sociology itself. I have two degrees: In Physics and in Business studies which took 6 years in total to complete but, incomparison to the time I’ve spent on this in the past 4 years, those studies were “part time”. If there was such a thing as a PhD in this overall subject, I’d have two of them by now!

So, what I write and blog about is really just short insights into subjects I have looked at and, for everything which I do post, I expect the reader, if they are interested either to confirm for themselves or for the purpose of challenging and denying, to research for themselves.

Not wishing to offend anyone but the more I read and learn of this character, the more I admire him and disbelieve the absolute shit we have been conditioned into believing of him. Further the more I understand of the zionist creeps, liars and thieves in our own governments and establishment, then even more to I admire this guy for his achievements. So very similar to Gaddafi’s. There is no doubt that we have been seriously deceived.
And no, I am no Nazi but I seriously question whether it would have been a bad thing.

Of course, from the amount I have to say negatively about Zionism – and those who would wish to consider this to mean all jewish people and is just a “front” for an assumed “Nazi” to be “anti semitic” – and now praising, or at least admitting admiration for Adolf Hitler, those who would wish to label me whatever will. For those people let me be blunt: I do not give a FCUK any longer. Your perception is just that and is coloured by what you wish to believe and your own prejudices.

So with that, I ask you to listen to this video speech by Adolf Hitler where he, in his own words, makes it quite clear that he never wished for war with America and had not with Britain either.

 

Now, of course, you are going to suggest “well that’s Hitler talking – a crazed genocidal dictator” etc etc. He lied.

Ok, sure I understand that. After all, that’s what we have been led to believe for decades. I don’t know about you though but I wasn’t born until well after the war and yet, what I see from “our side” re Hussein, Gaddafi etc, is a solid block of bullshit. Why should it have changed?

So here is someone else saying, concretely, Hitler did not wish for war with Britain:

“I received a telephone call from my friend ‘Putzi’ Hanfstaengi, who was at that time Hitler’s personal private secretary and court jester. He told me that the Führer had been reading my speeches with interest, and would like to see me at his headquarters in the Esplanade Hotel.

It is true that when I walked across the long room to a corner in which he was sitting writing, in a brown shirt with a swastika on his arm, he waited without looking up until I had reached his side, then sprang to his feet, lifted his right arm, and shouted ‘Hitler!’; and that I responded by clicking my heels together, raising my right arm, and shouting back: ‘Boothby!’

I talked with Hitler for over an hour; and it was not long before I detected the unmistakable glint of madness in his eyes. I was much impressed by his grasp of Keynesian economics at that time. He said that I was quite right about economic
expansion, and the means by which it could be achieved. But he added that this was now a political crisis, and that political forces would bring him to power. “After that,” he said, “I shall bend economics to my will; and I have in my hands the necessary instrument, a man called Schacht.” He had no sense of humour. He asked me how I would feel if Germany had beaten us in the last war, and driven a corridor between England and Scotland. I said: “You forget, Herr Hitler, that I
come from Scotland. We should have been delighted.” He did not smile. Instead he brought his fist down with a crash on the table and said: “So! I had no idea that the hatred between the two peoples was so great.” Perhaps this was one of the reasons why he sent Hess to Scotland in 1940, for I am sure that he did; and why he never bombed Edinburgh.

I then asked him, point-blank, what he was going to do to the Jews. I thought Hanfstaengi was going to faint, but only a flicker of irritation crossed his face. After a moment he said: ‘There will be no pogroms.’ I think that, at the time, he probably meant it. He had already planned to take over the whole of central and eastern Europe, and intended to deport all German Jews to those countries. What I cannot bring myself to believe is that he was unaware of what Himmler ultimately did to them.

That night I thought long and earnestly about the interview. I came to the conclusion that his plans were far more advanced than I had thought. He did not then wish to attack Britain and the British Empire, or even France. What he was determined to do was to bring the whole of central and eastern Europe under German control; and for this purpose Austria, and above all Czechoslovakia, were the key points”.

From Lord Boothby’s biography: “Recollections of a rebel” 1978. 

Boothby, while a homosexual and having a relationship with Ronnie Kray while the British government hushed it all up and told the Met Police to lay off – thereby allowing the Kray twins to carry on for another few years (says a lot about how the Police are controlled by a corrupt government doesn’t it?) – there is hardly any reason for him to lie about the intentions of Hitler when he was so ardently opposed to the regime and any threat to the British Empire. Yes they still spoke of the British Empire in those days because, in fact, that Empire still exists today but simply in another form and it is based upon the money power. Always was. Adolf was a serious danger to that money power as was Gaddafi today. 

So. What are you going to do? Say on one hand that people have freedomm of speech and of expression and when they encounter factual data which has them form their own conclusions which don’t quite agree with those the government demand they should have, you act in the very same way that you try to teach the population that this guy acted with his population? So it goes something like this: “Listen, if you start talking about a fascist dictator like he wasn’t quite a fascist dictator then we will come and shut you up and shut you down so that you cannot express freely your beliefs or conclusions but WE’RE not fascist dictators!”? Is that what you’re saying Officers?

YOU FCUKING JERKS!

Don't let the bastards close you down!

Yes, that’s my MAC Officer. And YOU fcuking stole it! In total about 2 grands worth. You fcuking THIEVES! You ignorant dirty fcuking thieves make me sick with your ignorance and your excuse of “just doing our job”. You fcuking STOLE my property based upon BULLSHIT! And I intend getting it back and in poerfect working order or you will fcuking pay for it!

Al Qaeda given free pass to London Olympics!

Do you know that according to MI5, the ONLY groups to describe THEMSELVES as “Terrorists” have been The Stern Gang and The Irgun?

Is stating this “anti semitic”? Is it? For I simply pull this information from the pages of a book entitled “In defence of the realm – A history of MI5″. I suggest, then, that it is the authors of this book and MI5 which the Zionist Israeli state, ADL and/or our own internal Zionists, namely Cameron, Hague etc, take to task. I am but a messenger. But then they shoot messengers don’t they?

Why do I say they shoot messengers? Well, it’s like this: When terrorism strikes, it is rare that the building or area it strikes ever sees any casualties in the “top brass”. Think of 9/11: The alleged “Plane” didn’t hit the side of the building where all the top brass like Rumsfeld and Co were stationed, it hit a little “backwater” on the other side.

The Irgun were responsible for the first terrorist action in history when they bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946, which was the British Government headquarters in Palestine. Yet, strangely, once more, not a single high level official was killed or even hurt in that blast.

No the people who matter are never killed in these “tragedies” just as Larry Silverstein didn’t go to breakfast that fateful  morning of September 11th 2001 and the JP Morgan employees who mattered were told to attend their meeting, originally set for the towers, in offices further up the street while others were left to die.

Or just like Benjamin Netanyahu on the day of the 7/7 London bombings being told to stay in his hotel room just across from one of the tube stations when he was due to attend a meeting.

And so many more but all just “coincidence”. I am a lover of “Coincidence Theory” aren’t you? The vast majority of government, intelligence and the sleepy little public are. Why not join them? The world is such a sunny place if you do UNTIL YOU’RE BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS!

The Irgun or Irgun Zevai Leumi to give it its full title, was a Zionist paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was an offshoot of the earlier and larger Jewish paramilitary organization haHaganah. When the group broke from the Haganah it became known as the Haganah Bet, or alternatively as haHaganah haLeumit or Ha’ma’amad (Hamas? ;-0). Irgun members were absorbed into the Israel Defence Forces at the start of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

The Irgun was a political predecessor to Israel’s right-wing Herut (or “Freedom”) party, which led to today’s Likud party. Likud has led or been part of most Israeli governments since 1977.

The Irgun disagreed with the policy of the Yishuv and with the World Zionist Organization, both with regard to strategy and basic ideology and with regard to PR and military tactics, such as use of armed force to accomplish the Zionist ends, operations against the Arabs during the riots, and relations with the British mandatory government. Therefore the Irgun tended to ignore the decisions made by the Zionist leadership and the Yishuv’s institutions. This fact caused the elected bodies not to recognize the independent organization, and during most of the time of its existence the organization was seen as irresponsible, and its actions thus worthy of thwarting. Therefore the Irgun accompanied its armed operations with public relations campaigns, in order to convince the public of the Irgun’s way and the problems with the official political leadership of the Yishuv.

Menachem Begin: Leader of Irgun Terrorists and Murderers becomes Leader of Israel.

In late 1943, Menachem Begin accepted his position within the Irgun, a new leadership was formed.  Begin even assumed a Rabbi’s identity (“Yisrael Sasover”), and was sometimes known as “Ben Ze’ev” or “Dr. Kenigshopper”. Now imagine a terrorist going on to become the Prime Minister of the UK! But no, strike that. You don’t have to imagine it, we’ve already got it and had it. The present one even declares himself a Zionist with “jewish values” for christ’s sakes! LOL You couldn’t make it up!

David Cameron: Advises Israel Likud leadership that he is a Zionist and has their values and becomes PM of the UK. First job: Destroy Libya.

Now, Begin became PM of Israel leading the Likud party. Yitshak Shamir (ex Stern Gang leader) and Ariel Sharon also. Today we have Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni. ALL of them leading a Likud Party government and all of them coming into politics via an IDF which had embraced the terrorists that were Irgun (and Stern Gang). Furthermore, when considering the Stern Gang, consider this:

"I'm Bibi Netanyahu and I hope you hate Gazans too! The world may try to stop us but we own the US Congress!"

Lehi (Stern Gang) assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine. It was described as a terrorist organization by the British authorities.Lehi assassinated United Nations mediator Folke Bernadotte and was banned by the Israeli government. The United Nations Security Council called the assassins “a criminal group of terrorists,” and Lehi was similarly condemned by Bernadotte’s replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche. Lehi and Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin.

Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration, the Lehi ribbon. Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.

IN 1980 ISRAEL INSTITUTED A MILITARY DECORATION, THE LEHI RIBBON – TO COMMEMORATE TERRORISTS AND MURDERERS OF BRITISH POLITICIANS! THEY THEN ALLOW THESE MURDERERS TO BECOME LEADERS OF THE ISRAELI NATION!

In 1980, Israel instituted the Lehi ribbon, red, black, grey, pale blue and white, which is awarded to former members of the Lehi underground who wished to carry it, "for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel".

And even until today, the Likud celebrate that murder while our government lick their arse to the extent that they have even amended our “laws” to ensure that not one member of the Israeli government can be arrested for warcrimes. You see, “law” in this country is only what they wish it to be and there was a little loophole they had to fill to protect the guilty:

Then, of course, you had Yitzhak Rabin. A jew yes, a Zionist? Perhaps in HIS definition but certainly not in the definition of the Likud Party, The Stern Gang, Irgun etc. So he’s assassinated by the obligatory “Lone Gunman”. It just so happens, however, that the very person he tells his plan to was an Israeli Secret Service guy! Funny then how the Israeli secret service did not/could not simply stop him from carrying the threat out now isn’t it? We foil all sorts of “conspiracies” to murder, terrorise etc and here we have someone actually stating his intention but no, not this time – it goes ahead anyway!

During his years as an activist, Amir became friendly with Avishai Raviv, to whom he revealed his plan to kill Rabin. While Raviv posed as a right-wing radical, he was working for the Shabak, the Israeli secret service.

Funny how the intelligence agencies ALWAYS come into the picture now isn’t it?

You NEVER get a PM or a President assassinated if he calls the Armed Forces to destroy a sovereign country based upon outright lies but, you have a leader who is going to have peace break out and BANG! He’s dead from a lone gunman’s shot! Everytime. Without fail! And we STILL suck it up!

Yitzhak Rabin: No "Zionist" in the true, occult meaning of the word.

So, anyhow, “Al Qaeda given free pass to Olympic Games”?? Are you crazy?

Well no. I’m anything but while the “Coincidence theory” proponents of this world will suggest so – a little like that idiot Nick Pope.

Who IS “Al Qaeda”? PLEASE don’t tell me you are still believing in the fairy stories of Muslim shepherds on horseback and shadowy sandal wearing, cave dwelling (caves that didn’t exist) bearded “ghosts” crying “Allah Akhbar”.

Please don’t tell me you believe in men, who are intelligent enough to not only fly planes and get passed the most severe security apparatus in the world but also are LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS students, that have a whole life ahead of them but they choose to commit suicide. I mean what the hell are you if you do believe this SHIT? As gullible as a 4 year old who believes in Santa and the Tooth Fairy for god’s sakes?

The laughing gnomes (or patsies). I wonder where they are today? Bullet in the head or on a beach somewhere with their CIA money and Sangria? Or were they, in fact on a guided "missile" even though they weren't listed on the passenger manifests?

Do you really believe this shit? Then seriously – go see a psychologist!

Let’s try to be adult here – by adult I mean use one’s god given brain and logic. “Al Qaeda” is and always was a construct of the Intelligence services. At the heart of those intelligence services are the CIA, Mossad and MI5/MI6.

Going back to the “Defence of the Realm” book once more. Another interesting little nugget in that book was the following: It stated that it was not until 1998 that MI5 first managed to get a recording of Bin Laden’s voice – As if Bin Laden was some kind of “ghost” who had never been heard of or seen before. You are meant to ignore or forget the fact that Bin Laden had been working for the CIA for years beforehand and that Zbigniew Brzezinski, among others, had met and spoken with him as far back as the early 80s when. while being supported by CIA, Bin Laden was providing support to the Mujahidin in their fight against the Russians. But just forget all that. MI5 states in a book that it was they who finally got a recording of Bin Laden’s voice. The next point then is strange because, all of a sudden, after it taking an eternity to find a voice recording of Bin Laden, it was ONLY then that they then say “Al Qaeda” was invented. I guess this is because the recording had Bin Laden say “I will call my nasty terrorist group “Al Qaeda” in memory of the original CIA database of all our names in the Mujahidin. Just don’t call me Tim”.

Another strange thing happened once MI5 found that recording. All of a sudden (and remember I am only regurgitating from the book) all of this “intelligence” started spurting forth about this group called “Al Qaeda”. All of a sudden. “Al Qaeda” was plotting everything from attacking the USA with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to blowing up the public toilets outisde Highbury stadium because they also found out Bin Laden was a Man U fan! Or perhaps that was a mistranslation! MI5 agents refuse to comment on the grounds of national security!

So, again, how is it that “Al Qaeda” is being given a free pass to the London Olympics?

Well here’s why: They aren’t called the ZION Olympics for nothing…..

Mossad helps UK secure Olympics

Israeli secret service participates in
drill that simulates 1972 terrorist attack on Jewish athletes in
Munich

Yaniv Halili

//

Mossad officials participated in a security drill at London’s Olympic Park
last weekend.

A source at the British Cabinet told Yedioth Ahronoth that the drill
simulated a terrorist attack on athletes, similar to the one that occurred in
the Munich Olympics in 1972, when Palestinian terrorists took over the building
where the Israeli delegation was staying, and killed 11 of them.

The UK’s entire defense establishment, including the emergency services,
participated in the massive drill, which was held secretly by the British
Defense Ministry.

But British intelligence officials were not satisfied, and invited their
Mossad counterparts to share their experience.

The drill simulated a scenario where athletes are held hostage by terrorists.
A large part of the exercise took place inside the park’s residential buildings,
under live fire. The village was surrounded by guards who kept out
onlookers.

A source at the British Olympic Association said that “certain Israeli
elements are advising us on securing the Olympic games.” Israel is considered an authority on urban warfare.

Coming your way London: You can be sure Israel will pick up a few valuable "gold medals" at this year's games. Just perhaps not on the track and field events. Perhaps the shooting though!

The UK has allocated nearly a billion dollars for the security of the
athletic event – more than 10% of the event’s budget.

Last weekend’s drill is the first in a series exercises that are expected to
take place in the coming month. The British defense establishment is also
preparing to deal with attacks on other Olympic facilities and on the streets of
London, which will be flooded with tourists come next July.

YNet News:  0,7340,L-4067585,00.html

And you wonder why we have this: 

And this:

But, you say, “It’s just showing respect!”

Yes, I say, but if you were being given $millions to show your respect wouldn’t you?

Work it out! It really isn’t rocket science!

Imagine if Halliburton had had a document or documents pertaining to the possibility of an event taking place in the Gulf of Mexico on a BP rig, written just a year or so prior to the event taking place and they said “We always plan for certain scenarios”, it would just be accepted as coincidence. This is the problem. For so many, no matter what you show, no matter how factual it is (like all the references to 9/11 before the event) they will say “coincidence”. We live among madmen and idiots.

You can’t ignore predictions like these of 9/11 and 7/7 (but what am I saying? You do!) while there are now similar being suggested for the 2012 Olympics and when you have David Cameron adding in Surface to Air missiles as a defence screen for a sporting event and you have Mossad and FBI etc etc getting in on the act, if YOU wish to go within 100 miles of London that’s entirely up to you.

But I’m sure it’ll be a blast!