For Queen AND Country?
The Armed Forces and the Police: They LOVE their Queen. They think when they take that oath for Queen and Country it is all wrapped into one. What FUCKING IGNORANT IDIOTS they are! While they do their duty their own families are getting SCREWED by the very woman and HER family they swear an oath to!
THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF DUMB-ASSED STUPIDITY but what’s even worse is: Even when it’s put in black and white under their noses – never mind by a blogger but later by a national newspaper (though the newspapers never paint the whole picture in one nice big gulp. They just feed it gently over months or years piece by piece – that way the big picture gets ignored by the ignorant!) – they STILL don’t get it!
So let’s look at today’s (21st April 2012) headline in the Daily Mail for starters shall we?
The real news (but just a snapshot of it) next to Cowell just to distract the attention. "Oh I don't understand wind farms etc... sounds boring anyhow... so I'll read the Simon Cowell segment". GOD this fucking country is SO THICK and yet it then moans constantly about being screwed anally!
Now, a blog I wrote over a year ago: The Crown: Profiting from your misery!
To all you STUPID “monarchists”: You bloody fools! Those parasitical scum are screwing you left right and centre while you celebrate a Diamond jubilee and wave your silly little flags as the Olympic team and English football teams sing their praises for her and her clan every time they win a fricking medal!
What is it you do not understand about the monarchy (who are MEANT to be ONLY a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy – funny that when so many say we have no constitution!!) through their lovely little banking friends – the Crown Estate – OWN THE SEABED?
Now just before moving on, watch this little clip of the corrupt bastard you call your Prince:
What is it you do not understand about this?
UK PARLIAMENT ARCHIVES:
11 Feb 2003 : Column 245WH—continued
Seabed Management
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): I am delighted to have secured this opportunity to examine the workings of the Crown Estate Commission, which is one of the slightly gloomier corners of Government business. It is an area of public life that is not often overly troubled by the bright lights of public accountability, but it has a profound and real effect on the life of my constituents and many people who live in coastal and island communities throughout the United Kingdom. It was the subject of a considerable part of my maiden speech. …….
I would be delighted if the Minister were to say today that the Government will examine the question of ownership of the seabed. Such an initiative is long overdue. However, I realise that this is a Westminster Hall debate. I have been an MP long enough now to be realistic about what can be achieved. For that reason, I have asked that today’s debate be limited to the management of the seabed. Nevertheless, it never hurts to place on record my belief that it is fundamentally obnoxious that a body such as the Crown Estate Commission should exist and should exert power in the way that it does over coastal and island communities. I speak as one who represents several island communities and was born and raised in one.
It is questionable that we should allow such a body to raise money from things on which we depend, such as piers and marinas. We have no alternative but to use them, but rent is exigible by the Crown Estate Commission on them.
Now get this:
I turn to sub-sea cabling. The Minister may be aware that a project to lay a fibre optic cable between the Scottish mainland and Shetland is under consideration, although it is rather on the back burner. It would be in tune with an important Government policy on broadband to get that cable laid, and it might well be supported both financially and politically by the Scottish Executive, the Shetland Islands council charitable trust, the Shetland Islands council and the Orkney Islands council. However, if that is achieved, the Crown Estate Commission will charge no less than £64,000 a year in rent simply for the privilege of allowing that cable to lie on the seabed.
The same situation will transpire in the event that we are able to lay electricity cables to allow the export of electricity generated by tidal or wave power or wind power in the islands, which are uniquely well placed for the development of renewable energies.
SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS RENT (PER YEAR!!) FOR A SINGLE CABLE DOING NOTHING/ZERO/NADA BUT SITTING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA ON THE SEABED!
NOW work out why there is so much emphasis on OFFSHORE WINDPOWER and work out why, while the feed in tariffs for those using solar power on their houses has been dropped so dramatically last year (41p/KW to 21p/KW) while wind energy AND PARTICULARLY OFFSHORE WIND, was not hit?
Do you get it? It is SIMPLE!! While it is possible for people to receive money back from the energy providers (the feed in tariffs) for supplying the grid, the CROWN DO NOT WANT THAT AND THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE THE REMOTEST POSSIBILITY OF BEING “OFF GRID” AND SELF SUFFICIENT!
What happens when the generation of the electricity is offshore? There is NO self sufficiency and it ensures that all of our (your) energy supply is provided by the grid and NOT YOU!
Now, since the dawn of North Sea Oil, the Crown Estate have owned that because they OWN THE SEABED AND THE MINERALS – see the blog which provides the link to the FACT that Petroleum vests with the Crown!! It does so for this simple reason – the Crown owns the seabed and minerals! Doing so, the Crown has been making 12.5% “royalties” (outside of the tax paid to government coffers) from the day oil was first struck in the north sea. 12.5% of the value of EVERY barrel of oil!
Now back to the wind power: Remember that £64,000 rent for a single cable between the scottish mainland and the Isle of Skye? Well think about this:
Charlie, invest in this, go around the world promoting the doom of the planet like the young David Rothschild. Also invest in Tamar energy (biomass) with me, Jacob and Evelyn and make speeches at the EU Parliament so they know who's boss, and I assure you, you'll be the richest King ever as you screw your subjects to the fucking wall mate. Just watch the energy prices rise! 
Now consider this picture of a typical wind farm set up and all the requirements. THEN consider the number of turbines and then the number of cables between the turbines and the grid back onshore. Think about that number multiplied by at the very least £64,000 per year every year JUST FOR SITTING ON THE SEABED! Then wonder: WHO THE FUCK GAVE THE SEABED TO THE QUEEN AND THE CROWN ESTATE? THEN wonder once more about Tony Benn’s comments in Parliament regarding who or what the FUCK the Crown is in the first place? Put it all together and take a deep fricking breath!
Let's just ask one of many questions of this Crown Estate: "How many turbines are anticipated and how much is the rental PER CABLE PER YEAR for them to sit on the seabed doing FUCK ALL?"
Then, perhaps, we can also ask them how much they are charging for the rent of every single turbine itself?
NOW can you get it through your skull as to why they don’t want you generating your own electricity? But they will “create jobs” for you to create THEIR energy generating plant so that they can get you to pay for it and pay for your energy that you are working for them to generate! YOU CREATE FOR THEM AND THEY PAY YOU PEANUTS BUT THEN THEY MAKE IT WORSE BY CHARGING YOU FOR THE ENERGY YOU HELPED CREATE FOR THEM TO CHARGE YOU! DON’T YOU GET IT YET?
Now let’s just take a quick look at ONE aspect more of this:
The Crown Estate acting as a co development partner. How nice. What the FUCK does the Crown Estate know about anything? Anything at all? Nevermind the engineering of offshore wind farms. While the cost of just the development and CONSENT (consent by whom? Ah you guessed it – THE CROWN ESTATE!) is just 4% of the total cost of a 500MW wind farm. But that 4% comes to £60M! NICE!
Read the whole thing:
Now one last thing because you may read this and say “You said the Petroleum vests in the Crown and yet this says the Crown Estate doesn’t have control over the oil! So you’re wrong!!”
But listen: Even the UK bloody parliament doesn’t know who the Crown actually are! Read the blog: “Tony Benn, the straight man” - tony-benn-the-straight-man
THEN read once more: Petroleum vests with his majesty! The question then is “How many British Crowns are there?” Or is it that the Crown is something more than her majesty while she is the main focal point of it from the population’s ignorant perspective? Why, for instance, are there clauses in the Bank of England Act 1946 which are protected by the Official Secrets Act? Why is it that now, the Queen and her fucking family are being even more protected from scrutiny by this utter shit they call “law’?
Now here’s something else (how much do you actually need before that bloody penny drops you monarchical cretins?):
Charles: Richest King in history!
Republic warns of “historic stitch up” as Queen asks Parliament to allow royal funding changes
29th Jun 2011
Republic has described new plans to tie royal funding to Crown Estate revenue as an “historic stitch up” that could divert millions of pounds from public services.
The Queen today issued a “gracious message” asking Parliament to allow changes to royal funding which would see her paid a single annual grant based on a percentage of revenue from the Crown Estate. Proposals for the new “sovereign support grant” will be presented to MPs tomorrow and introduced in a new bill.
The royal household is currently funded through the Civil List and grants from several government departments.
Republic spokesperson Graham Smith said:
“The Crown Estate is not – and never has been – the personal property of the royals. The Windsors have no more right to its revenue than I do. To claim that it should fund their lavish lifestyle is deceitful and dishonest.”
“The Crown Estate is there to fund government and public services. If this deal goes through it will be a historic stitch up that will end up lining the royal family’s pockets.”
“We’ve seen that the royals are unable to keep their spending under control. The new grant is likely to lead to even greater waste with less accountability. It will give the royal household even more freedom over its finances at exactly the time when its expenditure should be more tightly controlled.”
“The office of the head of state should be funded like every other public body– through a budget agreed by Parliament and based on need.”
NOTES
Details of the funding changes are on the HM Treasury website: leg_sovereign_grant.htm.
The Crown Estate is a land and property portfolio, managed on behalf of the Government, whose surplus revenue is paid annually to the Treasury. It is the ‘hereditary possessions of the Sovereign’, not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.
New report reveals annual cost of British monarchy ‘enough to feed an army’
23rd Jun 2011
The annual cost of the monarchy has been found to be more than the entire annual MoD food budget and the equivalent of thousands of nurses, police officers and teachers, according to a new report.
The new report by campaign group Republic has revealed that the total annual cost of the British monarchy could be over £200 million, more than five times the official figure released by Buckingham Palace.
The report describes the monarchy as ‘one of the most expensive, wasteful and financially irresponsible institutions in the world’.
The estimated cost presented in “The ‘Value for Money Monarchy’ Myth” includes security expenditure, costs of royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, all of which are excluded from official figures.
The key findings include:
* The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).
* The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
* Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.
* £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.
* The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.
* Britain’s royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.
* Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family’s finances.
Republic will be holding a protest outside the gates of Buckingham Palace on Saturday June 25 at 1pm to raise awareness of the cost of the monarchy. The protest will go ahead despite the decision by the royal parks agency to withhold formal permission.
Republic’s campaign manager Graham Smith said:
‘This report cuts through the spin and shows beyond doubt that the British monarchy is a colossal waste of public money. The royals have shown that they are simply incapable of reining in their spending – they will continue to waste taxpayers money until the government stands up to them.’
‘In pointing out the scale of waste here we’re calling for an immediate start to opening up royal accounts. It’s time for the government to take control of the monarchy’s budget, pay the Queen a salary and make the royal household fully accountable to taxpayers.’
‘Every year we go through the charade of Palace press officers telling us what great value the monarchy is. It’s time for the royals and politicians to come clean – spending hundreds of millions of pounds on one family is morally indefensible, especially at a time of painful cuts.’
NOTES
For further information or comment contact Graham Smith on 07747 608 770 or graham@republic.org.uk
The report is available to download from www.republic.org.uk/royalfinances
The protest will go ahead outside the gates of Buckingham Palace at 1pm on Saturday June 25.
Visitors have been mesmerised by the quality that pervades every aspect – thanks to the demanding eye of a man who, in every aspect of his life, operates at the highest level.
The Rothschilds have always been well connected – Lord Rothschild’s son, Nat, has been the subject of media speculation after entertaining George Osborne and Peter Mandelson on the oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s yacht – but this family does not court publicity, preferring to operate through a network of connections behind the scenes. Indeed, Lord Rothschild rarely gives interviews, even about a subject as close to his heart as Waddesdon.
The purpose is to provide an archive and a conference centre, holding meetings on “subjects of interest to mankind, such as climate change, the environment, the Middle East, investment. Ten years ago I held a conference with Warren Buffet and people were queuing to come. I intend to do more of those, perhaps with the Saïd Business School at Oxford.
Lord Rothschild: My manor from heaven.
Now, it is significantly, the very last paragraph of this which is of immense interest and very telling. You see, the conference old Jacob refers to which he held 10 years ago is that conference at Waddesdon Manor which Arnold Schwarzenegger attended shortly before running for Governor of California. Furthermore, even more telling is the transcript of that meeting which was reported in the Times shortly thereafter. It was this:
Read it ( They knew! ) and recognise that these bastards not only knew what was coming but they planned it years before while the British Government (yes, even the UK chancellor, Alistair Darling, suggested he did not see the financial crash coming until 2007/2008. If not, then he was never obviously, “in the know”. You see, the Labour party (the left wing of the bird) pumped the bubble up (Tony and Gordon knew exactly what they had to do) and the right wing of the same bird (you see they are both run by the same people at the top) then imposes the austerity while there is no need for a national debt in the first place! See previous blogs on this proving it!
And lastly, Charlie linking up with the Rothschilds to invest in the very scam they preach is necessary to “SAVE THE WORLD”.
Charles’ Rothschild links and the screwing of a nation.
I mean, my apologies to those of you who still can’t quite grasp this but you must be as thick as dog shit not to understand what is and has been going on here for a very long time!
There was a reason I rewrote this song. Tongue in cheek yes but absolutely true nevertheless:
National Geographic: Who owns the moon? Could Richard Branson?
You may think this is crazy but just you watch!
ORDER! ORDER!
DO NOT DARE SUGGEST OR IMPLY ANYTHING WHICH IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS AND THAT THE PUBLIC MAY DEMAND IS THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED!
But Investigated by whom? You can see clearly what the issue is – as can they – yet they refuse to allow such to be discussed. It is this “People elected (or not) to this house can do no wrong” ideology. It raises them above the law for it is not to be implied, nor discussed.
Guthrie: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; Officer of the Order of the Bitish Empire; Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order; Chief of the Defence Staff between 1997 and 2001 and Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army, between 1994 and 1997; non-executive director of N M Rothschild & Sons, Colt Defense LLC, and Chairman (non-executive) of Siboney Ltd
You try working for both, a car manufacturer (as a buyer) and have a non executive directorship in a supplier to the car manufacturer who sells the latter parts. See how far you get!
We cannot allow this shit to go on! But, for some reason, we do.
You think this man made his money from being a good Military Officer?
Guthrie Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour)Fundamentally, it is true that how much money we spend as a nation on defence is a big issue. We frame it in terms of a proportion of our gross domestic product or sometimes we talk about increasing expenditure in real terms. Whatever we do, there is an argument to be won with the public at large. For that reason, when we talk about the military covenant, we should think in those terms—of the public at large—rather than just in terms of the relationship between Ministers, the Government and service personnel.I want to add a mild note of criticism. People generally tend not to criticise the Royal British Legion and, on the whole, I do not either. I do think, however, that a touch of some aspects of its campaign over the military covenant has jumped into that space for criticism. It may have been done for good campaigning reasons, but it has jumped into that space where people have tended to view the campaign as a criticism of the Government. I find it slightly peculiar that the Royal British Legion put on events at party conferences, yet did not allow Ministers to speak on the grounds that it would be political. Why come to party political conferences? It seemed rather peculiar. The Royal British Legion's campaign has largely been sound and appropriately delivered, but some aspects in the margins should be thought about again more critically before it launches into its next big campaign on whatever subject.Guthrie
Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour:
I would now like to say a few words about what I believe to have been disgraceful behaviour in the other place, which was co-ordinated and organised by the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. These are people who want to put themselves above politics, yet they will quite happily stand at the launch of a perfectly legitimate “Way Forward” Tory party document. I realise that Conservative Way Forward is more a Tory think-tank than an official party document, but it is preposterous in the extreme to think that former chiefs of staff can write a foreword to a political pamphlet and then try to pretend that they are above politics. That is a farce. Frankly, although I realise that they have a great deal to contribute—they are enormously talented and capable officers—if they want to put their political cards on the table, let them do it, but let us not shilly-shally about what their political sentiments are.
BlackBerrys are a miracle. I think I am right in saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am allowed to get some data on my BlackBerry as I am sitting here. I say that because this may not be a complete list. I do not think that General Guthrie mentioned the fact that he was a paid director of Colt Defence, Siboney Ltd, Sciens Capital, and Rothschild; or that Field Marshall Inge mentioned that he was a paid director of Aegis, which clearly has interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
- Sir Evelyn Rothschild
They are excellent companies, by the way, and I know that they will be very excited and pleased to see themselves referred to in this place today. Lord Boyce is a paid director of WS Atkins and of Vosper Thornycroft. I may be wrong, as I have just had a quick perusal of the Hansard from the other place. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the rules are and I doubt whether they have broken any of them. However, I will say that former chiefs of staff are probably earning more from their directorships than paid Members of this House and that if they do not want to declare those directorships and if they want to get politicised and personalised—
- Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 12 December 2007, c355)
Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is one thing to refer to the qualifications and interests of Members of the other House, but he must be careful not to imply anything else when he makes these remarks.
- Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 12 December 2007, c357)
Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour)
I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me just say that if they want to become personalised and politicised and to earn lots of money from interests that they do not declare before they make a speech, that will enormously devalue how they are perceived. That would be a great pity, as it would devalue their advice and their comments, which would be highly regrettable.
Just have the balls to say it Eric: They’re on the take!
Come on folks. Stop letting these bastards take the piss out of you all. Make your voices heard.
Crud-ass
From: Earthling
To: jon.cruddas@compassonline.org.uk
Subject: RE: After the veto – what future for Britain in Europe?
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:59:06 +0000
Jon Cruddas MP
It’s been a dramatic and tumultuous week for Britain’s future in Europe. It is why leading figures from Compass, Policy Network and the Social Liberal Forum have written to The Guardian criticising David Cameron’s use of the veto and urging all on the centre-left to get behind a European Financial Transaction Tax, you can read the letter published today by clicking here.
Off of the back of this week’s political events we would like to invite you to a special Westminster Debate we have organised in partnership with Policy Network entitled After the veto: what future for Britain in Europe? from 6pm – 7.30pm on Tuesday 17 January in the Commons (speakers to be confirmed). Spaces are very limited and we expect demand to be high – click here to register now.
We have organised this debate because at Compass we fundamentally believe that Britain’s future and that of the good society does indeed lie in Europe.
It is why in 2008 I published with Andrea Nahles, a leading figure in the German SPD, Building the Good Society. Now our network stretches across twenty European nations as we’ve been building the idea of Europe and the good society. Conferences and events are taking place across the continent on the themes of equality, sustainability and democracy.
With key elections in France and Germany in 2012, for the European Parliament in 2014 and then the UK in 2015 it is critical the centre-left builds a set of ideas, polices and organisation for the good society in Europe and takes power on that basis.
That is why we’re also delighted to announce that a major new book on this theme has just been published entitled The Future of European Social Democracy: Building the Good Society edited by Henning Meyer and Jonathan Rutherford. Click here for full details.
So if you care about Britain’s future at the heart of Europe and that of a good society, we would ask you to do two things. First, sign up to the event in January; second get your copy of the new book.
Now is the time to get engaged in the debate on the future of Europe.
Jon
JON CRUUDAS MP, MEMBER OF THE COMPASS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
ADOLF HITLER: “Can I have my V2 back please?”
Previously unreleased material dating back to World War 2 has been unearthed by a BBC researcher which sheds some light on the mental state of Adolf Hitler in the last years of the war.
The V-2 rocket (German: Vergeltungswaffe 2, i.e. retaliation weapon 2), technical name Aggregat-4 (A4), was a ballistic missile that was developed at the beginning of the Second World War in Germany, specifically targeted at London and later Antwerp. The liquid-propellant rocket was the world’s first long-range combat-ballistic missileand first known human artifact to enter outer space. It was the progenitor of all modern rockets.
Over 3,000 V-2s were launched as military rockets by the German Wehrmacht against Allied targets during the war, mostly London and later Antwerp. The attacks resulted in the death of an estimated 7,250 military personnel and civilians.
Apparently, the BBC researcher has uncovered details relating to private telephone calls from Hitler to Winston Churchill, during which, he requested for the return of those rockets which had malfunctioned and, while landing in the middle of London, had not detonated. The transcripts reveal that Hitler became more and more upset during these calls to Churchill and that Churchill would make tape recordings of the calls and play them back to his ministers during the weekly “Rum and Cigar” nights at Number 10. Churchill is believed to have remarked that the recordings would provide hours of light entertainment for his guests considering the sheer naivety and, dare I say it, “chutzpah” of the German Premier.
Further detail refers to Hermann Goring statements relating to the requests:
Hermann Goring admitted that he did not think it likely that the rocket would be returned.
“We are very clearly making known our concerns. We submitted a formal request for the return of our lost equipment, as we would in any situation. Given Britain’s behaviour to date, we do not expect them to reply,” he said.
He said that despite numerous “provocations” from Britain, the Reich would continue to pursue a “diplomatic approach”.
Since the papers have been released just in the last 48 hours, Pentagon officials, Members of the Senate and Congress and also the Whitehouse itself have made the following statements:
“The guy was obviously off his trolley!”
“That mad German”
“The only reason he finance the development was because he issued his own currency therefore he didn’t have huge debts to repay the jewish bankers…… oops! Can I say that?” Anonymous.
“The man was clinically insane!”
“Never trust a nation that starts talking in terms of a ‘Fatherland’….. No, ‘Homeland’ is totally fine!”
Benjamin Netanyahu is reported to have said: “The Master Race my arse! WE’RE the Chosen ones….. always have been always will be!”
A reporter for Haaretz asked Netanyahu what the difference was between the ideology of a people thinking they were the “Master Race” to one thinking they were the “Chosen People”? To which Netanyahu replied:
“Do you think God chose Hitler? Even today, it’s our money and Lloyd Blankfein captues it so well when he says ‘We do God’s Work’. Anyhow ‘Chosen Ones’ sounds nicer doesn’t it?”
However, today, we have just learned the following. After years of sabre rattling and threats from the USA and Israel on Iran, President Obama has just requested the return of his drone.
Officials at the Pentagon and Whitehouse have been contacted but have declined to comment.
US asks Iran to return captured drone
President Barack Obama has said the US government has requested that Tehran return the surveillance drone captured by Iran’s military earlier this month.
Mr Obama said he would not comment on classified intelligence matters, but confirmed: “We have asked for it back. We’ll see how the Iranians respond.”
"CAN I HAVE MY DRONE BACK PLEASE?"
Iranian TV broadcast pictures of the intact RQ-170 Sentinel last week.
Tehran said the aircraft was brought down using electronic warfare; Washington insisted it malfunctioned.
Earlier on Monday, Iranian state TV reported that military experts were in the final stages of recovering data from the drone.
A member of the Iranian parliament’s national security committee, Parviz Sorouri, said the information they extracted would be used to “file a lawsuit against the United States over the invasion” by the aircraft.
‘Provocations’
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that she did not think it likely that the drone would be returned.
“We are very clearly making known our concerns. We submitted a formal request for the return of our lost equipment, as we would in any situation. Given Iran’s behaviour to date, we do not expect them to reply,” she said.
She said that despite numerous “provocations” from Iran, the US would continue to pursue a “diplomatic approach”.
The Revolutionary Guards, whose officers were filmed inspecting the drone on Thursday, said it crossed Iran’s eastern border with Afghanistan and travelled 250km (155 miles) inside its airspace, before being brought down in a cyber attack.
However, US officials have said that intelligence assessments indicated that Iran neither shot down the aircraft nor used electronic warfare or cyber-technology to force it from the sky. They blamed a malfunction.
They are, however, concerned that Iran or its allies may be able to determine the chemical composition of the drone’s radar-deflecting paint, or copy its engine, control systems, and sophisticated cameras and sensors, which allow it to monitor the ground from high altitude.
The Iranian government has sent a letter of protest to the United Nations, accusing the US of “provocative and secret actions” violating international law, and warning against any “repetition of such actions”.
A former US official has said the Pentagon was using the drone to keep watch on Iran’s controversial nuclear programme. Western powers believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, which it denies.
Back to the V2:
Missile strikes were often devastating, causing large numbers of deaths—160 killed and 108 seriously injured in one explosion on 25 November 1944 in mid-afternoon, striking a Woolworth’s department store in New Cross, south-east London. It is alleged that Adolf Hitler adored Pick n Mix from Woolworth’s but, at the onset of WW2, there was an embargo on the store from exporting to Germany. That pissed Hitler off! For some unexplained reason, however, it would appear that, while the embargo stopped candy from being exported, it didn’t stop Standard Oil from keeping the machinery of the Nazi Army from operating.
Well, that’s war for ya!
After these deadly results, British intelligence leaked falsified information implying that the rockets were over-shooting their London target by 10 to 20 miles. This tactic worked and for the remainder of the war most landed in Kent due to erroneous recalibration.
The final two rockets exploded on 27 March 1945. One of these was the last V-2 to kill a British civilian: Mrs. Ivy Millichamp, aged 34, killed in her home in Kynaston Road, Orpington in Kent, evidencing the German re-calibration.
A Spokesman for the Bank of England explained “We couldn’t have these rockets exploding in the City old Chap! There’s Rothschilds and high class people to think about and prime real estate you know! Ivy who did you say?”
Mrs Millichamp was unavailable for comment.
Is it just me or has the world gone insane and these puppets of Rothschild and Co are just taking the piss now?
EU Parliament: Bilderberg. The shit is hitting the fan!
Or, if you prefer, here’s another way of putting it:
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 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
§ 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
§(“. 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
- (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
- (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 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.
§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 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.
§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.
A Privy Councillor, a Legal Person and his oath
I have decided just to publish this as a blog because I have no expectation of this email actually being answered in any significant way (if at all) by Sir Peter Tapsell. To reply appropriately and honestly would be more than his head’s worth (nevermind his job).
I simply found his comments in 993 Parliamentary Archives intriguing regarding the Maastrict treaty. Reading them now, I look in amazement at someone who seems to almost be naive in their position yet incapability (it would appear) to understand what is going on at the time. He SURELY understands now! But it is, again, one of the “establishment” and by god, as one of them he would not wish to put his head on the block by acknowledging the reality of any of this:
From: Earthling To: ferrierm@parliament.uk Subject: U.N. Articles and Declaration of Human Rights & Thomas Paine Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 22:17:23 +0000
I have always thought that one of the redeeming features of the Rome treaty is that it did not seek to regulate financial matters. That has permitted the enormous increase in the volume of international financial business which has taken place in the City of London during the 35 years that I have worked in those markets, and has enabled that increase to take place without being hindered in any way by Brussels.
Yes we have no Constitution! Indeed!
So the government want you to believe that LEGISLATION (therefore Statutory Acts) is LAW do they?
Well here’s a little conundrum for ye!
Justice
Act of Settlement 1700
Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice which other Acts of Parliament would need to be amended if the Act of Settlement 1700 were amended to end the prohibitions on Roman Catholics within that Act. [197450]
Mr. Straw: Legislation that would need to be reviewed includes the Bill of Rights 1688, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Union with Scotland Act 1707, the Union with England Act 1707, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910, and the Regency Act 1937. Any change in legislation would among other things require the consent of member nations of the Commonwealth.
So, as you can see above, the government refers to basic CONSTITUTIONAL documents as LEGISLATION (in THEIR parlance: LAW). Now here is a question for all you Brits out there:
Notice the word “Act”. If LAW is simply and “Act” then under WHO’S authority do our government impose such “laws” or “Acts”? Do they ask you? Or do they just IMPOSE them? If it is the latter then you live under a dictatorship end of story (and you do!). Why? Well it’s simple: While they will say you elected them, it doesn’t seem to matter WHO we elect, when they are in office they do exactly as they please. They even go so far as to hand our sovereignty as a nation over to a FOREIGN STATE (the EU). Now read the Bill of Rights ACT:
“I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
Now, this isn’t difficult so please do not try to make it so:
“No foreign state” It is VERY simple right? And it is an “Act” which, to them - they state continuously the Road traffic Act, the this Act and the that Act – is Law. ALL “Acts”, all “Law” according to them. And YET, such “Acts” may be imposed on a whim and ALSO retracted or repealed on a whim. Further, the IMPORTANT acts (such as the Human Rights ACT and the ACTS which ‘legitimize’ European laws enacted within our Courts) are pushed through by votes which have been assured by Party whips of all three parties. whenever something the REAL power wants to happen is voted on and is important to the REAL power (the International banks and Corporation of London and Her Majesty) the whips come out to ensure the vote goes through. Such as the LISBON TREATY and CLIMATE CHANGE ACT and many more.
But the strange thing is that the parliament then finds itself voting for a LISBON TREATY which is ILLEGAL according to one of the most fundamental ACTS and Constitutional Acts of this country: The Bill of Rights! And you wonder why the three main parties are trying so desperately to have the British people believe we HAVE no Bill of Rights nor a Constitution? Yet how do you possibly have a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH or even CONSTITUTE a country as a legally recognised entity if you HAVE NO CONSTITUTION?
So what about all these “Acts” the government of the day puts in place? Are they LAW? Are “laws” just made up on the spot to act (there’s that word again) as a passing necessity or phase while the people of the country have no say in the matter? So then why vote at all? These people do precisely as they please! They lie through their teeth to go to war for instance and murder 100s of thousands of people while putting our own troops in the firing line based on outright lies. YET, the troops’ families will support them and support the government sending them! ALL based upon lies. What the HELL is wrong with people? You will even send your sons and daughters out to be killed for LIES! Yet you won’t listen when the lies are shown to you (as in this blog) to extend further and deeper.
You have to understand that these people DO NOT “workforyou” they have MASTERS and those masters are the ones who dictate policy (yes POLICY not LAW – a LAW is something which remains law because it is GOOD law. It is solid and it prevents any and all HARM, INJURY or LOSS to another).
They say government governs on the consent of the people. Do they? Now be honest with yourself and everyone else: DO THEY? No, they don’t.
The fact is, legislation IS NOT LAW it is policy and that policy has nothing (absolutely nothing) to do with you or your vote. The government have broken their own “LAW” (policy, Statutory Acts, Legislation) by signing the Lisbon Treaty and all other EU treaties as well as many other “LAWS” because it is in THEIR interests (and not YOURS) to do so! It is also in their MASTERS’ interests. But YOU play along with it all giving it THE FORCE OF LAW which these people need! You can stop it anytime you wish by raising your voices. You can do anything. Just like you killed off the “News of the World” by not buying it, you can apply exactly the same to the government’s legislation by NOT CONFORMING to it. But you DO! Democracy then kicks in and the majority who DO buy into it (even when they don’t like it) ensure that the minority who are willing to make their voices and actions heard (many times on YOUR behalf) are swiftly dealt with!
Do they ask you, the people, if they can impose their “laws”? Do they ask you if they can repeal their “laws”? No.
Do they tell you there is an existing Bill of Rights? No
Do they tell you there is an existing Constitution sworn to by the Queen’s Coronation oath? No.
Who do you think the Queen swears that Coronation Oath to?
Here’s your answer:
“Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration.”
You see? They could ONLY accept the Crown on the basis of swearing that oath to the PEOPLE. That’s YOU! Otherwise, they would not have be given the Crown. That fact remains today with the current incumbent (and traitor) Elizabeth.
But this is the fundamental “Why?” of why they are now attacking and destroying (repealing) the appropriate clauses in the Act of Settlement and all those other Acts which then need to be changed in accordance with it. This is why the government (and monarchy) wish to “sell” you this idea of “this catholicism issue is old and out of date and racist” and “we do not have a constitution”.
While isn’t it then strange that our excuse for a PM states that “the power lies with the people” while castigating the Labour and LibDem parties for their signing the Lisbon treaty and stating “it is not in politicians’ power to give away”?
Don’t you listen?
And he’s right. It’s not. WHY is he right? Because he knows the Constitution does exist and, within it, the sovereignty of the country lies not with politicians OR with the monarch BUT the monarch HOLDS the office of monarch as the protector of the PEOPLE’S sovereignty!
AND YOU ARE LETTING THEM DESTROY IT IN YOUR IGNORANCE!
Mr Jagland also singled Mr Clarke out for praise. ‘He is not only open [to ideas], but he understands, of course, very well why we have this Europe we have today, why we have to protect human rights,’ he said. ‘In addition to being intelligent, he is also very wise. So it’s easy to work with him.’
Why does Jagland like Clarke? Well why is Mario Monti now PM of Italy? Or why is Lucas Papademos the new Greek PM?
“Mr Papademos will replace Greece’s outgoing Prime Minister George Papandreou, who was forced to step aside after a disastrous call for a referendum on the eurozone rescue package.
The referendum plan was dropped within a few days, but not before sparking the wider financial and political crisis which led to Mr Papandreou’s forced withdrawal from the top job, even though he narrowly survived a confidence vote.”
“He helped Greece make the transition from the drachma to the euro – something he will now hope is a one-way process, and that there will be no disastrous exit from the eurozone as Greece’s financial woes worsen.
Mr Papademos will clearly have strong European support given his past experience – but there will be some Greeks who see Europe’s hand a little too clearly behind his appointment.”
He taught economics at Columbia University from 1975 until 1984, and then at the University of Athens from 1988 to 1993.
He has served as Senior Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in 1980. He joined the Bank of Greece in 1985 as Chief Economist, rising to Deputy Governor in 1993 and Governor in 1994. During his time as Governor of the national bank, Papademos was involved in Greece’s transition from the drachma to the euro as its national currency.
After leaving the Bank of Greece in 2002, Papademos became the Vice President to Wim Duisenberg (and then Jean-Claude Trichet) at the European Central Bank from 2002 to 2010. In 2010 he left that position to serve as an advisor to Prime Minister George Papandreou.
He has been a member of the Trilateral Commission since 1998
Isn’t that strange? No, not really!
You see: Let’s look at Mario Monti now the new Italian PM -
He completed graduate studies at Yale University, where he studied under James Tobin, the Nobel prize-winning economist.[8]
Monti is a member of the Presiderium of the Friends of Europe, a leading European think tank, and was the first chairman of Bruegel, a European think tank founded in 2005. He is the European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, a think tank founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller. He is also a leading member of the exclusive Bilderberg Group of economists.
Monti has been an international advisor to Goldman Sachs and The Coca-Cola Company
Both Economists, both gone through the American system, both Trilateralist/Bilderbergers and both licking the arse of David Rockefeller.
While, as you now all already know very well, our Mr Clarke is also a dye in the wool Bilderberger and licks the same arse!
THEY ALL LICK THE SAME ARSE! The ROTHSCHILD/ROCKEFELLER anal probers!
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.”
What the HELL is it you people can’t quite figure out? Talk about under your noses and staring you in the bloody face! What’s it like living in “Dumb, incompetent land”? Sorry, but more and more, as all of this becomes even more plainly obvious, I have to ask that. I just do not understand the incapability of people to logically work out simple – VERY simple – things!
While you then bleat and moan about the state of this country and want solutions/answers. You are given the problem (and from that the solutions) in plain language yet you will listen to the liars themselves telling you otherwise EVEN WHEN, what is presented to you by others such as myself is straight from the horse’s mouth 99% of the time!
THE POWER LIES WITH THE PEOPLE!
Where do you think Cameron got that from? Do you think he had just watched an old episode of CITIZEN SMITH or something?
Wake the HELL up morons!
Beautiful jews and UN news!
I am attacked continuously for being “Anti semite”.
People read but do not interpret the words properly.
People are so used to simply reading or hearing a few words which they then focus on and remove from all context. It is the world of soundbites.
People read and hear then interpret, not what is actually being said but what they wish to interpret.
I have literally been face to face with people who have simply closed down and refuse to listen or discuss and communicate to try and reach a conclusion where they would then actually understand what is meant rather than what they wish to interpret. I have been the victim of police/judiciary action specifically because of this. Even the latter don’t listen. They interpret a statute and simply apply it because “that is what it says” and “from what you said and wrote, directly contravenes that statute or our interpretation of what you said and wrote while we actually do not fully appreciate the broader issues we just concentrate on the narrow focus of what the statute says and what you have written”.
So then, I ask myself: If I AM an “Anti semite” then how can I call this group of people in the video beautiful? They’re jews. They proclaim their identity as such. They are proud of their jewish roots. I realise every religion on earth is man made and a manipulation tool but I also recognise the majority do not even though it is quite obvious. As the lad says in the video “circles” and he is told to put his “circle” (the jewish circle) above all others and he RECOGNISES the fundamental racism in this. Religions are entirely for the purpose of creating the world we have full of a single human race who are separated into factions like a Venn diagram. Each subset seeing itself as a “race” and the barriers are already set in place. Religion IS racism at its core and it has been, is and may always be a wonderful tool of those who are within not the 1% but the 0,01%.
But, whether I recognise this or not and those who follow their religions don’t, I can still see and appreciate beautiful people of whatever “race”, nationality or religion because they simply have humanity.
These young jews see the issue. They even recognise why jews have been persecuted over so many centuries and they recognise the “jewish” (I would like to show them why this “jewish” lot within the 1% and 0.01% are not jewish) influence within Banking and Corporate worlds. AND they are speaking out against it. They see how this money is being ploughed into the deaths and oppression of so many not only in Palestine but in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else that does not play the globalist game and who wish to maintain their sovereignty.
Anyone can be evil no matter what “race” or religion they proclaim to be. The issue with the jewish “race” is that their religious teachings have been used, abused and hijacked but zionism and freemasonry. The zionist (Rothschild zionist) element have then used jews (the holocaust story while the zionists had every opportunity to transfer jews from danger – read the Transfer agreement) to enable and strengthen their “hand” and their calls for a jewish only state. They used Jewish blood to do this and they did it purposefully. Yet it is Aipac, JDL, ADL etc who proclaim the horrors of those events where jews have been persecuted yet, throughout, it has been a tiny group of wealthy and powerful men who have murdered jews to achieve their aims. These powerful individuals then setting up these Zionist organisations and brainwashing jews into believing zionism is just the wish for a jewish homeland (when, strangely, any and all other peoples who would demand such would be considered xenophobic racists).
Basically, it has been a mindfcuk. Exceptionally well orchestrated but so many jews believe in the ideology OR they have been bribed by being part of the “chosen people” who have such massive control of the entire world’s wealth through money manipulation. These young jews even refer to this and can see it.
But as there is a jewish circle, there is a circle above that which is zionist (the NWO agenda zionists motivated by money, power and greed) and above that there is a “Catholic or Jesuit” circle. There are many circles and it is the destruction of ALL circles (the Venn diagram subsets) which is needed.
If the wish for no circles, no “races” and no manipulated, state/UN controlled religion while wishing to bring an end to the LEGAL control of the world’s population through birth registration to an authoritarian state apparatus and bringing an end to the manipulation of money and the corruption of law through legislation of victimless “crimes” is anti semitic, then YES, I AM anti semtitic.
However, I can’t see how it is possible for an anti semite to literally find a lump in his throat while watching and listening to beautiful people who happen to be jewish!
So I simply wish to express my thanks to these young jews because I have children whom I do not wish to inherit a world which is becoming (and is) controlled by a very few psychopathic despots following some form of “code” which is written within Babylonian/Judaic texts. When I see and hear such from young jews, it makes everything seem so much brighter looking to the future. This “chosen ones” ideology needs to be destroyed because it is the precise equivalent of the Nazi ideology of the “Master race” – the terms mean one and the same thing.
Zionism and all circles require destruction. To do so, we need to focus on those in that 0.01% who have constructed them and maintain them. It IS a “war” and it is a real one – very much so. In fact, it has been the entire war for decades/centuries and winning it means peace. Globally. I don’t advocate violence (but then neither does the UN or any state at face value do they? but then they bomb the living daylights out of anyone in their way) because knowledge and education can achieve the same ends (and why they don’t wish for the money to go to such uses). There IS the need, however, to put the true criminals in jail for various forms of crime on humanity.
Now HERE is where I will lose some people:
The UN is a PRIME criminal organisation within the entire global scheme of things. The ironic thing is that they display it openly but people just do not wish to see it.
“What a ridiculous thing to suggest!” I can hear so many people state. Yes it appears to be doesn’t it? After all, UN Declaration of Human Rights and all that.
Ok, let’s look at the first 3 articles of that declaration:
Article 1.
- All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
- Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Sounds good doesn’t it? Ah! But wait a second. There is a HUGE, MASSIVE, in fact IMMENSE contradiction in it.
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Question: Do you wish to disagree with this statement?
No, I didn’t think so.
So then what about this.
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration.”
Question: Do you see the problem? It is staring you right in the face!
Let’s return to Thomas Paine for a moment from another blogpost:
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.
Question: What is the UN Articles of Human Rights?
Answer: It is a POLITICAL CHARTER and a LEGAL DOCUMENT.
While the charter states, absolutely factually, that every person is born FREE and EQUAL, it then goes on to entirely contradict this very concept by stating “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration”.
Now, there are many issues with this which I sincerely hope the reader can see quite clearly.
IF people are BORN “free and equal” (which we are and I challenge anyone to disagree with such) then they are free and equal. End of story. Being free and equal MEANS that NOONE may infringe your “god given” human rights. What obviously follows from this, then, is that, just as noone can infringe your rights, noone has the authority over another to abridge them, to reduce them or even to state what your rights are! But this is precisely what the UN has done in their declaration. They state, effectively, that these are the rights, ACCORDING TO THEM, that you are allowed. Individual states then enact these rights to varying degrees, within their own state LEGISLATION (more legality). Every single time “rights” are written within legal parameters, they are diluted and from the very day the UN Articles were written, they diluted your “rights” within the global LEGAL system.
IF you are born FREE and EQUAL then I am afraid that IF the UN and the State is serious in its proclamation of such, then YOU have every right to say “Thanks but no thanks” to their “offer” of “protection” for, as a FREE and EQUAL man or woman, you may contract with whatever INDIVIDUAL or ORGANISATION you wish. If you are effectively stopped from making such a FREE and EQUAL decision (and remember the UN, as with ALL organisations, is composed of OTHER “FREE and EQUAL” individuals) then your rights are, in fact, being impinged upon. There is no two ways about this.
Now, the number of “rights” the UN provides you (“provides you”? HOW can they PROVIDE rights when you are already born absolutely FREE and EQUAL? This is the equivalent of a magician’s slight of hand trick) are limited. Forgive me for the following but it is for the purposes of demonstrating something:
Does the UN Articles articulate in any way that you have the right to fart on a public street? OR, what if you are standing in a queue in a bank and you’ve just had a chilli con carne? What if the bank wishes to pass a bye law for it’s own PRIVATE premises that NOONE may fart on its premises? Does the UN declaration state that everyone has the right to fart (a natural human process) wherever and whenever they wish? No, it doesn’t. So, the point is, what is stopping ANY organisation or group of people (even the state) from imposing a statutory act that states “No smoking and no farting in licensed premises”?
Yes, it’s a silly example but it is meant to be. The point is that the declaration is stating “these are your rights and that is it”. No no no. If you accept this then you accept your rights being removed.
THE SUBROGATION OF YOUR “GOD GIVEN” HUMAN RIGHTS TO THE STATE IS A FUNCTION OF YOUR BIRTH REGISTRATION. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THIS! See the blogpost entitled “UN inadvertently confirms freeman concept”.
Now what about the third article?
“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
ANOTHER interesting statement and concept from the UN so let’s look at that more closely:
Article 6 (Survival and development): Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.
Now ignoring for a moment that this makes me laugh from the perspective that it is like saying “Children have the right to live but adults don’t”, there is something just as astounding. That is the following:
The September 2001 attacks signalled the only occasion in NATO’s history that Article 5 of the NATO treaty has been invoked and consequently the 11 September attacks were deemed to be an attack on all nineteen NATO members. After 11 September, troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF and the organization continues to operate in a range of roles sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations and most recently enforced a NATO-led no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 in accordance with UN SC Resolution 1973.
The Berlin Plus agreement is a comprehensive package of agreements made between NATO and the European Union on 16 December 2002. With this agreement the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act—the so-called “right of first refusal”. There are currently 28 member states of NATO, with the most recent being Albania and Croatia who joined in April 2009. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world’s defence spending. The United States alone accounts for 43% of the total military spending of the world and the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy account for a further 15%.
Now, let’s put some perspective on this. 70% of the world’s defence spending is borne by the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy. These countries ALSO form the major founding nations within the UN and have the most voting shares. NATO, generally, finds its LEGALITY to interfere with any and all nations on the basis of UN resolutions. The following results from this interference:
The following is a transcript of a speech given by now 13-year-old Charlotte Aldebron at a peace rally in Maine.
When people think about bombing Iraq, they see a picture in their heads of Saddam Hussein in a military uniform, or maybe soldiers with big black mustaches carrying guns, or the mosaic of George Bush Senior on the lobby floor of the Al-Rashid Hotel with the word “criminal.” But guess what? More than half of Iraq’s 24 million people are children under the age of 15. That’s 12 million kids. Kids like me. Well, I’m almost 13, so some are a little older, and some a lot younger, some boys instead of girls, some with brown hair, not red. But kids who are pretty much like me just the same. So take a look at me—a good long look. Because I am what you should see in your head when you think about bombing Iraq. I am what you are going to destroy.
If I am lucky, I will be killed instantly, like the three hundred children murdered by your “smart” bombs in a Baghdad bomb shelter on February 16, 1991. The blast caused a fire so intense that it flash-burned outlines of those children and their mothers on the walls; you can still peel strips of blackened skin—souvenirs of your victory—from the stones.
But maybe I won’t be lucky and I’ll die slowly, like 14-year-old Ali Faisal, who right now is in the “death ward” of the Baghdad children’s hospital. He has malignant lymphoma—cancer—caused by the depleted uranium in your Gulf War missiles. Or maybe I will die painfully and needlessly like18-month-old Mustafa, whose vital organs are being devoured by sand fly parasites. I know it’s hard to believe, but Mustafa could be totally cured with just $25 worth of medicine, but there is none of this medicine because of your sanctions.
Or maybe I won’t die at all but will live for years with the psychological damage that you can’t see from the outside, like Salman Mohammed, who even now can’t forget the terror he lived through with his little sisters when you bombed Iraq in 1991. Salman’s father made the whole family sleep in the same room so that they would all survive together, or die together. He still has nightmares about the air raid sirens.
Or maybe I will be orphaned like Ali, who was three when you killed his father in the Gulf War. Ali scraped at the dirt covering his father’s grave every day for three years calling out to him, “It’s all right Daddy, you can come out now, the men who put you here have gone away.” Well, Ali, you’re wrong. It looks like those men are coming back.
Or I maybe I will make it in one piece, like Luay Majed, who remembers that the Gulf War meant he didn’t have to go to school and could stay up as late as he wanted. But today, with no education, he tries to live by selling newspapers on the street.
Imagine that these are your children—or nieces or nephews or neighbors. Imagine your son screaming from the agony of a severed limb, but you can’t do anything to ease the pain or comfort him. Imagine your daughter crying out from under the rubble of a collapsed building, but you can’t get to her. Imagine your children wandering the streets, hungry and alone, after having watched you die before their eyes.
This is not an adventure movie or a fantasy or a video game. This is reality for children in Iraq. Recently, an international group of researchers went to Iraq to find out how children there are being affected by the possibility of war. Half the children they talked to said they saw no point in living any more. Even really young kids knew about war and worried about it. One 5-year-old, Assem, described it as “guns and bombs and the air will be cold and hot and we will burn very much.” Ten-year-old Aesar had a message for President Bush: he wanted him to know that “A lot of Iraqi children will die. You will see it on TV and then you will regret.”
Back in elementary school I was taught to solve problems with other kids not by hitting or name-calling, but by talking and using “I” messages. The idea of an “I” message was to make the other person understand how bad his or her actions made you feel, so that the person would sympathize with you and stop it. Now I am going to give you an “I” message. Only it’s going to be a “We” message. “We” as in all the children in Iraq who are waiting helplessly for something bad to happen. “We” as in the children of the world who don’t make any of the decisions but have to suffer all the consequences. “We” as in those whose voices are too small and too far away to be heard.
We feel scared when we don’t know if we’ll live another day.
We feel angry when people want to kill us or injure us or steal our future.
We feel sad because all we want is a mom and a dad who we know will be there the next day.
And, finally, we feel confused—because we don’t even know what we did wrong.
Charlotte Aldebron, 13, attends Cunningham Middle School in Presque Isle, Maine. Comments may be sent to her mom, Jillian Aldebron at aldebron@ainop.com.
But then we’ll hear the UN, through UNICEF saying “But look what we do? Look what we ARE doing for the Iraqi mothers and children!”
And all I will say is this: Yes, AFTER you have killed their fathers and destroyed their families, their infrastructure, their way of life and are now ready to rebuild in YOUR image! Incorporate an Iraqi Central Bank and provide “loans” which are carrots with strings attached to indebt the nation, control its resources and infrastructure and make DAMNED SURE those Iraqi children have their births registered (forget so many will be born with cancers due to depleted uranium which the UN states is still legal!! FORGET THAT!) so that they can be “RECOGNISED IN LAW” just as the rest of the west is. The controlling mechanism by which you can then impose taxes and duties and have them subjugated to the legalities which YOU impose!
Your damned righteous, pius, hypocrisy makes me want to puke!
So WHERE is the rights of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of children who have been MURDERED by the States, the governments who the UN states should ensure their survival and healthy development? The “right to life”? Within a legal document which also legitimizes the taking of life? The UN does not say SOME children have the right to life and that governments should ensure the survival of SOME. Neither does it say that it is ok to drop cluster bombs and tomahawk missiles and machine gun from helicopters SOME children in the interests of saving more. It says ALL children. This is NOT a utilitarian world and neither does the UN articles suggest it SHOULD be. But the UN and the nations who compose the UN and NATO seem to think so!
So where were the rights of all these children murdered? Where were the rights of the thousands of palestinian children murdered by Israel in operation Cast Lead and others? Where are the warcrime tribunals for the Blairs and the Bush’s, Sarkozy’s etc etc? WHERE ARE THEY?
The answer? “Ah! But they’re OUR warcriminals! That’s the difference!”
But wait, didn’t you say that every child is born free and equal? Ah but then that is a pure lie UN because, as you say so very clearly, it is not until children are recognised LEGALLY, that, in fact, they do exist. And if they are not registered and have no birth certificate then they have no rights to ANY confered benefits by ANY state or government. So then they DO NOT, in your eyes, have any rights (privileges) from the moment they are born therefore, they are NOT born “free” until you bestow those rights upon them!
But then the “ying” of that “yang” is that you cannot control or tax them either if they are unregistered because they have not SUBROGATED their “god given” human rights to the legalities of which you promote. Once they do, you have them just where you want them!
One registers one’s car, one is the REGISTERED KEEPER but NOT owner. For if that car is your own private property then who (if you are free and equal) has the right to stop you from using it? But the DVLA does BECAUSE you have subrogated your ownership (rights) to your private property and may only use it under strict licence conditions.
One registers their child’s birth, one is then subrogating one’s authority (not responsibility however) to one’s child. You are transfering the legal “ownership” of your child to the state. The state, then, if it so desires, may take your child from you and this is NOT always because you are a bad parent but because you may just be an irritant to the state in one form or another. However, the bottom line is that IF we are all free and equal then NOONE, no individual or state or organisation has ANY right to remove your child. But they do because you CONTRACTED with them by registering your child. You have (ignorantly but through your ignorance, under no coercion) entered a LEGAL agreement with the state where you have transfered such inexhaustive rights to them AND they have handed you a legal document called a Human Rights Act, in place of your natural born rights. It’s brilliant and effective but it is a con and it is a crime on humanity because while they pretend it provides you with rights (and it does to a very small degree in comparison to the inexhaustive rights you were born with), it ensures that your entire life can be controlled from birth to death.
More Childs Rights:
Article 7 (Registration, name, nationality, care): All children have the right to a legally registered name, officially recognised by the government. Children have the right to a nationality (to belong to a country).
Question: Do they also have the right to forego a legally registered name officially recognised by the government state? And do they have the right to forego a nationality and retain their free, sovereign, human rights undiluted by the UN articles? When they do, the UN and the state then say they do not exist legally and therefore they are not “qualified” for any protection. They have no rights to freedom of movement around the world (no passport), they will not be allowed to find a job (oh dear! The state then won’t be able to tax anyone if everyone can’t find a job because everyone decides that they wish to utilise that freedom and equality to NOT register). So UN, all I am askng is: Are we free? Not until you tell us we are right?
Article 8 (Preservation of identity): Children have the right to an identity – an official record of who they are. Governments should respect children’s right to a name, a nationality and family ties.
I had and have an identity. I had one even before my parents registered me. I was their child and they gave me a name which they then simply believed they were making a record of when registering. They did not know they were subrogating my rights and providing me with a “monopoly piece” called a birth certificate which only then would allow me to buy and sell and contract – oh! And I forgot, also made me vulnerable to going to jail for a victimless “crime” based upon state legislation AND had me liable to immense increases in taxation to pay off a national debt that doesn’t need to exist if the state did not borrow its currency but simply issued it. Neither would I then have the PM state that I am liable for bailing out the banks and having then to endure austerity measures while these criminals were paid off, destroying my career, pension, savings etc. No I wasn’t told that and neither were my parents. I would guess, then, that that constitutes a case of non full disclosure of the contract set up BY the birth certificate. Doesn’t the “law” state that, in the case of one party to a contract not giving full disclosure then the contract is null and void? Yes, I think it does. Cheerio government. Knock on my door and you can respectfully fcuk off. Our contract is null and void!
Article 41 (Respect for superior national standards):
If the laws of a country provide better protection of children’s rights than the articles in this Convention, those laws should apply.
Interesting. WHO decides this? The state? or the UN? If either one of them then it surely would be that either party will vote for itself. If not decided by either of them then by whom? Whoever it is that decides however, is that not a decision for the party who may be affected by it? That would be the child (or possibly the parent) would it not? If you are suggesting some individual or some organisation other than the child or it’s parent makes that decision then you are stating that we are not all free and equal are you not? Or is it just some are more free and equal than others?
Article 24 (Health and health services):
Children have the right to good quality health care – the best health care possible – to safe drinking water, nutritious food, a clean and safe environment, and information to help them stay healthy. Rich countries should help poorer countries achieve this.
Tell that to NATO and the major UN nations who control it.
After all of that UN – TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND RECOGNISE YOU OUTSTANDING HYPOCRISY.
But then who controls you?
Oh yes, I forgot. This guy and his ilk:
Article 6.
- Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Yes indeed. YOUR “law”. It’s so wonderful that you want the 50M children each year who are unregistered to be registered. And it is so wonderful that you had 750,000 children in Afghanistan given vaccines while, at the same time, you had administrators, attending along with the medical staff, to register these children.
Isn’t it a coincidence, then, that David Rockefeller makes the fiollowing speech regarding his concern about the world’s population growth and overconsumption and prospects of a decent life on this planet (for who?) within a UN speech he gave:
Isn’t it also then, a coincidence that Rockefeller, within this speech, also referred to the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 which promoted the entire Climate Change. Sustainability agenda as proposed by the Club of Rome originally in their publication in 1972 called “limits to growth” which was then followed up in 1993 when they published ”The first Global Revolution”? Obviously being written before and during the year of the Earth summit then released as a “guidance”.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Rio Summit, Rio Conference, Earth Summit (Portuguese: Eco ’92) was a major United Nations conference held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 June to 14 June 1992.
Why is that all a coincidence? Well, because:
The Club of Rome is a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues. Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe. It raised considerable public attention in 1972 with its report The Limits to Growth. The club states that its mission is “to act as a global catalyst for change through the identification and analysis of the crucial problems facing humanity and the communication of such problems to the most important public and private decision makers as well as to the general public.”
Well well well, there’s old Rockefeller’s name again! But there’s more because:
In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution. According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.” “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
But then there’s even more:
Rockefellers’ 1Sky Unveils the New 350.org: More $ — More Delusion
World’s Greatest Magic Trick “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell On 6 April 2011 it was announced that the RINGO (Rockefeller initiated NGO) 1Sky and their sister organization 350.org have ‘officially merged’ into one mass climate movement – the ‘NEW’ 350.org.
Let the Vatican preach, hallefuckinglujah, as we double-up on the soma followed by a double shot of absinthe burning like the embers of hell. Thank you Rockefellers, Clintons, McKibben and friends. Make way for the onslaught of illusion in which green capitalism and false solutions will somehow save us. In one last final performance – the elites will now perform their final magical act that defies all logic. Drum roll please … ladies and gentleman … we will now embrace the same system which is systematically destroying us – splash it with a green patina … and now … this same system will magically save us. Justice for all! The illuminated signs flash toward the audience … applause! applause! applause! Follow the Money
An example of what two prominent environmental groups, 1Sky and 350.org, receive from the Rockefeller foundations alone:
Step it Up and 350.org (Sustainable Markets Foundation)
· $100,000 for 1 year awarded on March 13, 2008 to support its project, Step it Up’s new initiative called Project 350 · 40,000 2008 Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) for Sustainable Markets Foundation | 350.org · $100,000 for 1 year awarded on March 3, 2009 for its Project 350 · $200,000 for 1 year awarded on March 12, 2009 for its climate accountability project, The Sustainable Market Foundation · $75,000 for 1 year awarded on November 7, 2009 for its project 350.org · $25,000 for 1 year awarded on March 22, 2010 for its Eco-Accountability project · $100,000 for 1 year awarded on June 17, 2010 for its 350.orgproject
1Sky Education Fund
· $1,000,000 for 2 years awarded on December 13, 2007 · $20,000 for 1 year awarded on November 17, 2008 for an alignment meeting of U.S. climate change leaders · 200,000 2008 RFF · 45,000 2008 RFF · $250,000 for 1 year awarded on June 18, 2009 · $30,000 for 1 year awarded on April 9, 2009 to support a consultant to coordinate the alignment of U.S. climate change leaders and large grassroots organizations · $250,000 for 1 year awarded on November 2, 2009 · $250,000 for 1 year awarded on November 19, 2009 · 50,000 2009 RFF · 15,000 2009 RFF · 20,000 2009 RFF
350.org: The Environmental and sustainability group who are “Anti” Big oil and big business. FUNDED by the scions of Big Oil and Big Business, the Rockefeller Foundation! (Standard Oil/ENRON) How ABSOLUTELY bizarre! Until you understand the agenda!
The Climate change scam, brought to you by the very same scam artists who crashed the world’s economy, own the central banking system, loan all governments their currency, own and control the IMF, the UN, the world’s largest investment banks, the major oil and gas corporations, big pharma (vaccines) and much anything else you can imagine. While they fund organisations proclaiming to be anti capitalist and anti big business and while the Occupy movement is filled with the Environmental “Greenies” who are completely oblivious to facts and wish to remain so:
THESIS and ANTITHESIS: WORKS EVERYTIME!
But there’s even more:
Investment banker speaking about the amount of tax which could be imposed upon the world’s population to “fight” this “invented for the purpose” SCAM called Climate change, before he then introduces the one and only DAVID DE ROTHSCHILD – the “Jesus” of Climate Change while part of the other and more massively wealthy through banking and big business families.
HOW EXTRAORDINARILY BIZARRE!
But AGAIN, there’s more:
Al Gore, fresh from his attendance at the Club of Rome comes out with HIS evangelisation of Climate Change and wins a Nobel Prize for his “Inconvenient truth” movie (just like Obama wins a Nobel Peace Prize! It is hilarious!). However, this is Al Gore when faced with his OWN inconvenient truths:
Did I mention ENRON earlier?
OOPS! Goldman Sachs, ENRON and Al Gore! WHAT a combination!
But then the governments push through the legislation. LEGISLATION (LEGAL not LAWFUL). Legislation can be enacted while the next government could repeal it. It happens every single day. Now if something is a law it is a law for good reason. But legislation isn’t law but guess who they can impose it upon because of the subrogation of rights and transfering those rights by way of REGISTRATION to the state? Yes, you guessed it – YOU!
Now WHY would our legislators in government DO this to us? I mean surely it impacts them as well doesn’t it? WELL DOESN’T IT?
?utm_source=allactivity&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=20110601
“Insider Trading Rules That Don’t Apply To Congress”
“Except that one thing you can do as a member is study pending legislation and regulatory changes, call up your broker and instruct him to trade on that nonpublic information. Do this as often as you want; you will suffer no penalty. There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted.”
WELL, AS YOU CAN SEE……….. NO IT DOESN’T!
Now, I really do hope you are getting to grips with all of this because it is tiring me out trying to explain it in all so many ways.
Imagine if there were no such thing as continents and that the earth was just filled by 10 billion or more separate islands of about an acre each, each of which had one single family on it. Then, as the UN stated, we were all born free and equal such that everyone understood that and there was no possibility of grouping people into religions and nations. We all had boats and all had our own dedicated island. Would we have passports and birth certificates? Would we insist that if anyone visited our island, fell ill and we were Doctors that that they would need to produce a passport and then a birth certificate to be recognised as being worthy of treatment? Would one family decide to grow so large that they then said “stuff free and equal, I’m going to insist that all other islands can only trade if they use the currency I produce, otherwise I am going to build a bomb to ensure they do!”?
The world is sick because of the system which has been built up by a few. It doesn’t matter which “ism” that system falls under because each “ism” is controlled by the same few and each ism has been and will always be corrupted. It is us allowing these few to dictate to us while we are all meant to be “free and equal” that creates the misery, the deaths and the coercion. We have given them the power. It reall is time we take it back. How do we do that?
Simple: By embracing the (empty) words of the UN and giving them TRUE meaning. We cannot ever win by thinking of ourselves. Doing that just delays the time the corruption touches you or one of your family. The ONLY way is to embrace those ideas fully and apply them to all. Only then will the many tame the few.
And with that…. Goodnight.
10 comments