Earthlinggb's Blog

Voices from the past who knew a thing or two.

Posted in Finance, Money, Politics by earthling on October 18, 2014

General Jackson who had, in his first inaugural, declared that a national debt was “incompatible with real independence”….

Scotland voted for it’s “independence” (its political independence but nowhere near true sovereignty) and it voted no. It doesn’t matter either way because, as these American writers tell you, once more, you have no true independence, liberty, freedom or sovereignty as an individual or as a nation, for as long as the debt and interest on that debt, exists.

But this is not about Scotland because Scotland DOES NOT MATTER! NO single nation matters! Many nations have split and the remaining entities declared their independence over many decades and centuries AND YET we remain – and they remain – within a system, within which, no man, woman nor child nor nation can ever achieve true independence or sovereignty. And this is why I laughed at my dear scots ‘countrymen’ as they paraded in their saltires and sang their songs and went to the polling booths to tick a box which said “Yes” but a box provided to them by the existing hierarchy while that existing hierarchy would only ever give them a vote for something which RETAINED them in a box!

You will NEVER get out of that “box” until you understand how to destroy their system. You will never understand how to destroy their system unless you take it upon yourselves to learn how they have created that system and how the vast majority do not even question it! As long as this situation remains, there will NEVER be sovereignty and freedom (or love) for any single individual on this planet.

THAT is why I laugh!I’m sorry of this upsets you!

It takes YEARS of research to understand this stuff. It takes those years of close to 24 hours a day (yes I’m not exaggerating) to be able to just “see” things for how they are and to be able to see the transparency of everything from immigration to beheadings. From Presidents selling ebola to ISIS. From 9/11 to the next financial bubble.

We’re called “Conspiracy theorists” and “extremists” who need to be taken care of by the state now (according to David Cameron) and silenced. Not because we promote extremism at all or violence on anyone but because we know and god forbid YOU (the wider public who still vote and still swallow the BBC and the mainstream news) start to figure it all out because your senses are telling you there’s something wrong with the world and you’re looking for answers and you come to blogs like mine and others’ searching for them.

If you wish to demonise a group of people, you make fun of them. If that doesn’t work, you start to suggest they’re “Dangerous extremists”. If that doesn’t work, you start to set them up with false accusations or charges. You knock at their door with your paid thugs (Police) working for the state and you remove their capability to communicate with the wider world. Yes they’ve done that recently with that guy Christopher Spivey but, before him, they did precisely the same to yours truly! But I tend to work on more fundamental issues than Chris. Chris focuses his attention on, generally, today’s newsworthy items. Those news items, however, are simply symptoms (important to expose as they are, absolutely) of what fundamentally underlies everything.

My “State thug” visit came on the heels of communication with the SNP/Scottish government which they didn’t seem too happy about, along with communications with my MP and MSP at the time and it was suggested it was all because a jew in England complained to the MET Police that I was being anti semitic (in his view). So the Police confiscated (Stole) £2000 worth of Apple MAC computer, recording equipment and a sundry of other stuff. Never to be returned and yet, no charges but told “You don’t wish to speak to me” (the Detective) “because you know my job is to take whatever you utter and use it against you”. Well, at least he was being honest and giving me a warning.heads up. So I left it and let them steal my property and went out and bought a whole new set. I think they expected I was some sort of dope smoking, benefits scrounger. Perhaps on realising they were dealing with someone just a little more “elevated” than that (NO disrespect to those of you on benefits – I am talking in terms of how I would see THEM looking at  various “legal persons”), they decided to just take the stuff and let it be. However, rest assured, if I started making noises about it, they’d be sure to make my life hell. That is how Her Majesty’s constabulary and courts work on behalf of the ruling class.

But back to the subject: I’ve written quite a number of blogs relating to the money/debt/interest issue now – as well as the fundamental jurisprudence of law which supports the legal person, corporation, money and overall system in place – and here, we go back to the 1800s in America. The same singular issue has been known about for centuries and yet we still allow our “ELECTED OFFICIALS” (owned and sold by the Banking community who really call the shots) to keep our attentions on left and right and levels of taxation and black and white. When we don’t like one government/elected party, we swing back the other way to the other one. We hated Tony Blair (but loved him to begin with – well I didn’t but the country obviously did) and we “swung” back to tory. Now that we have come to the point of hating the tories it looks like we’re going to swing back to Labour. But there’s been a new kid introduced on the block called Farage and UKIP. Oh yes, a new kid but every bit as controlled as the others, just newly packaged because the elite of this country recognise we’re getting a little jaded at the “centrist” ideologies of the old school. Nothing changes and, how can it when UKIP are now simply stealing tories and others and getting them seats in parliament but it’s still guys who were part of the existing structure! So what “change” do you really think that will bring? Answer? NONE!

But you’ll believe it will. You’ll believe (desperately) that it will. And the beat goes on!

 

 

 

NAR 1 NAR 2 NAR 3 NAR 4 NAR 5 NAR 6 NAR 7 NAR 8 NAR 9 NAR 10

 

NAR2-1 NAR2-2 NAR2-3 NAR2-4 NAR2-5 NAR2-6 NAR2-7

 

And always remember: They call it “The British system”. Why? Because it originated here and the same old names maintain it. Now think about it. If you own the system, the house never loses. One of those “Houses” is the House of Rothschild among others.

So, again, the British system and the British government state it has never been, isn’t and never will be its intention to ever pay of it debt. This is because the “British” who OWN this system, owns this country by way of the debt and always have done. Coming clean on this and then paying the debt WOULD be an act of “treason” by the British government because it would be against “Her Majesty” and remember also, it is “Her Majesty’s Government” and the Crown OWNS this place!

 

Captain Henry Kerby 2 Captain Henry Kerby 1

Just stop and THINK Scotland!

Posted in Politics by earthling on September 8, 2014

That is ALL I’m asking you to do!

And I’m doing so because I have a VERY grave fear that something terrible is about to happen! I despise the Westminster government and I’m Scottish. I also, however, despise the man Salmond and his government because they are ALL part of the same group. Sure they are “fighting” this out but it is ALL a show for your benefit!

Think of some thing such as:

1. Northern Ireland

“What?? Northern Ireland?? What are you going on about you idiot?”

Ok so that’s what some of you are saying, but THINK. Just for a moment. Let it seep into your brain and consider something VERY strange!

WHY did the British Army spend decades in Northern Ireland? WHY?

Well, it was to ensure that Northern Ireland remained part of the union. And yet, just as there is the “Yes” camp and the “No” camp in Scotland right now, the powers that be have literally handed you independence and the splitting of that union on a plate! And Scotland is a MUCH bigger loss that N. Ireland I’m sure you would agree?

So, once more, think: WHY, after all those decades protecting the union in N. Ireland, would they do this?

Why is the British Army not in Scotland right now protecting the union? Why did the UK/Westminster government even start the devolution road? Why did they allow it to come to this? WHEN did it start? Well it all started essentially at the same time as the EEC (which was sold to the entire UK as a lie about sovereignty). It was mid 1970s that we had that referendum (filled with lies AND funded by the CIA – documented fact!).

2. The EU, Germany and France

Who gains big time out of Scotland being “independent”? (and you’re not going to be by the way but I’ve covered that elsewhere). Well the EU does! This strong competitor of GERMANY and France will no longer exist! Germany will be BY FAR the largest economy in the EU, France next and then – no UK remember – will it be England? Probably but with far less clout. Scotland will have next to zero clout either. You are being led by the tail by Alex Salmond.

THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN IPO (Initial Public Offering) OF A NATION. This is NOT “Independence”.

3. Head of State

Once more, why have you, the people of Scotland, not had any serious debates regarding WHO will be your Head of State?

WHY? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CHOICE! Salmond has no choice either! It is the CROWN who owns the seabed, the minerals and the OIL! The OIL DOES NOT BELONG TO SCOTLAND OR ENGLAND. IT BELONGS TO THE CROWN!

NOW I DARE YOU! DEMAND, IN THE NEXT 10 DAYS, THAT YOU GET RID OF HER MAJESTY AS YOUR HEAD OF STATE!

THAT would be INDEPENDENCE (Sovereignty)

And then, tell Salmond to screw his ideas of keeping the British pound OR even introducing a new Scottish “sovereign” currency. Demand that the Scottish government gives YOU, the Scottish people, the power to research, understand and debate what is known as MPE (Mathematically Perfected Economy). IF you were to, then the following would not even be of a concern AND you would be truly sovereign and independent. But then, if you were, watch out for the NATO bombs!!

 

Yes and mortgages

 

4. Sectarianism

I’ve been hearing (even from family members) how there is a great deal of bad blood over the border between the two camps! They are even dividing a nation! There is vandalism toward those saying “Better Together” and it is reported widely. You will end up with sectarianism and a divided country. It COULD even become a Northern Ireland! But then the powers that be and the EU will just LOVE that! By GOD you’re voting yourselves into a trap! Look at what is happening even BEFORE the vote! What comes after? What kind of government (either side of the border) is it which is quite happily walking into a situation where it has to govern a divided country? Well it’s the kind of government that just doesn’t give a shit about what actually happens to you on the streets as a nation. In fact, if all hell breaks out they’ll love having to bring in peace keeping forces of one form or another. It’ll be Tony Blair’s “Big Brother” state on steroids!

Yet all of you – Yes or NO voters – are ALLOWING yourselves to be put in a position where, when you SHOULD be coming together, THEY are splitting you apart! PERFEKT RODNEY!!!

5. Mortgage Meltdown

So what happens if the above DOES happen re mortgages (and that article is a valid issue which Salmond hasn’t even touched on – he’ll just say something sarky as he always does, the sinister little git)?

THOUSANDS of people in negative equity. Thousands losing their homes or needing to sell for pennies on the pound. And who buys it all up for pennies on the pound? You guessed it! The bankers. Greece Part 2!

6. Scotland’s oil

Shut up and stop being so wilfully bloody ignorant when the answer to THAT canard is put in front of you (as I have done time and again!!):

The OIL belongs to the CROWN!. It belongs neither to Scotland not England!! You, the Scottish people, will NOT EVER benefit from it! It’s like saying you will benefit from having the RBS. Do you? Did you? Oh just stop talking shit people please!! It’s embarrassing! You are So naive it’s painful!

queen-oil

 

LOOK IT UP!!! UK PARLIAMENTARY ARCHIVES!! STOP BEING SO BLOODY LAZY! NO WONDER THEY’RE GONNA HAVE YOU OVER A BARREL  (no pun intended!).

The OIL DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It belongs to the Crown!!!! Don’t you get it??? – NO you bloody well don’t and never will!!

 

YOU NEVER INSTIGATED ANY OF THIS! THE EXISTING OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY DID AND YOU ARE BEING HAD!

They can only debate from within the “box”

Posted in "Climate Change", Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on March 20, 2014

When you challenge them and confront them, they don’t know what to do. They are like animals caught in the headlights. Just as you saw with Bill and Sonia in the previous blogpost “BASTARDS!”

How do they get away with it all? By the majority’s ignorance and care-less attitude AND, of course, fear and having sufficient strength within themselves to realise that they are every bit as good – if not better – and smarter than these fools!

People who get paid for being an MP (seemingly to represent us) and yet, in addition to their approx £60K per annum (plus expenses etc etc and did I mention “donations”?) even as a lowly backbencher, they work for people like N.M Rothschild, Water companies, in fact any companies that will pay them money to lobby either overtly or covertly for them.

Here’s Oliver Letwin for example. A tory who has been in Rothschild’s backpocket for years and years….

And don’t get this wrong. This is just for 6 months out of one year. There was the rest of the 6 months and there’s been years of it. So, in addition to his MP salary, he gets more in a year from Rothschild at a rate of £145 PER HOUR! And that was 2009!

Oliver Letwin Rothschild

Mervyn King. Oliver Letwin. Evelyn de Rothschild. Jacob Rothschild.
GRAY, Emma (GRAYEJ@parliament.uk)
02/11/2009
To: ‘Earthling’
Picture of GRAY, Emma

Dear Earthling,

 

I can assure you that Mr Letwin does indeed see your e-mails.  He then dictates a response to me for me to send out to the person concerned.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Emma Gray

 

 

Emma Gray

Correspondence Secretary

Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP


From: Earthling
Sent: 02 November 2009 11:23
To: GRAY, Emma
Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.

Dear Emma,

If you don’t mind me saying so (which I’m sure you will) that was hilarious.
Mr Letwin has read my email with great interest while I sent it less than 20 minutes ago? I very much doubt it. I would consider that to even read through it would take 20 minutes in itself and I doubt that it has even come close to Mr Letwin’s attention as yet and if ever, nevermind him having read it.
I’ve had, once before, the exact same response from “Mr. Letwin” months ago, on which I followed up and never heard a thing from him since.
PLEASE do not throw such inane responses to your electorate. It does you FAR more harm than good.
Regards,

Earthling


From: GRAYEJ@parliament.uk
To: Earthling
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 11:00:37 +0000
Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.

From Rt Hon Oliver Letwin MP

 

 

Dear Earthling,

 

Thank you for your e-mail, which I have read with great interest.

 

Best wishes.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Oliver Letwin

—– Original Message —–
From: Earthling
To: Letwin, Oliver
Sent: Mon Nov 02 10:34:48 2009
Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.

Dear Mr Dowell,

Thank you very much for taking the time necessary to respond to my email. I would, however, hope you would now offer me the right to reply?

You/Nick say that the Liberal Democrats only “believe” sovereignty “should” rest with the people and that, in Law, it remains with the Crown in Parliament.

Two questions for now:

1. Which “Law” actually states that sovereignty remains with the Crown in Parliament? I would wish to read this Law document.
2. Can you summarise please, very simply, whether – when you speak of “the Crown”, you are speaking of the actual Monarchy or, better still, can you define precisely what “the Crown” is?

For the problem lies here in what are entirely conflicting statements from the Parliamentary website:

Along with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Crown is an integral part of the institution of Parliament. The Queen plays an essential role in opening and dissolving Parliament and approving Bills before they become law.

Parliament

The highest legislative authority in the United Kingdom. Made up of the House of Commons, House of Lords and the Queen (who is the UK’s current hereditary monarch).

Crown

This is another way of referring to the monarchy – which is the oldest part of the system of government in this country. Time has reduced the power of the monarchy, and today it is broadly ceremonial. The current UK monarch is Queen Elizabeth II.

You see, my confusion re the Crown is this: “The Queen plays an essential role….approving Bills before they become law” And treaties it seems. The operative word here being ESSENTIAL. Then it is stated, quite clearly again, that the highest legislative authority includes the Queen. Yet it then goes on to dilute this importance entirely by saying the power of the Monarch has been reduced and is, broadly (not entirely?) ceremonial. We could then delve into the Royal Prerogative but even much of that is now held within the Executive branch of government and the PM himself. Much of the Royal Prerogative issues being handled by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. But then, it is collectively known as HM Government. The Queen STILL retaining the power to dissolve government if she should ever wish to do so.

One also has “Royal Assent”:

When a Bill has been approved by a majority in the House of Commons and the House of Lords it is formally agreed to by the Crown. This is known as the Royal Assent. This turns a Bill into an Act of Parliament, allowing it to become law in the UK.

So before ANY Bill becomes law it must pass Royal Assent. If the Queen literally has such power then, without any argument, the Queen has the highest authority in the United Kingdom bar none. Therefore, to suggest, alternatively, that such Royal Assent is purely ceremonial would be stating that such assent is, in fact, entirely redundant.

So, do you see my confusion here?

Now, referring back to the core issue of sovereignty and where it lies:

You are stating that the national Sovereignty of the United Kingdom does NOT, in law, lie with the Monarch. Is that correct?

You are also stating that the national Sovereignty of the United Kingdom does NOT, in law, lie with the people. Is that correct?

You have stated that the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom, in law, lies with Parliament. Therefore, the above must be correct.

Therefore, it cannot be argued that, at this present time, the United Kingdom is NOT a free democracy (democracy being an over-used and wrongly used term) but, in fact, a Dictatorship. Bear with me on this point please.

Why a Dictatorship? You will argue, I am sure, that it is not because the government/Parliament is “democratically” elected by the people (which, in of itself clearly points to where Sovereignty lies). With that argument, however, we then go around in circles because the people elect a UK government to GOVERN the UK. The people DID NOT at anytime present ANY government with a mandate to transfer NATIONAL sovereignty to a FOREIGN POWER.

Would you agree that each successive government/Parliament that the people elect, are simply caretakers and, in fact, work FOR and ON BEHALF OF the people? If not, then why have elections? Why offer such “power” to the population of this nation to elect “THEIR” government?
If you DO agree with such, then it is patently obvious that, inasmuch as the people did not present this mandate to government for transference of sovereignty, then the government has and is acting, with each and every treaty, outwith it’s remit.

You will then come back to Parliamentary Sovereignty giving the Government/Parliament of the day it’s authority to do as it wishes. You have it so very wrong. The people elected a UK parliament for the UK nation. That is all.

The Dictatorship comes in when, as you have said, Parliament has Sovereignty and therefore Parliament may then do exactly as it pleases once elected. There are between 300 and 400 members of parliament. Even within that number, there are many members who do not agree with the transference of sovereignty and power which is inherent within the Lisbon Treaty. But let us, for now, assume that there are 400 people within Parliament etc who are in agreement with such a treaty and willing to ignore the voice of the people, the electorate, the population of this country which they are MEANT to represent (that word REPRESENTATION again pointing toward the reality of where the sovereignty of the nation lies).

Then what we have are 400 people DICTATING to a population of over 60 million people. THAT is quite simply a Dictatorship.

Meanwhile, the present Labour Party Government is making such clearer and clearer while you and the Conservatives allow it. The reason for this being that you and the Conservatives are simply (at the Executive level of your respective parties) just three separate legs of an establishment tripod ensuring the status quo. Ensuring no matter which of you gains office, the establishment remains.

Now, as for the European Communities Act of 1972, the Heath Government of the time had the entire British Public understand/believe that the EEC was just that, an Economic Trading Agreement within Europe. No more, no less. To point to that Act now as the formal legal basis of our membership of the European Union then clearly exposes the Heath Government for the fraud (and Treason) that such an Act was based upon.

I can assure you, meanwhile, that the EU WILL abolish British Sovereignty whether by the Lisbon Treaty itself or by the sheer apathy of the people through time and further legislation once it is ratified.
The establishment parties can offer NO guarantees or assurances to the British electorate for each and every successive government since 1972 (and particularly the Heath Government, the Major Government and then to cap it all, the Bliar/Brown Government) have outright lied to the people. Liberal Democrats cannot  even consider suggesting that because they have never been in power they cannot be blamed. Nick Clegg and previous incumbents have stood idly (and even supported) each government whilst the party in power have gone ahead with their plans. LibDem, being EU friendly as you have said, supported Labour in their stance of reneging on their promise of a referendum to the electorate, hiding behind the suggestion that the Lisbon Treaty is not an EU Constitution. An EU Council (unelected), an EU Parliament with no power, an EU Court and an EU President. Please point to another region of the world which is not a nation or a state which has a President and every other aspect of Statehood as just listed.

Please do not treat the UK electorate as fools. It is exactly this that is losing you all the electorate’s confidence. From MPs expenses to the sheer corruption and corruption of the Laws of this country.
As for EU legislation requiring the consent of our own government, can you please point to any and all EU legislation (which impacts significantly upon the people of this nation) which has not been imposed upon us? It must be understood that while the majority of people do not wish for the EU, it can also be stated categorically, that those who understand and take the time to reflect upon our politics in this country, no longer wish for a Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat Government either.

Twenty Seven member states are stronger than one? In which sense may I ask? Mr. Dowell, I do not know who’s words these are – whether yours or Mr Cleggs – but if you consider the world outside of this conditioned “ideal” you have re the EU, you might find that there are nations which do particularly well for themselves within World Trade. For example: South Korea, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan. The UK and Europe buy massively from such countries and will continue to do so whether there are EU tariffs or not. So tell me the REAL argument for UK membership?
These countries are sovereign nations of various sizes. Yet what do they have in common? What makes them so successful? Banking? No!

It’s called INDUSTRY.

Where is OUR industry Mr. Dowell? It matters not a jot whether we are in some EU superstate or not. A country does not exist on having a banking industry with the majority of people having no career or job to allow them to use it!!

The government is currently allowing a Bank of England to use Quantitative Easing to pay itself to buy up this country’s tangible assets (REAL ASSETS) to pay off debt (to who?) because there is insufficient GDP being generated. The government is then planning on further tax increases and privatisation of the road system to pay this debt because, again, there is insufficient GDP growth. The country is being “raped” of its wealth and taxed to death because there is no wealth generation through INDUSTRY.

How blind are our government and opposition parties? I would say not blind at all. “You” know exactly what the game is.

In ending, may I request, again, that you furnish me with the answers to the questions I have posed in this email. It would be most appreciated.

Regards,
Earthling

Now, just to break in here before we carry on with this series of communications, to make it quite clear (once more) where sovereignty lies. Quite clear – AS CLEAR AS DAY IN FACT – because you have our current Prime Minister actually stating it! So, for any of you out there who have problems believing anything a “blogger” says, well take your disbelief and put it all directly in front of one DAVID CAMERON!

 

________________________________
From: LIBDEMLEADER@parliament.uk
To: Earthling
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:06:38 +0000
Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.Dear Earthling,

Many thanks for your letter to Nick Clegg MP regarding the European Union.  Nick has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.

Liberal Democrats believe that sovereignty should rest with the people of the United Kingdom.  At present, in law, it remains with the Crown in Parliament; we would wish, in the long term, to see a written constitution vesting it in the people themselves.  With respect to the role of the European Union, I think it’s important to highlight that the UK’s participation in the EU is based upon British Acts of Parliament so far as British law is concerned and that the EU’s treaties are clear that E.  The European Communities Act 1972, as amended, provides the legal basis for our membership – and this could, of course, be repealed by a future British Parliament.  Indeed, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, there will be a formal mechanism for countries to the leave the EU.  As a party, we firmly support membership, but I hope this helps to assure you that the EU is not abolishing or removing British sovereignty.

Liberal Democrats remain in favour of active British participation and cooperation in the EU. We want the United Kingdom to play a full role in the European Union.  We are not uncritical Europeans and we believe that there are many areas where the EU badly needs to improve its performance – but the best way to achieve this is by persuading our partners of the merits of our arguments.  In general, we believe that the government’s failure to make the case for European co-operation has done great damage to the British national interest.

It is crucial to understand how the EU works when making laws.  The Union does not operate as a superstate imposing law on Britain – national governments are involved at all stages of the process. EU legislation requires the consent of national governments in the Council of Ministers without exception, and usually elected MEPs in the European Parliament, before it becomes law.  There are no circumstances in which the EU can ‘impose’ law without a British government voting on it, and I hope this may be of some reassurance on the question of its powers and the manner in which British sovereignty is retained.

This means that the EU, far from being an institution which takes powers away from Britain, is a crucial means by which our voice is made louder in the world at large – for the simple reason that twenty-seven member states are stronger than one.  In the future, the European Union will be critical as we grasp the challenges of climate change, globalisation and international terrorism.  Only by working in the EU can we get strong, global action to cut carbon emissions, secure fair trade deals, deliver effective burden-sharing for asylum policy and help the developing world and make areas like the Balkans more stable.

Thank you once again for emailing.

Best wishes,

Douglas Dowell

Office of Nick Clegg MP

[cid:image001.gif@01CA5890.0E2633C0]<http://meet.nickclegg.com/>

NOTE: This email and any attachments to it (the “email”) are intended for a specific recipient(s) and its contents may be confidential, privileged and/or otherwise protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email, and delete it from your records.  You must not disclose, distribute, copy or otherwise use this email.  Please note that email is not a secure form of communication and that the Liberal Democrats (“the Party”) is not responsible for loss arising from viruses contained in this email nor any loss arising from its receipt or use.  Any opinion expressed in this email is not necessarily that of the Party and may be personal to the sender.

We may email you from time to time on issues we think may be of interest to you.  To unsubscribe from our emails: reply to this email with the word UNSUBSCRIBE, though please be aware that these manual requests may take a little while for us to fully process.

________________________________

From: Earthling
Sent: 05 October 2009 12:00
To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark; CLARKE, Kenneth; MILTON, Anne; CLEGG, Nick; CAMERON, David; mail@ukip.org; LETWIN, Oliver
Subject: FW: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.

Dear All,

Since I have had ZERO answers from my MP, Mr Lazarowicz, to any of the questions put to him below, I shall make this extremely simple for you.

ONE question for you ALL to answer: to whom, ultimately, does the sovereignty of this nation, the United Kingdom, belong?

Simple question. No complex answer necessary for it has a very simple one.

So what is it?

Regards,

Earthling

________________________________

From: Earthling
To: lazarowiczm@parliament.uk
CC: darlinga@parliament.uk; clarkek@parliament.uk; miltona@parliament.uk; cleggn@parliament.uk; camerond@parliament.uk; mail@ukip.org; letwino@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 18:27:19 +0000

I’m still scratching my head wondering what on earth this “lot of constituents” must be looking for Mark. From what I’ve just faced I can’t honestly say that you’d be first on my list in terms of actually getting any sense or anything done. But then, after 12 years of abject misery by this government called the Labour Party (not that I’m suggesting any significant change will be seen with David Cameron in charge and his “army”) what would one expect?

Do you recognise that you, like Mr Clarke before you, have elected to answer NOTHING – not a single point – regarding the questions put to you? Now why would that be I wonder?

Let me tell you Mr Lazarowicz, the deafening silence from you people speaks volumes. When there are no answers to give just shut the hell up right?

If and when this country wakes up Mr Lazarowicz and they fully recognise the enormity of what successive governments have done, the lies they have told and still telling, the outright corruption within, the establishment cronyism within the tri-party system to ensure the status quo and the people who knew it but would not stand up and say it, plus the big one which is there is a government above government, there will, I hope, be suitable spaces within our jail system for such. For we have a Constitution, much of it written, and it does not take a Constitutional lawyer to see what’s happening here and the illegality of the EU – a FOREIGN STATE. It’s very simple and straightforward issue no matter how complex our esteemed government would wish to make it.

Treason is treason no matter what spin the establishment try to put on it. The only issue is that the vast majority of the population are simple and apathetic enough not to quite grasp it (for now).

If you know of any MP Mark (since my own can’t/won’t answer these issues) who will answer them/discuss them/take the time with a member of the electorate which you seem entirely unwilling to do (10-15 mins of your time is hardly worth my travel time to your “surgery”), please let me know.

Meanwhile, any o the so silent copied individuals who would like to comment/answer, I’d be more than pleased, yet shocked, to hear from you.

Regards,

Earthling

> From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> To: Earthling
> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:38:07 +0100
> Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
>
> Sorry you have declined the offer, but I do get lots of constituents seeing me every Friday.
>
> Mark Lazarowicz
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Earthling
> To: “LAZAROWICZ, Mark” <LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk>
> Cc: “DARLING, Alistair” <DarlingA@parliament.uk>; “CLARKE, Kenneth” <ClarkeK@parliament.uk>; “MILTON, Anne” <MILTONA@parliament.uk>; “CLEGG, Nick” <CLEGGN@parliament.uk>; “CAMERON, David” <CAMEROND@parliament.uk>; “mail@ukip.org” <mail@ukip.org>; “LETWIN, Oliver” <LETWINO@parliament.uk>
> Sent: 30/09/09 23:40
> Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
>
> Well Mark, if you believe you can cover all of this sufficiently within 10 or 15 minutes you’re quite a guy so I’ll tip my hat to you and decline the invite.
>
> Continue working on the bicycle tax issue Mark. It’s going to change the world and I’m sure it will have a hefty impact on Climate change. Will there be a graduated tax dependent upon whether the bike is classed as a road bike or a mountain bike? Will the number of gears be considered do you think?
>
>
> Regards,
> Earthling
>
>
>
> > From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> > To: Earthling
> > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:44:53 +0100
> > Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
> >
> > Probably 10 – 15 minutes depending on how busy the surgeries are.
> >
> > Mark Lazarowicz
> >
> > —–Original Message—–
> > From: Earthling
> > To: “LAZAROWICZ, Mark” <LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk>
> > Cc: “DARLING, Alistair” <DarlingA@parliament.uk>; “CLARKE, Kenneth” <ClarkeK@parliament.uk>; “MILTON, Anne” <MILTONA@parliament.uk>; “CLEGG, Nick” <CLEGGN@parliament.uk>; “CAMERON, David” <CAMEROND@parliament.uk>; “mail@ukip.org” <mail@ukip.org>
> > Sent: 30/09/09 18:35
> > Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > I’ll certainly take you up on that offer. Perhaps next friday if that is suitable? Can you let me know how much time we shall have to go through a few things?
> > Meanwhile, they are not so much “arguments” Mark but very sincere concerns after much research. The big picture however is so big that for one person to throw illumination upon it to another while that other is stuck in their “left/right” paradigm of politics is quite a task and one that many – especially if they have risen to a certain level within that paradigm – are simply not willing to accept.
> >
> > The facts however, support that the globalisation we are currently experiencing (and have been for many decades) is a very definite form of treason for it simply is the collaboration of high level politicians within each nation, with the globalist corporate agenda. To collaborate with it is in direct contravention of the nation’s Constitution. A fact that those who are collaborating know only too well.
> >
> > The individuals and Corporations/Banking involved in such may well be, in some cases, British nationals but they are collaborating with non-British nationals also within these sectors, to achieve, ultimately, the “One World Government” or “New World Order” they aspire to.
> >
> > To achieve this, it is clear (and it has impact all the way to street level) that there is a usurpation of sovereignty within each of the nations it already has influence over. Those nations which do not follow the edicts of the “One Worlders” or “Globalists”, are then faced with the “Iron fist” while also faced with propaganda as the Leaders of the Western nations already under the control of the globalists try to suggest such nations are a serious threat to world peace and that they are “negotiating politically” with them while what is actually happening is that these nations are being pressured into accepting the global monetary system and the “rape” of their nations by the Western Corporations and IMF/Central Banking system.
> > Once the research is carried out Mark, it becomes painfully clear what is going on. Those individuals who have done the research and conclude this however, are simply then brushed aside with impertinent claims and ad hominem attacks. The last bastion of “defence” being such attacks.
> >
> > You personally – and your political colleagues – may think you see some gain to playing this game BUT you are ignoring the impact on later generations of your OWN nevermind anyone else’s. So I would suggest that, while many in the political arena care less about the general electorate and how it impacts them, they may wish to think more selfishly as to how, ultimately, their greed and corruption will impact their OWN. We all have children and, perhaps grandchildren. It’s whether we think of them or not. The Climate Change group have been promoting the impact of what we do today on those that come after us – a noble and considerate cause. However, the reality is that such is NOT the goal for the globalists nor the Climate Change propagandists. Their goal is simply to ensure an ever increasing centralisation of power and a world which is “protected” for their offspring and their benefit. But their mass of networking and control mechanisms are lost on the general public and even, possibly, to the majority of our politicians who just work within their little box and are “whipped” by the party whips to fall into line.
> >
> > You all really need to get to grips with something and that appreciation starts with this:
> >
> > In 2002 Rockefeller authored his autobiography “Memoirs” wherein, on page 405,” Mr. Rockefeller writes: “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.”
> >
> >
> > Now, I can throw literally hundreds of quotes at you to further support this but one after another those quotes and additional absolute factual evidence will fall on deaf ears UNTIL you were to have the motivation to research it all for yourself.
> >
> > The EU is another long considered and planned step toward this and while a One World Government, together with the peoples of all nations finally getting their act together and recognising that one world is all we are and are united by that fact, SOUNDS a noble idea, I can assure you that such a “United World” for all is NOT the agenda progressed by the proponents of such.
> >
> > Our politicians need to step back from their tunnel visioned outlook and step out of their “box” and fully recognise what is going on here. I’m aware many do but they simply do not give a damn. You are leading this country (and the world) into a very dark century and you simply cannot see past your personal aspirations.
> >
> > There is a little island called Guernsey off the British South coast which simply does not have a penny of debt. Now that island may only have 60,000 or so inhabitants but one cannot ignore that, prior to 1913, the United States basically had very very little debt UNTIL the Federal Reserve Act was introduced in that year. The United State, at that time, having a population of circa 92 million. Do you see what I’m getting at?
> >
> >
> > Let me share something with you regarding the Constitutional Law of the United Kingdom and I shall be pleased to have your considered response on this:
> >
> > EU Directive Consultation Response,
> > Government Equalities Office,
> > 9th Floor,Eland House,
> > Bressenden Place,
> > London,SW1 5DU.
> >
> > HRH Queen Elizabeth,at her coronation in 1953,swore on oath before Almighty God to govern the British people according to Gods Law and customs per the Bible.Likewise it is in$%^&bent on all politicians including the prime minister to obey those laws in support of the Oath sworn by our Queen.
> >
> > Further,in accordance with the Declaration of Rights 1688,they are required to resist the encroachment of a foreign power(e.g the European Union),and all Directives emanating from the EU are in contradiction of those laws and have no jurisdiction in this realm of the British Isles.
> >
> > The Declaration of Rights of 1688 is a settlement treaty and NOT an Act of Parliament and therefore cannot be repealed by Parliament.
> >
> > Therefore it is imperative that the present Prime Minister and Parliament repeal the European Communities Act of 1972,from which the EU derives all its authority,and stop trying to enforce those Directives on the British people,or else the Parliament should be dissolved and the British people given the chance to re-elect a Government which will truly represent them,without any European influence.
> >
> > So the aforementioned EU Directive consultation is therefore null and void and a waste of public money,therefore any person or Parliamentary candidate is guilty of TREASON in trying to implement it.
> >
> > I also advise you,that you personally who are involved in this consultation,are considered to be a party to an act of treason and traitors to your countrymen,and therefore should also be tried for participating in an act of Treason.
> >
> > Yours Sincerely.
> >
> > A loyal British Voter.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, I’ve considered this and given it some thought myself. Meanwhile Gordon Brown and others speak about needing a British Bill of Rights as if we do not have one (and to many of the British Public, this is lost on them) and also amending elements of the Act of Settlement.
> >
> >
> > I’d be interested in your comments re the following:
> >
> >
> > What is Sovereignty and where does it lie in the UK?
> >
> > What is Sovereignty?
> >
> > ” Sovereignty is the legitimate and exclusive right to exercise power within a given area”
> >
> > In other words – Sovereignty is Supreme Power.
> >
> > Different types of sovereignty exist:
> >
> > ~ Legal Sovereignty: where Supreme Power lies according to the law
> >
> > ~ Political Sovereignty: where Supreme Power lies in reality
> >
> > ~ Pooled Sovereignty (In the EU, a supranational organisation, decisions are made by European Institutions on which all members are represented, but none has a overall say)
> >
> > Most democratic political systems have both the separation of powers and checks and balances to prevent a single institution becoming omnipotent although, in practice, when the Executive Branch of government – the Cabinet – can plant who they wish within the judiciary, then that separation is lost.
> >
> > So, ok, what is Parliamentary Sovereignty?
> >
> > Parliamentary Sovereignty is regarded as the main principle of the British Constitution. In other words, Parliament holds the supreme authority in the UK.
> >
> > In what ways is Parliament sovereign?
> >
> > – Parliament has the ultimate political authority. Most key decisions (but not all, as some military and foreign decisions are in the hands of the PM) must be approved by Parliament.
> >
> > – All powers exercised by ministers (except for the prerogative powers of the PM), devolved governments, local governments and other public bodies are granted by parliament and can be removed by Parliament.
> >
> > – All new primary legislation must be passed by parliament and secondary legislation made by ministers can be overruled by Parliament.
> >
> > – Parliament is not bound by its predecessors (i.e. past Parliaments cannot control the actions of the current Parliament).
> >
> > – Parliament cannot bind its successors (i.e. it cannot pass laws that cannot be repealed or amended by future Parliaments).
> >
> > So, is Parliament really Sovereign?
> >
> > Parliamentary sovereignty has been undermined in a number of areas:
> >
> > – Political Parties:
> >
> > Since the reductions in the power of the House of Lords in 1911 and 1949, the balance of power has shifted to the House of Commons. Combined with the dominance of political parties in elections since the start of the C20, this has led to tight party control over MP’s and disciplined parliamentary groups that make the business of the House of Commons very predictable.
> >
> > – Executive:
> >
> > Practical reality dictates that the British Government is the majority party in the House of Commons. Strong party discipline makes this majority reliable and almost guarantees the Government victory in Commons votes – an ‘Elective Dictatorship’. Also backed by the Civil Service ‘machine’ it is easy to argue that sovereignty actually lies with the executive not Parliament. However, Prime Ministers who systematically repress the powers of party and parliament tend to meet their fate – Margaret Thatcher is a classic example of this. Although this hasn’t happened yet with Brown and doesn’t look to be on the cards for some strange reason (But I won’t get into that for the moment).
> >
> > – Public:
> >
> > At least once every five years the House of Commons is re-elected, and so at that point sovereignty really lies with the people. However, after the general election sovereignty returns to Parliament for the next five years. VERY BIG ONE!!!
> >
> > ~ European Union:
> > When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome in 1973 (an Act of treason by Edward Heath supported by the FCO and BBC amonst others) it accepted that the status of European law is superior to British law. This has given British courts the power of judicial review over Acts of Parliament. Therefore courts can scrutinise Acts of Parliament, refer them to the European Court of Justice and even suspend those Acts. However, Parliament is free to withdraw Britain from the EU at any time, so technically sovereignty still lies with Parliament.
> >
> >
> > So, upshot? Yes Sovereignty lies with Parliament/Executive Branch of government.
> >
> > BUT, as you can see, at the point of elections, Sovereignty actually lies with the people. It always truly has and that’s exactly why “Theyworkforyou”. So let’s say the people woke up one day and realised that the three main parties simply were 3 legs of the same establishment tripod (which they are). And let’s even assume that this happened sometime after the Lisbon Treaty was fully ratified.
> >
> > IF we elected a brand new party into power who we KNEW would remove us from the EU and, because we had awakened to the con of the false left/right paradigm so we were “on the government’s case and ensured they did as WE THE PEOPLE DEMANDED OF THEM, then that government (whoever it was) because of the fact that “Parliament cannot bind its successors”, could repeal ALL of the laws and the EU policy within the UK and restore our sovereignty WHICH IS OURS.
> >
> > What could it do after that? It could re-instate laws which had been repealed such as the TREASON LAWS and we could do what was necessary and just to those who had been elected to office BY the people previously and committed such treason.
> >
> >
> > Now, you may ask, how can I be sure I’m right? Here’s why:
> >
> >
> >
> > So it would seem from this taken from the UK Parliament website:
> >
> > CHAPTER 3: THE LISBON TREATY AND THE UK CONSTITUTION
> >
> > In this Chapter, we consider those features of the Lisbon Treaty that appear to have direct implications for the UK constitution.
> >
> > PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY
> >
> > 92. We now consider whether the Lisbon Treaty would change the relationship between EU law and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Like the current treaties, the Lisbon Treaty contains no express provision about the principle, enunciated by the ECJ since 1963, that European law takes priority over any inconsistent national law. Under this principle, any national court or tribunal (from a bench of lay magistrates to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) must immediately set aside any statutory provision or other rule of national law which is determined to be incompatible with EU law. However, Declaration 17 appended to the Lisbon Treaty does state that “in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law”. Dr Anthony commented, though, that “the questionable legal status of such Declarations may mean that the doctrine can only ever continue to lack an agreed basis” (p 11).
> >
> > 93. The Government told us that the principle of the primacy of EU law-whether formally articulated or not-does not have implications for parliamentary sovereignty:
> >
> > “Parliament exercised its sovereignty in passing the European Communities Act 1972 and has continued to do so in passing the legislation necessary to ratify subsequent EU Treaties. The UK Parliament could repeal the European Communities Act 1972 at any time. The consequence of such repeal is that the United Kingdom would not be able to comply with its international and EU obligations and would have to withdraw from the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty does not change that and indeed for the first time includes a provision explicitly confirming Member States’ right to withdraw from the European Union” (p 21).
> >
> > 94. Dr Anthony told us that it “is highly unlikely that the new Treaty will add anything to debates on the effects of EU membership” on parliamentary sovereignty (p 11). Professor Chalmers agreed (p 14), as did Professor Dashwood who explained that primacy of European Union law “remains a principle developed in the case law of the ECJ” (p 17). We agree with this analysis.
> >
> > 95. We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty would make no alteration to the current relationship between the principles of primacy of European Union law and parliamentary sovereignty. The introduction of a provision explicitly confirming Member States’ right to withdraw from the European Union underlines the point that the United Kingdom only remains bound by European Union law as long as Parliament chooses to remain in the Union.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is ANOTHER issue which I picked up on with this “so called” new Bill of Rights:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Recognise the deception in this. Recognise the “one way street” being proposed under the “flag” of Human Rights/Bill of Rights. And remember also that the establishment want you to forget about out existing 1688 Bill of Rights.
> >
> >
> > The Joint Committee on Human Rights
> >
> > Background to proposals for a British Bill of
> > Rights and Duties
> > Standard Note: SN/PC/04559
> > Last updated: 3 February 2009
> >
> > The Joint Committee on Human Rights announced in May 2007 that they would hold an inquiry into a British Bill of Rights. Their report, A Bill of Rights for the UK?, was published on 10 August 2008.
> >
> > In short, the Committee recommended that the UK should adopt a Bill of Rights and Freedoms “in order to provide necessary protection to all, and to marginalized and vulnerable people in particular”.
> >
> > They stated that:
> > Adopting a Bill of Rights provides a moment when society can define itself. We recommend that a Bill of Rights and Freedoms should set out a shared vision of a desirable future society: it should be aspirational in nature as well as protecting those human rights which already exist. We suggest that a Bill of Rights should give lasting
> > effect to values shared by the people of the United Kingdom: we include liberty, democracy, fairness, civic duty, and the rule of law.
> >
> > Just ONE thing. Note: “and the rule of law”
> >
> > The Committee recommended that some additional rights, such as the right to trial by jury and the right to administrative justice should be included in a Bill of Rights. They also considered the inclusion of environmental rights (or ‘third generation’ rights as they are known). The Committee did not recommend fully justiciable social or economic rights but a situation where the Government would have a duty to progress towards realising certain rights of this kind:
> >
> > We suggest that the Bill of Rights and Freedoms should initially include the rights to education, health, housing and an adequate standard of living. Government would have a duty to progress towards realising these rights and would need to report that progress to Parliament. Individuals would not be able to enforce these rights through the courts, but the courts would have a role in reviewing the measures taken by Government.
> >
> > Now, do you see it? Do you see the outright deception here? How the Government will PROMOTE “Human Rights” and a “Bill of Rights” BUT, ultimately, it is total nonsense?
> >
> > No? Then let me explain:
> >
> > “The Committee did not recommend fully justiciable social or economic rights”
> >
> > What does that mean? As follows:
> > Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority.
> > Essentially, justiciability seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court feels it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable.
> >
> > Upshot? If your Human Rights under a Bill of Rights is breached in any way, you don’t have recourse to complain. There’s NOTHING you can do because the matter is not “justiciable”.
> >
> > You could be beaten to a pulp and thrown in jail because you were a vocal dissenter with ANYTHING the government did and you would have NO comeback.
> >
> > Therefore bottom line: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.
> >
> >
> > Yet, Mr. Lazarowicz, how would you respond to this: “A Human being is born free and with unalienable rights. As long as a human being causes no harm, loss or injury to another human being then there is no higher authority which has power over that “person” (be careful with the word “person”). Statutory Legislation (Statute law) is NOT law, in fact, but is given the force of law by the governed. Statute law is, in fact, a form of commercial law and, as such, is a form of contract. In being such, it requires an actual contractual agreement between both parties and, therefore, the “person” must accept to contract with the organisation wishing to enforce such statute law upon him”.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, finally, why do I speak the word Treason so often?
> >
> >
> > Comments welcome.
> >
> >
> > The basis for the coronation oath, which forms part of the coronation ceremony, is enshrined in statute in the Coronation Oath Act 1689. This Act required the King William and Queen Mary, as joint monarchs, to swear an oath during the coronation ceremony. The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Accession Declaration Act 1910 make a statutory requirement on the monarch to take the coronation oath.
> > The legal obligations surrounding the oath are set out in Halsbury’s Laws:
> >
> > 28. The Crown’s duty towards the subject. The essential duties of the Crown towards the subject are now to be found expressed in the terms of the oaths which every monarch is required to take before or at the coronation. The duties imposed by the coronation oath are:
> > (1) to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining to them according to their respective laws and customs;
> > (2) to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all judgments, to the monarch’s power;
> > (3) to maintain the laws of god, the true profession of the Gospel, and the protestant
> > reformed religion established by law, to the utmost of the Sovereign’s power;
> >
> > By the Act of Settlement s 4, it is declared that ‘whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof and all the kings and queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same…the same are….ratified and confirmed accordingly.
> >
> > On 12 February 1688 a declaration was drawn up affirming the rights and liberties of the people and conferring the crown upon William and Mary, then Mary’s children, and, failing any heirs, Princess Anne and her heirs; and failing also that, William’s heirs. Once the declaration had been accepted by William and Mary, it was published as a proclamation. The declaration was subsequently enacted with some additions in the form of the Bill of Rights 1688, and the Acts of the Convention Parliament were subsequently ratified and confirmed by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 which also acknowledged the King and Queen. In this way, the Bill of Rights was confirmed by a Parliament summoned in a constitutional manner and thereby acquired the force of a legal statute and appears as such on the statute book.
> >
> > I won’t bother copying the Bill of Rights WE HAVE here since you can all look them up quite easily.
> >
> > What I WILL say is this however:
> >
> > There is a working document in Parliament named “The Governance of Britain”.
> >
> > July 2007 Green Paper on constitutional reform, “The Governance of Britain”. The note sets out each proposal and progress made since the publication of the Green Paper, including the contents of the Constitutional Renewal White Paper and draft Bill published in March 2008. The Government has said that it will bring forward legislation “when time allows”.
> >
> > One of the FOUR major proposals in it is as follows:
> >
> > Britain’s Future: the citizen and the state – this included a discussion of the need to develop a British Statement of Values, and perhaps a British Bill of Rights.
> >
> > No British Constitution and Bill of Rights huh? You hear Parliament and Government today talking and the news covering it “A British Bill of Rights” WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE!!
> >
> > But that’s hushed up! Ever wondered why?
> >
> > On 25 March 2008 the Government published a White Paper and Draft Bill, The Governance of Britain: Constitutional Renewal.
> >
> > Speaking in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, Jack Straw responded to questions on the status of the constitutional renewal proposals as follows:
> > …The constitutional reform Bill is specified in the Gracious Speech. Everyone knows that what has changed since then is the overriding imperative of dealing with the world economic downturn, but the Bill will require parliamentary time. The Queen’s Speech states: “”My Government will continue to take forward proposals on constitutional renewal, including strengthening the role of Parliament and other measures.””
> > As ever, Her Majesty meant what she said-and that is my intention, too.
> >
> > Now pardon me, but I just find that last sentence by Straw making me raise my eyebrows. Was it necessary to say this? Does he speaketh too much? Who’s he trying to convince?
> >
> > The Governance of Britain Green Paper was published by the Government a matter of days after Gordon Brown became Prime Minister. The Labour administrations of 1997-2007 oversaw major changes to the constitutional structures and systems of the United Kingdom including the establishment of devolved administrations in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
> >
> > And THAT is what this is all about. The entire Constitutional debate and the promotion of “a British Bill of Rights” (when we already have one) and a change of the monarchy/Act of Settlement allowing for catholics to marry into monarchy etc etc etc, is to have us slot into Europe NOT to think first of the rights of British Citizens. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with us and the government AGAIN are pulling the wool over our eyes.
> >
> > One last point:
> >
> > The Green Paper echoes several proposals for constitutional change by the Liberal Democrats in their 2007 paper Real Democracy for Britain, and by the Conservative Party’s Democracy Task Force, chaired by Kenneth Clarke.
> >
> > Ken Clarke: MR. BILDERBERG.
> >
> > And as Mr Bilderberg, he works alongside Mr. Blair and Mr. Brown to ACHIEVE what they are trying to achieve BECAUSE before these people work for the British people and British Government THEY WORK FOR THE AGENDA OF BILDERBERG AND THE BANKERS WHO “OWN” them. Once the goals are achieved, they personally do pretty well for themselves.
> >
> > It is transparent.
> >
> >
> >
> > Someone once asked the question –
> >
> > “And since the treason laws apply to all who take the oath of allegiance, how can the Sovereign commit treason when they don’t take that oath? No one takes an oath to themselves surely?”
> >
> >
> > Answer:
> >
> > What is an Oath? It is to swear one shall carry out responsibilities.
> > The CORONATION OATH is just that.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the QUEEN is NOT the MONARCHY. That is the flesh and blood person of the Queen is NOT the MONARCHY.
> >
> > The flesh and blood person of the Queen takes on the RESPONSIBILITY of the MONARCHY and is therefore the MONARCH.
> >
> > The MONARCH is there to uphold the LAWS of this country. OUR SOVEREIGNTY has been established by our having it held FOR US by the MONARCHY.
> >
> > Think of the Queen (and all those monarchs before her) as simply the CEO of a CORPORATION.
> >
> > IF the CEO of a Corporation was found to be guilty of not performing their duties and actually, perhaps, working against (embezzlement for instance) the LAWS/POLICIES of the Corporation, they would be sacked and very possibly jailed. They have, in effect, committed a treason of sorts.
> >
> > Now, the Queen (the human being) is JUST that! She swears an oath. To who?
> >
> > Meanwhile, it gets a little more complex because of the Sovereignty of PARLIAMENT.
> >
> > The Queen actually holds the sovereignty of the PEOPLE of the UK. The PARLIAMENT work against this (actually the Executive Branch of the Government) to strip away the sovereignty of the PEOPLE FROM Her Majesty. They promote such as giving more “power” to Parliament and Parliament being elected by the people etc….
> >
> > The PROBLEM lies in the fact that the people, generally, are apathetic, disinterested etc. So what happens is that the government hype the “benefits” of Constitutional change while what they are actually doing is subverting it to allow accession to the EU.
> >
> > So then: “if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere”; comes into play doesn’t it?
> >
> > The Queen (the human being) by acquiescing to the government’s agenda is in breach of her Constitutional DUTY and she is NOT protecting the subjects of “her” Kingdom.
> >
> > She has signed ALL EU treaties. She is allowing the sovereignty of the nation to be passed into the hands of a subvertive government who are then passing OUR sovereignty to a FOREIGN POWER.
> >
> > The Privy Council is an ancient and dignified institution of government, which has its origins in the earliest days of the monarchy.
> > The Privy Council goes back to the earliest days of the monarchy, when it comprised those appointed by the King or Queen to advise on matters of state.
> > 1 Monarchs would rule through the Privy Council without turning to Parliament, and under Edward I it was difficult to identify whether legislative acts emanated form the King-in-Parliament or the King-in- Council.
> > 2 Throughout the 14th century, however, there was a great deal of friction between the Council and Parliament, and in the reigns of Henry IV and Henry V there is evidence of the Commons petitioning the King against the jurisdiction seized by the Council. By this time the Council was exercising judicial powers in relation to both criminal and civil litigation with enforcement of the criminal law (where offences against the State were alleged or officers of State were involved) carried out by the Court of Star Chamber. Parliament therefore objected that the Star Chamber was usurping the function of the common law courts.
> >
> > With the rise of the Cabinet system of government in the 18th century, the Privy Council gradually lost much of its powers.
> >
> > Membership of the Privy Council is today a titular honour, with the office recognised as a reward for public and political service. Appointments are made by the Sovereign on ministerial advice and are for life – there are no fixed numbers of Members. By convention, all present and past Cabinet Members are appointed to the Privy Council. Also included in the membership are members of the royal family, senior judges, two Archbishops, British Ambassadors, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Prime Minister and Cabinet Members, present and former leaders of the Opposition, and leading Commonwealth spokesmen and judges. The Council now numbers about 420 members, and members are entitled to the prefix ‘Right Honourable.’
> >
> > NOW, THEIR OATH is as follows (in part):
> >
> > “You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.”
> >
> > ALL FOREIGN PRINCES, PERSONS, PRELATES, STATES OR POTENTATES.
> >
> > WHAT IS THE EU???
> >
> > It requires those taking it to ‘keep secret all matters…treated of in Council.’ The Oath (or solemn affirmation for those who cannot take an Oath) is still administered, and is still binding, but it is only in very special circumstances nowadays that matters will come to a Privy Counsellor on “Privy Council terms”. These will mostly concern matters of the national interest where it is important for senior members of Opposition parties to have access to Government information.
> >
> > Despite the many powers conferred by statutes on individual ministers, the Order in Council remains a principal method of giving the force of law to acts of the government, especially
> > the more important executive orders.
> >
> > The Judicial Committee has also in the past examined and reported on matters of constitutional importance, such as the legal basis of the practice of telephone tapping and matters affecting state security. A committee of six Privy Counsellors reviewed British policy towards the Falkland Islands leading up to Argentina’s invasion in 1982; after the Prime Minster had consulted with five former Prime Ministers to secure their consent, the committee had access to the papers of previous governments and secret intelligence assessments.
> >
> > Now you MIGHT just be interested in taking a look at the list of members today….
> >
> > And you MIGHT just be interested (and surprised?) at who the present Lord President of the Council is (if you didn’t already know).
> >
> > http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp <http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So Mark, unless someone (anyone) can actually refute the above content and what I am convinced 100% is the situation here (without simply attempting the evasion of Ken Clarke that is), I would put to you this very firmly: The sovereignty of the United Kingdom is being attacked from without and such individuals, Banks and Corporations involved in this attack are being collaborated with from within.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Earthling
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
> > > Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:31:10 +0100
> > > From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> > > To: Earthling
> > >
> > > Thankyou for your email. Given you now raise a number of other issues, I don’t think I could do justice in a short response to the arguments you put forward.
> > >
> > > Could I suggest therefore you might like to come to one of my MP advice surgeries (every Friday, no appointment necessary, details on my website) if you would like to discuss these issues in more detail with me?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Mark Lazarowicz
> > >
> > > —–Original Message—–
> > > From: Earthling
> > > To: “LAZAROWICZ, Mark” <LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk>
> > > Cc: “DARLING, Alistair” <DarlingA@parliament.uk>; “CLARKE, Kenneth” <ClarkeK@parliament.uk>; “MILTON, Anne” <MILTONA@parliament.uk>; “CLEGG, Nick” <CLEGGN@parliament.uk>; “CAMERON, David” <CAMEROND@parliament.uk>; “mail@ukip.org” <mail@ukip.org>
> > > Sent: 27/09/09 22:56
> > > Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark,
> > > I am not asking for your agreement. I am simply stating a fact that, in MY assessment, the jury is out yet this government (of which you are a part) arrogantly, as always (and with an agenda which results in the following) puts in place policy based upon bad, unsound and unproven science and DICTATES according to what group allow it to impose taxes and policy on a country who’s GDP has fallen dramatically and the International bankers, to whom this country provides the monopoly of lending our currency to us on the basis of an associated interest or debt attached, are looking for MORE revenue from the population!!
> > > My background is in Physics and the Sciences Mr Lazarowicz yet I make no suggestion that I, personally, know whether there is any REAL Climate Change going on. So, I wonder who’s “non – scientific” assessment carries more weight? Yours as my parliamentary REPRESENTATIVE or mine? You see, I see a great deal of scientific disagreement whereas you just see the one side even though you have stated clearly you do not claim to be a scientist. So therefore, I ask you, why is your opinion given more weight? I see no reason for it. What I DO see is a political and economic agenda for you could not honestly say you would know who to believe: The “yes” or the “no” camp. You don’t have the background to make that judgement BUT the government listens to the scientists the government PICKS to do the research which they are FUNDED for BY the government!
> > > I enjoy logic Mr Lazarowicz. Logic cuts through all the veils of deceit.
> > > Interesting to note recently the “proposal” by N.M. Rothschild to the British Government for privatising the road system.
> > > As for the bike tax – that doesn’t even warrant a debate!! It’s plainly ridiculous and blatantly criminal on the part of this government.
> > > This United Kingdom is falling apart at the seams and whilst I hate to be so blunt (but I must) it is down to a government and entire parliament who have shown they are “above the law”, are corrupt and are desperate to trade the UK into an EU for their own personal agendas. Politicians in high office who only need say “Sorry” after being caught red handed with either their snout in the trough OR employing illegal aliens while the illegal alien is under threat of being jailed while the dear Barroness is fined a miniscule amount, slapped wrists and says “Sorry”. Let’s see how many people can get away with that in the Crown’s Court system today shall we?
> > > As I said and as I’ll repeat – there is no coincidence that Tony Blair left Downing Street and walked into a sweet job with J.P.Morgan Chase having been “pimped” by Lynn Forrester (Rothschild) and her spouse to the International Banking cartel and has become an “overnight” millionaire. I am sure many hold out the hope of following in his footsteps. This is so incredibly transparent (as are so many other issues) and if the population of this country were less apathetic about their politics there would be a form of revolution and every last person in parliament today would be out looking for jobs or, alternatively for some, be locked up!
> > > There are a MASS of issues I could bring to your attention but you would evade the issues time and again because there are no answers but the true answers yet, to give them, would expose every last con and deception of this government and governments before them along with the existing and prior American administrations.
> > > Your world, Mr Lazarowicz is corrupt to the core. That is the point I’m making and it is a point that the UK population are slowly (too slowly) coming to recognise.
> > > I’ve been abroad for about 10 years and I come back to a country that is unrecognisable from the one I left. A country that is being consistently lied to and propagandized to and a burgeoning Police state and I wonder whenever will come the time that the politicians in this country finally recognise that they are every bit as manipulated as the general population and that they wake up to the fact that the country they are allowing to be built (or more correctly, destroyed) will be the country their children and their children’s children will be living in and it will be nightmarish because of the corruption which has been allowed to take over not just on a national scale but a global one.Even before I return to the UK I find out how hypocritical and disinterested in their own promoted principles our own Foreign and Commonwealth office are such that they would leave a British Citizen to be incarcerated overseas when they have been alerted to the corruption he faced BY a Court System!
> > >
> > > You just do not seem to recognise or appreciate what you and your colleagues are doing by allowing this corruption to continue and for that I feel for you.
> > > But you will take this email and, again, disregard it. You will either be sublimely unaware of what I am trying to bring to your attention or you are fully aware and to seriously and honestly comment on it would mean, or could mean, your job – your career. And that seems more important than anything else YET, if this country had a single individual who truly warranted the position of leader through absolute integrity, then that person would face up to what is truly behind ALL of our issues and have the country back him 100%.
> > > But that shall never happen. We don’t possess such integrity in our political system. If we did, the money angle would be sorted out by now but no-one will step up to the plate.
> > > Let me leave you with this. Give you something to think about for one minute and you will STILL not be able to answer HOW this was reported (unless you already know, as I do):
> > > From the Asia Times May 2003:
> > > “An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.” (ignore the reference to Jewish for that is NOT my purpose here, that is simply how it was reported).
> > > Full article: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html
> > > Now, remember, this was May 2003. 6 years ago and 5 years before our Chancellor or our PM have admitted to know what was going to occur regarding the financial fiasco we are now faced with. So there could be no agenda in this report. It was a report and unless they had a crystal ball…….
> > > To support the above further:
> > > “To make matters worse, the assembled company generally agreed that America and Britain, would soon be threatened by the new bubbles in the property markets……..”
> > > Full Article: http://www.nogw.com/articles/rothchildmeeting.html
> > > Interesting quote from a report written in the Times after a meeting in September 2002!! Another “crystal ball”??
> > > So here we have TWO separate reports stating clearly and categorically that the Banking establishment KNEW what was coming as far back as 2002 and, in fact, it is just as clear they were not saying it MIGHT happen they were saying it WILL happen. No discussion of how they were going to deal with it. It was a foregone conclusion and the reason it was is obvious. They DECIDED to make it happen.
> > > Now ONE person who attended that 2003 conference in Versailles (and is a Steering Committee member of the group and, as such, I will state quite openly, I would consider this a potential case for treason and, by all means, if you wish to debate that with me I will happily do so) was Kenneth Clarke. Of course there are others.
> > > I have put this to Mr. Clarke already but, like so many of your esteemed political colleagues, he evades answering. You can’t argue a fact which then exposes you Mr Lazarowicz now can you? You’re a lawyer, you will be well aware of this tactic.
> > > Finally,
> > > A Hedge Fund outfit then makes the biggest single year profit in history in 2008 by SHORTING the Subprime mortgage market.Just lucky I guess huh?Then from early 2009, this Hedge fund company start to buy up the same investments at cents on the dollar that they had previously shorted!! How about that? Ring any historical bells for you??
> > > It’s pure “in the know” Insider trading. Soros, Paulson etc aren’t “Gods” at timing market and currency crashes as we thought they were. They’re all insiders part of the same game. They rig the table and when the time’s right, they place their bets. But it’s not betting when the table’s rigged]
> > >
> > > “Next up, we have John Paulson’s Paulson & Co. Paulson & Co is famous for making a fortune by betting against sub-prime when this whole mess began to unfold. And, it appears as if Paulson is still up to his fortune-making ways. One of his funds has generated a 589% return, which could easily be up there amongst the largest returns by a single hedge fund in a year.”
> > >
> > > Then…..
> > >
> > > “Paulson’s bet against sub-prime has paid off and he has recently reversed course on that bet and has started to buy the assets he was previously short.”
> > >
> > > Read the entire page here: http://www.marketfolly.com/2008/12/hedge-fund-tracking-paulson-co-john.html
> > > So how did they get it so right?
> > > Introducing Mr Alan Greenspan.
> > > NEW YORK, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ — Paulson & Co. (Bloomberg: 573991Z US) Inc., a New York-based investment management firm, today announced its retention of Dr. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as a member of its advisory board. Dr. Greenspan will provide ongoing advice to Paulson’s investment management team by sharing his perspective on issues affecting the financial markets.
> > >
> > > So, the ex Chairman of the Federal Reserve (a Private Bank as is the IMF and the BofE controlled by the same ultimate persons) joins a hedge fund outfit who basically win hands down in their profits over ALL other hedge funds in 2008 due to their SHORTING the Subprime market which caused the financial crisis. They made $BILLIONS!
> > > Greenspan had presided over the entire American financial system from August 1987 to Jan 2006.
> > >
> > > He becomes advisor to Paulson & Co in Jan 2008 and look how well they did!!
> > > I could go on all day Mr Lazarowicz on a great number of topics. The transparency of what is transpiring is such that you need only do a little searching. The problem is that most do not.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, I ask you, would you care to comment on ANY of this? Or do you simply wish to evade such?
> > > If this country were a sick patient then this Government and political system would be the “Doctor” taken to task for malpractice.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Earthling
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
> > > > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:41:57 +0100
> > > > From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> > > > To: Earthling
> > > >
> > > > Thank you. Clearly I do not claim to be a scientist: but equally, it is not wrong (and indeed necessary) for non-scientists, to make the best assessment they can of different scientific views, and that is what I have tried to do.
> > > >
> > > > I am afraid I still can’t agree with you on the issue – although I note you do appear to share my opposition to any proposed ‘bike tax’!
> > > >
> > > > Mark Lazarowicz MP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > —–Original Message—–
> > > > From: Earthling
> > > > Sent: Fri 25/09/2009 15:38
> > > > To: LAZAROWICZ, Mark
> > > > Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Mr Lazarowicz,
> > > > Thank you for your email. Apologies for the delay in response. I am glad to hear you have read so widely on this issue and, having done so, I would take from that that you have a significant background in the sciences which allows you to be, quote: “prepared to accept what appears to me to be overwhelming scientific consensus”. Such assurance fills me joy knowing our Parliamentary representatives know exactly what they’re doing while they preach about climate change and the need to tax cars due to CO2 emissions while they now propose taxing CYCLISTS for what? Dare I say gas emissions?
> > > > Sorry Mr Lazarowicz but our “government” are getting WAY out of hand. Climate change is nothing more than the globalists gaining taxes out of the population of each nation. You know it and I know it. I had asked for a considered response to all my points but you feel it suffices to say that you’ve read all the evidence and therefore YOU disagree? Democracy in its element I see. Similar to dear Mr. Kenneth Clarke and his evasion tactics when put to task.
> > > > Now, sticking to the science for now, rather than the politics which dictate other issues your response below brought to mind:
> > > > I would also mention to you Mr. Lazarowicz that Lord Lawson’s evidence MAY have been at variance with most of the other evidence received by the Joint Committee which you (your profession being a lawyer NOT a scientist) found more persuasive, yet there are at least another 30 THOUSAND scientists “at variance” with the IPCC. The IPCC being a group of scientists picked by governments and FUNDED by governments and other Corporate interests.
> > > > Let me bring your attention to another issue which, I believe, you having been so widely read on the subject of Climate Change and understand the science (I would have to assume from what you say) will be able to explain quite easily:
> > > > “The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.”
> > > > http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
> > > > I do look forward to your explanation of this because it has me somewhat confused to be honest. It seems to me to present some fundamental contradiction.
> > > > You may also wish to comment on the following:The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
> > > > There are over 30,000 scientists (over 9000 PhDs) who have petitioned against Climate Change, have constantly requested debate and have been ignored. Very much like the way our government ignore the population of this country. Posed with significant, far reaching questions and supporting evidence, the government simply shrugs its shoulders and evades. By doing so Mr Lazarowicz, Fabian or not, you build up serious issues for your party, the government and this country.The 30,000 scientists have had peer reviewed papers written to support their conclusions. Yet, again, the hand picked IPCC “authors” are preferred.
> > > > Perhaps ANOTHER bunch of scientists may convince you of the error of your ways as politicians (but I won’t hold my breath):
> > > > Friday, Feb 27th, 2009
> > > >
> > > > A major scientific report by leading Japanese academics concludes that global warming is not man-made and that the overall warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century onwards has now stopped.
> > > >
> > > > Unsurprisingly the report, which was released last month, has been completely ignored by the Western corporate media.
> > > >
> > > > The report was undertaken by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER), the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields.
> > > >
> > > > The JSER acts as a government advisory panel, much like the International Panel on Climate Change did for the UN.
> > > >
> > > > The JSER’s findings provide a stark contrast to the IPCC’s, however, with only one out of five top researchers agreeing with the claim that recent warming has been accelerated by man-made carbon emissions.
> > > >
> > > > The government commissioned report criticizes computer climate modeling and also says that the US ground temperature data set, used to back up the man-made warming claims, is too myopic.
> > > >
> > > > In the last month, no major Western media outlet has covered the report, which prompted British based sci-tech website The Register to commission a translation of the do$%^&ent.
> > > >
> > > > Section one highlights the fact that Global Warming has ceased, noting that since 2001, the increase in global temperatures has halted, despite a continuing increase in CO2 emissions.
> > > >
> > > > The report then states that the recent warming the planet has experienced is primarily a recovery from the so called “Little Ice Age” that occurred from around 1400 through to 1800, and is part of a natural cycle.
> > > >
> > > > The researchers also conclude that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity, a notion previously dismissed by the IPCC.
> > > >
> > > > “The hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken.” the report’s introduction states.
> > > >
> > > > Kanya Kusano, Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC) reiterates this point:
> > > >
> > > > “[The IPCC’s] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,”
> > > >
> > > > Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, cites historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:
> > > >
> > > > “We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. ”
> > > >
> > > > “Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth. The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.” Akasofu concludes.
> > > >
> > > > The conclusions within the report dovetail with those of hundreds of Western scientists, who have been derided and even compared with holocaust deniers for challenging the so called “consensus” on global warming.
> > > >
> > > > The total lack of exposure that this major report has received is another example of how skewed coverage of climate change is toward one set of hypotheses.
> > > >
> > > > This serves the agenda to deliberately whip up mass hysteria on behalf of governments who are all too eager to introduce draconian taxation and control measures that won’t do anything to combat any form of warming, whether you believe it to be natural or man-made. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

Regards
Earthling
Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:22:48 +0100
> > > > > From: LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk
> > > > > To: Earthling
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Earthling
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankyou for copying me your email. I can assure you that I have read widely on this issue. Having done so, I am prepared to accept what appears to me to be the overwhelming scientific consensus as reflected in the IPCC. I also believe that countries like China will in due course accept binding caps on emissions, although clearly there will be a lot of negotiation and lobbying to be done before we get to that position.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would also mention that Lord Lawson’s evidence was at variance with most of the other evidence received by the Joint Committee, which I found more persuasive. I am afraid, therefore, that we will have to disagree on this issue; but I appreciate you taking the time to let me have your detailed views on this issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours sincerely
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark Lazarowicz
> > > > >
> > > > > —–Original Message—–
> > > > > From: Earthling
> > > > > To: “m.hulme@uea.ac.uk” <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>; “LAZAROWICZ, Mark” <LAZAROWICZM@parliament.uk>
> > > > > Sent: 01/09/09 19:08
> > > > > Subject: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Mr. Hulme.
> > > > > The Radio 4 propaganda piece (9pm Thursday 27th August) regarding Climate Change was exceptionally staged. Richard Black did a wonderful job of making sure the populace did not even question the basic science, while people such as yourself and Jonathan Porrit (the Population Reduction Bilderberger) supported the piece 100%.
> > > > > Let me then ask you: Prove the basic science.
> > > > > And while you chew on that idea, please have a read of the following:
> > > > > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtclimate/170/7051601.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Excerpts:
> > > > > Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill – Minutes of Evidence
> > > > > Oral evidence. Taken before the Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill on Wednesday 16 May 2007
> > > > > Lord Lawson of Blaby: “Well, thank you very much, my Lord Chairman, it is very good of you to have invited me to help you with this impossible task with which you have been entrusted. Perhaps it might help if I say a few words because it is a very, very complex issue and impossible to do justice to in a few words; but nevertheless, to put the thing in perspective, if you read the latest IPPC report, that is the Summary for Policymakers which they produced in their Fourth Assessment Report, you see that they are suggesting for the next 100 years (on the basis of what they believe to be the best science they can get, although the scientists are divided) that there will probably be an increase in global mean temperature of between 1.8 and four degrees centigrade.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, straight off the cuff: The scientists are divided even on what the IPCC describe as “the best science they can get” which clearly is stating it’s the best they can do but is entirely unproven. Yet, our government and the media propaganda is in over-drive hyping the Climate Change “monster” while it’s all about Carbon Credits, Economics and Trade.”
> > > > >
> > > > > “We then get the Government’s quaint proposal in this draft Bill which, even if you thought this was a path on which it was worth embarking, is dangerous in two ways. First of all, it seems (but it is not clear) to put the emphasis on carbon trading. Carbon trading is a very poor second best method even if you did want to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Even if you did want to do that, it is a very second best way of doing it, for two reasons. One is that it is not really a market system at all because it is essentially a system of rationing and it is not a true market system so you do not get the efficiencies of the market. The other way it is a second best is that of course, as the Financial Times interestingly pointed out in a couple of articles about ten days ago, the carbon trading systems as we know them are a huge scam for the most part and they are bound to be a scam.”
> > > > > “However, we alone say we are going to go to a 60 per cent reduction by 2050 and will make it legally binding regardless of what happens. The idea is that we will give a lead and then everybody else will follow. The Chinese have made it quite clear that they not going to follow and our lead will be the equivalent of the lead of the Earl of Cardigan in the Charge of the Light Brigade.”
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, even IF Climate Change were real, do we have borders which rise from ground level to above the stratosphere and into space? If not then there is no logical argument for the UK implementing a Climate Change bill when others, such as China won’t. It’s plainly ridiculous even forgetting the sheer numbers of Chinese as opposed to the UK population!Perhaps we should ask Jonathan Porrit regarding his ideas to reduce the UK population to 30 million shall we?
> > > > > Perhaps we can gain carbon credits by closing our doors to further immigration, telling the Chinese that, where they suggest they would have had another 450 million chinese if not for the one child per family rule, the UK was going to allow another 20 million immigrants within the next 5 years who would then have, we estimate 2.2 children per family over the next 10 years…….
> > > > > Are you beginning to appreciate the garbage which surrounds this entire subject?
> > > > >
> > > > > Q38 Mr Chaytor: Lord Lawson, are you accepting that human beings can live with a temperature rise of possibly four degrees and, if so, why would it be necessary to impose a carbon tax? [Note: In the document it makes perfectly clear that ANY rise in temp is ENTIRELY unproven AND, in fact, unfounded and they are ASSUMING IF during this part of the discussion]
> > > > >
> > > > > Lord Lawson of Blaby: I do not believe it is necessary to impose a carbon tax.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q39 Mr Chaytor: But you said that the imposition of a carbon tax was the only way to deal with the consequences of climate change?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lord Lawson of Blaby: No I did not. I said the imposition of a carbon tax is the only sensible way if you want to cut back carbon dioxide emissions. If that is what you want to do, then the only sensible way is to put on a carbon tax.
> > > > >
> > > > > Q40 Mr Chaytor: But if your argument is there is no need to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions because human beings are sufficiently adaptable to cope with a temperature rise of up to four degrees, then there is no argument whatsoever for a carbon tax.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lord Lawson of Blaby: NO, THERE IS NO ARGUMENT FOR A CARBON TAX EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO HAVE TAXATION [My emphasis] and, bluntly, chancellors of the exchequer have to finance public expenditure and up to a certain point, if a carbon tax is more acceptable to the public than some other forms of taxation, then it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a carbon tax, but in my judgment there is no necessity to put on a carbon tax.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lord Lawson of Blaby: …….. It is also worth pointing out, talking about these reports, that there are great benefits from warming. Indeed, the IPPC reports themselves say that with a temperature rise of up to three degrees centigrade globally agriculture will be improved, there will be no disadvantage, it will be an advantage, and in fact the picture is much more disparate than that because there are some advantages and some disadvantages, and if you adopt the approach that I am advocating you pocket all the advantages and then you mitigate the disadvantages.
> > > > > “Incidentally over this century as a whole, the 21st century so far, there has been virtually no further global warming. It does not feel like that here because we are very conscious that there has been some slight further warming in the northern hemisphere and a continuation of the trend of the last quarter of the 20th century, but in the southern hemisphere there has been a slight cooling over the first few years of this century, which none of the models have predicted and none of the models can explain. Nobody knows why that is so, but it means that the average of the northern and southern hemisphere is for this century so far little change, so it is a hugely uncertain area.”
> > > > > Let me repeat that for you: “NO, THERE IS NO ARGUMENT FOR A CARBON TAX EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO HAVE TAXATION”
> > > > >
> > > > > You will note I have copied Mark Lazarowicz on this email since:
> > > > > 1. He is my local MP in Edinburgh2. He was directly involved in this Bill and this evidence.
> > > > > I would, therefore, also wish to ask Mark for an explanation and ask you both to provide the incontrovertible evidence that Climate Change is a real phenomenon.
> > > > > By asking you both to do this, it is simply not sufficient to point at the IPCC studies and conclusions and ignore, as Richard Black did in the Radio 4 piece, that there is a vast body of scientists who entirely disagree with such results and who have also pointed to manipulated data.
> > > > >
> > > > > I look forward to a considered response.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Earthling
> > > > >
> > > > > PS: Perhaps we should have been seeing an average temperature in the uk of about 30 degrees C by now if this article from 1922 had been a harbinger of global warming. The IPPC, I’m sure, would have had a field day and Al Gore would have been in his element! 
> > > > > PPS: Alternatively, by now, according to the thinking in 1975, we should have been killing Polar Bears for their skins rather than trying to protect them? What do YOU think?
> > > > > The ONLY reason we have “Global Warming” (or since they’ve been unable to show the reality of warming, “Climate Change”) is because there are massively influential Corporate and Global Banking interests steering this and other countries governments. Ours, as others, have sold out. Corrupt and criminal.
> > > > > Tony Blair – Multi millionaire having been paid well for his services to the Bankers and given the position at J.P. Morgan Chase. Peter Mandelson – How’s his friendship going with Jacob Rothschild? Ken Clarke – When’s he going to own up about his support of Blair’s policies and their dual support for the Bilderberg crew?
> > > > > Work it all out. It isn’t difficult.________________________________
UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

________________________________
Chat to your friends for free on selected mobiles. Learn more.<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/174426567/direct/01/>
________________________________
UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________

*********************************************************************
If you receive this e-mail in error, please contact +44 20 7280 5000. The information contained in this e-mail and in the attachments if any, is confidential. It must not be read, copied, disclosed, printed,
forwarded, relied upon or used by any person other than the intended recipient. Unauthorised use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited.

N M Rothschild & Sons Limited
Registered number 925279
Registered in England at New Court, St Swithin’s Lane, London EC4P 4DU

N M Rothschild & Sons Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom. The firm reference number is 124451.
*********************************************************************


UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.


New Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you.


UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

 

Legal persons, Cheshire cats and the fat cats!

Posted in Law by earthling on March 11, 2014

Men do not wield or submit to sovereignty. They wield or submit to authority or power. Authority and power are facts as old and ubiquitous as society itself. . . . Although we talk of [sovereignty] loosely as something concrete which may be lost or acquired, eroded or increased, sovereignty is not a fact.

If it is the Court’s claim that sovereignty is not only a fact of our political-legal world, but a fact to be encouraged, this claim will require substantiation: it is by no means self-evident that governments we create can enjoy the predicate “sovereign.” Even assuming such a possibility, does it make even a modicum of sense to suppose that what can be hemmed in by “Amendments” is actually “sovereign?” Can the claim of sovereignty be sustained? 

The following are just the first three pages of what is 22 pages long. I hope you find it of interest and I’d be pleased to get your feedback. It’s your interest that spurs me on. If it’s not there I’ll lose interest myself. I hope, through all of this, to not only make it clear to those who pour scorn over this issue that they are wholly ignorant, but also to allow me to demonstrate, here and there, through referral to the text, how the legal person con affects us all.

Legal persons

Person 1

So the “person” is either, metaphysical or a “convenient device”. While jurists (i.e. the legal profession) can’t even agree on which BUT they will prosecute you as being such.

The sheer fact that this essay needs to be written proves that the legal person is a fiction. Either way, “metaphysical” or not, it is the conjuring up of an entity for the basis of another entity being able to control it and dictate the rules it must live by (and we’re not talking just the rules of any sane individual here as, for example “thou shall not kill”. “Puzzling”, “uncertainty” AND “inconsistency” rules the day when it comes to the legal person! And it is the inconsistency part which provides us all with the most trouble as the state applies rules to various types and classes of “legal person” as they so desire. While courts and legislators just apply the rules in total ignorance of what they are applying such rules to! Ambiguity.

I guess ambiguity was the term of the day when Jade Jacob Brooks was not bestowed any human rights then. They couldn’t decide whether she was a human or not because she did not exist as a “legal person”.

Person 2

It is a conceptual analysis because the “Legal Person” is conceptual in of itself! It is a concept – nothing more, nothing less but, as they say “Perhaps the greatest political act of law is the making of the legal person” – NOTE: It does not say the EXISTENCE OF it says the MAKING OF! The point there being this: As soon as you are born (or perhaps even conceived), you EXIST – or are there some of you out there who would argue that? BUT, while you EXIST (as a living, breathing human being), it does not necessarily mean that you have been made into a PERSON – a LEGAL PERSON. And that is PRECISELY why Jade Jacob Brooks was (wrongly) described as having NOT EXISTED. To describe her as such was, on one hand, to the legal profession’s benefit however, on the other hand, it wasn’t in that it proved a dichotomy for them. How can a HUMAN exist but NOT be provided HUMAN RIGHTS?

The answer to that is then simple: HUMAN rights is a misnomer. HUMAN rights do not exist. LEGAL PERSON’S RIGHTS do!. One can only be given these rights IF one acquiesce’s to the system which offers them. However, in acquiescence to that system, one is then saying “Yes I will abide by ALL of your rules and yes, you can apply rules to me which are obviously discriminatory and corrupt”. For example, when it comes to employment law. An employment contract is what?

IT IS A CONTRACT. Law of contract already exists and, within such law, it is perfectly capable of handling ANY dispute in ANY type of contract. BUT the Banks and Corporations (as employers) do not WISH to allow people to enforce the law of contract so what have they done? They have had governments provide THEM with “LEGAL PERSONHOOD” with the ‘same’ “rights and privileges and duties” as you and I as actual HUMANS (referred to as “natural persons”) while, then using what is, in fact, discrimination to then provide benefits to employers (corporations) because, in law – as you are aware of today with the destruction of legal aid – the one with the most money is, invariably, the one who wins AND, if you do not possess enough money, you can’t even get to court now. Additionally, the corporations are protected (discrimination once more) because the state has introduced “Statutory law” – i.e. NEW rules – called “Employment law” which is STILL the law of contract but it has been corrupted for the benefit of the Corporate legal person.

With the emancipation of the slaves, they simply were given a step up on the ladder to be equal with the debt slaves whereas debt slaves, prior to their emancipation, could own slaves as property outright. The same discriminatory practice exists today when we consider the rights of homosexuals and the rights of transexuals. I would like to understand what these feminists have problems with however. What exactly is it they are not allowed to do as “legal persons” that men are? But women tend to see this “war” as a war against men yet I would submit that men genuinely do not see it and, if they do, they see it as for what it is: A war against PEOPLE by wealthier people who have indebted nations and governments and have bought their way into creating legislation just how THEY want it. It’s nothing to do with men. Theresa May and Hillary Clinton are NOT men just as Patricia Hewitt and Harriet Harman are NOT men! Will that stop any of them legislating against or for women? Will it hell! What steers THEIR views of anything is MONEY just as it is for their political whore peers! All of them bought off by the banking fraternity.

As you know, dolphins have legal person status now in India so the point made about animals will soon be out of date.

Corporations have “Dual status” of “persons” AND “property”. Well of course, because that gives them the flexibility they need when they need it. However, isn’t YOUR body YOUR property?

I like note 4 re slaves: The hypocrisy never ends not even today. Law is applied by the jurists and the legislature in whichever way they choose according to what is more beneficial to them at any one time.

And note 6 is a beauty and here we see the confirmation, in part, regarding the issue Jade Jacob Brooks found herself with for about 20 years of her life.

Person 3

So, it is recognised fully that there is no morality within a corporation (corp(se) “dead” oration “speaking”) but it is offered the rights of us humans. The concept depends upon “analogies and dianalogies” and anything else which can be thought of to justify it!

Some jurists who believe the corporation is both legal and moral are liars because those same jurists KNOW that the entire raison d’etre of a corporation is to make a profit for its shareholders and that principle is upheld in courts all over the world. This is PRECISELY why Monsanto and other corporations can sue other legal persons (companies, human AND governments) for a loss of profit IF any of these other legal persons stand in the way of such profit for any MORAL reason!

Scotland’s “Crown”: Solid proof the Queen runs the show!

Posted in Political History, Politics by earthling on March 8, 2014
HC Deb 10 February 1998 vol 306 cc185-201185

§Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 18, line 11, leave out from `be’ to end of line 13 and insert `elected by the members of the Parliament’.

§The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 254, in page 18, leave out lines 19 to 27.

No. 313, in clause 43, page 18, line 36, leave out ‘or’.

No. 275, in page 18, line 38, at end insert ‘or— 

  1. (e) the First Minister being admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, becoming subject to a guardianship order or having a curator bonis appointed on his estate’.

No. 76, in clause 44, page 19, line 9, leave out `with the approval of Her Majesty’. No. 276, in page 19, line 10, after ‘appoint’, insert `up to a total of ten’. No. 277, in page 19, leave out lines 11 and 12.

No. 87, in page 19, line 11, leave out `seek Her Majesty’s approval for’ and insert ‘make’.

No. 88, in page 19, leave out line 14.

No. 89, in clause 46, page 19, line 32, leave out `with the approval of Her Majesty’. No. 75, in page 19, line 35, at end insert— ‘(2A) The First Minister shall not make any appointment under this section without the agreement of the Parliament.’. 186No. 90, in page 19, leave out line 37.

§Mr. CanavanI shall speak to amendment No. 44 and the other amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 75 are substantive and the others are consequential.

Amendment No. 44 proposes that the First Minister should be elected by Members of the Scottish Parliament rather than being appointed by the Queen and holding office at Her Majesty’s pleasure. As the First Minister will be primus in paribus, or first among equals, it is more appropriate that he or she is elected by his or her parliamentary colleagues than appointed by the Crown.

In the early stages of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, members of the convention signed a document referring to the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. It seems to me that the concepts of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and of the sovereignty of a monarch are mutually exclusive. (Yes, indeed they are!) The amendments propose that, if the First Minister is not directly elected by the people of Scotland, he or she should be elected by the people’s representatives in the Scottish Parliament.

I dare say that Opposition Members, and perhaps the Minister, will argue that the role of the monarchy is a mere formality in respect of the governance of the country or the countries that used to be part of the British empire. However, not all that long ago a Labour Prime Minister was ousted from his job in Australia because of the interference of the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative. (And I have previously written about Gough Whitlam, the Australian PM and how all of it came about via the Queen’s mafia. Glad to see confirmation of it once more in parliament)

In 1974, there were two general elections, and the first resulted in a hung parliament. No party had an overall majority in Parliament, and Harold Wilson was the leader of the party with the largest number of Members. However, the Queen did not call Harold Wilson to the palace. In fact, she called the defeated Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), to the palace and asked him to cobble up some kind of coalition agreement with Jeremy Thorpe, the then leader of the Liberal party. There was a long hiatus in which, in effect, there was no Government. Harold Wilson, who was the leader of the biggest party, had to wait in the wings until he was called to the palace to form a Government.

§Mr. WallaceI am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument and I am sure that he would not want there to be any inaccuracy. He will also agree that Jeremy Thorpe and his Liberal colleagues showed good sense by not supporting Edward Heath. Is not the point that Edward Heath had the advantage of incumbency—

§The ChairmanOrder. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is referring to a right hon. Member. (and paedophile)

§Mr. WallaceI apologise, Sir Alan. I was speaking from a sense of history, as I was just a boy at the time. It was actually my first vote.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was the incumbent Prime Minister at the time, so it was not a matter of the Queen sending for him. He had to tender his resignation. I am sure that even the 187hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) would have thought it an abuse if the sovereign had summoned the Prime Minister and demanded his resignation.

§Mr. CanavanThat is exactly what the Queen should have done after the February 1974 general election. Whatever the will of the British people, as expressed at the ballot box, it was quite clear that they no longer wanted the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to be their Prime Minister. The Queen should have summoned him to the palace and sacked him and then called Harold Wilson, but for reasons best known to herself, she did not do that. Sometimes I wonder about the so-called neutral role of the monarchy in respect of politics. (Do you really or are you just gently making the point?)

§Ms Roseanna CunninghamThe hon. Gentleman will know that I am very much in favour of reducing the work load of the monarch—preferably to zero. I was interested to hear the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I do not know whether he knows what happened in Australia, but in contradiction to his point about 1974—which may be true, but I do not know as I was not here at the time—when the Australian Labour Government were sacked and a general election was called, the Liberals, or the Tories, were appointed in the interim and therefore were in government throughout the election. That is an interesting point as it illustrates the other side of the coin from that referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about the monarch’s neutrality, which remains to be proved. (How is it, if we live in a true, free, open democratic country, that even our MPs and Lords question and do not know the exact position of our constitutional monarchy who, we are told, has no power?)

§Mr. CanavanI am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention as it shows the inconsistency of the monarchy or its representatives when they take a role in the running of Governments or Parliaments.

We have to bear in mind too that, if the political pundits are correct, there will be a much greater probability of a hung Parliament in the Scottish Parliament because of the system of proportional representation. The amendments would minimise—in fact remove—the possibility of any interference by the monarchy as to who should be the First Minister and form the Government.

My amendments Nos. 76 and 75 propose that Parliament’s agreement should be required in appointing not only the First Minister but other Ministers and that there should be no role for the monarchy in appointing other Ministers or junior Ministers.

Another anomaly in the Bill is that, under clause 46, the First Minister would require Parliament’s agreement before seeking the Crown’s approval of the appointment of a Minister, whereas the First Minister could appoint junior Ministers without seeking Parliament’s approval. I think that that would be a bad thing and that all ministerial appointments should be subject to Parliament’s approval. A Scottish Parliament should not simply ape the patronage system of this place, where the power of patronage is widely open to abuse. As I had started to say, the Crown is the very pinnacle of the patronage system, although in practice the Prime Minister exercises many of those powers.

We have witnessed many examples—and are perhaps witnessing current examples—of appointments that are made without any reference to Parliament or much democratic accountability. We must remember that the 188First Minister of Scotland will have tremendous patronage powers, because, presumably, he or she will inherit all the patronage powers currently held by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for hundreds of public appointments across Scotland. We are talking not about the appointment of a mere coterie of Scottish Cabinet members and junior Ministers but about patronage over hundreds of public positions across Scotland. (So what this is saying is that, once Alex is in, he has total control of who he appoints to ensure he has all his buddies surrounding him to fully support his exploitation of Scotland and become a very very rich little fat bastard. With the Queen’s acceptance that is)

We should make the First Minister and the First Minister’s ministerial colleagues as accountable as possible to the people of Scotland through elected representatives.

§Mr. SalmondI am very sympathetic to many of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, it seems that clause 43 is something of an advance on the current situation at Westminster, where someone is to be called to the palace—presumably the head of the leading party in the general election. The clause states that the Scottish Parliament will nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister. That seems to go part of the way towards achieving the more satisfactory situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined, and away from the process of mystification that we could have in this place if there were a hung Parliament.

§Mr. CanavanI agree that the Bill proposes a ministerial appointment system that is better than our current system at Westminster, where Ministers can be appointed without any reference to Parliament. We once had a rule in the parliamentary Labour party that, if someone was an elected member of the shadow Cabinet, he or she would automatically become a Cabinet member when Labour was elected to government. In at least two cases that I know of, that did not happen after 1 May. Furthermore, I know of at least one Minister whose appointment might not have been accepted had it required parliamentary approval. [HON. MEMBERS: “Name him.”] I forget his constituency, but I believe that he has something to do with the millennium dome.[Interruption.] Yes, he is the Minister for the dome.

§Mr. SalmondIs the hon. Gentleman’s bleeper going off?

§Mr. CanavanI have it switched off.

As I said, the two concepts of sovereignty of the people and sovereignty of the monarch are mutually exclusive. If we really believe in sovereignty of the people, Members of the Scottish Parliament should—as proposed—be elected by the people and accountable to the people. Similarly, Ministers should be elected by the elected representatives of the people. In that way, the Scottish Government or the Scottish Executive would be more accountable to the people of Scotland.

(Notice, at this point, Alex Salmond keeps his powder dry and says nothing in response to this statement by Canavan. Now why do you think that would be? It’s because he is not going to agree to sovereignty of the people when he knows he must retain sovereignty for the Crown and Queen)
6.15 pm

§Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)—who said that Labour Members are clones—was not in the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). It is nice to know that he still shops for his speeches at Republicans—’R—Us, adding a bit of colour to the Labour Benches. (Liam Fox: Zionist ass licker of her majesty and liar who used depleted uranium against Libya)

189I shall speak to amendment No. 275, which deals with the important issue of the mental health of Members of Parliament, which is not a laughing matter but a serious issue that is important both for Members of Parliament and for the protection of their electorate—to ensure that representation of the electorate is maintained.

§Mr. McLeishJust for the record, is present company excepted from the deliberations?

§Dr. FoxThe Minister is asking me to give a professional opinion, which I do not think I want to stray into right now.

I wonder how many hon. Members realise that the Mental Health Act 1983 has special provisions for section orders for Members of Parliament. Should, for example, an hon. Member fall ill with a mental health problem, a complex procedure will come into play. First, the doctor signing a section order or the person who is in charge of the hospital where the Member is detained will notify the Speaker. Secondly, the Speaker will appoint someone from the Royal College of Psychiatrists to look after the Member. If that Member is still detained under a section order after six months, the seat will become vacant.

I do not know why there should be such a provision for hon. Members in this place, but not for those in the Scottish Parliament. I think that Ministers have simply overlooked the matter, and I look forward to the Minister bringing the Scottish Parliament into line on that point. It is quite a serious and important matter, which should not be belittled.

§Dr. Lynda ClarkCould the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee of the number of occasions when that provision has been used?

§Dr. FoxI do not think that it matters whether it has been used: the provision is there to protect the electorate should a Member of Parliament be absent for six months and unable to represent his or her constituents. One would hope that the provision would never have to be used and that hon. Members do not suffer in that way, but it is there to protect the electorate. It is, therefore, important.

In tabling amendment No. 276, we wanted to examine a different aspect of the Bill. Our amendment would limit the size of the Scottish Executive. “Erskine May”, for example, limits the Prime Minister’s freedom of manoeuvre in establishing the number of places in his Cabinet, yet this Bill places no limitation on the size of the Scottish Executive. The Bill provides for an unspecified number of Ministers plus an unspecified number of junior Ministers. The Scottish Office is currently run by the Secretary of State and five Ministers. One would not wish a situation to arise—which has occurred elsewhere—in which the number of Ministers was increased simply to keep Members quiet, by appointing more of them as Ministers. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West dealt with the matter of patronage in his speech.

When I was at the Foreign Office—although I do not suggest that it might happen in the Scottish Parliament—one of the Governments whom I dealt with was the Government of Nepal. As the coalition Government started to crumble, one side of the Parliament consisted of 130 Members, of whom 85 were Ministers. I see the hon. Member for Falkirk, West smiling—perhaps because 190he foresees the possible bonanza. However, it will happen only at the taxpayers’ expense. If we are to avoid “jobs for the boys” gibes, we shall have to ensure that we are not writing a blank cheque for Members of the Scottish Parliament or giving unlimited powers of patronage to the First Minister.

§Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus)Not content with limiting the powers of a Scottish Parliament, the Tories want to limit the number of Scottish Ministers to fewer than those in a football team—and for ever more. Surely the size and shape of the Scottish Cabinet is up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. It is again clear that the Tories have no trust or faith in the Scottish people or their democracy. (Nothing to do with trust in the scottish people. It is to do with there being no trust in politicians by another politician because he knows what a bunch of corrupt gits look like because he is one. Neither are YOU saying that such a call would be made by the scottish people themselves but by the scottish government ministers, so we’re back to square one asshole!)

§Dr. FoxQuite the reverse—the issue is about having less faith in politicians than in the people. (Hah! I hadn’t even read this before I made the above comment! How about that?! :-))‘t are concerned with the ability of politicians to rein themselves in when offered a blank cheque. We have tabled the amendments from the point of view of protecting the electorate from politicians. (This is Liam Fox saying this! How do these people say what they say without going red in the face? How about protecting us from you then you corrupt bastard!) When the people of Scotland voted in large numbers in favour of the proposals in the referendum, I do not think that they ever wanted to give such a blank cheque to the Parliament or for there to be an unspecified number of Ministers.

Given that in this House Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister, and that the First Minister will have to have the Scottish Parliament’s approval, it would be excessive to stipulate that all Ministers had to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. To introduce an American style of approval of Ministers, such as that welcomed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, would be excessive control over the First Minister’s freedom. Such control does not apply in Westminster, and the case has not been made for it to apply in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.

Now we get into the “meat” of it all…..

§Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)I shall speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The amendments would delete the following phrases: appointed by Her Majesty from among the members of the Parliament and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure”, with the approval of Her Majesty”—in clauses 44 and 46— seek Her Majesty’s approval”, and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure”. in clauses 44 and 46.

I would not want the group of amendments to be represented as an attack on either Her Majesty or the monarchy. That would be a misreading of the intent behind them. It is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West and I hold certain views about the legitimacy of an hereditary institution exercising what should be democratic power in a democratic society. I for one have never understood those who argue for modernising the British constitution and who speak about sweeping away powers of hereditary peers, while at the same time talking about entrenching the powers of an hereditary monarch. (No mate, neither do I nor many of us)

191 I very much take to heart my hon. Friend’s arguments, particularly those on the 1974 election and what happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia. (Now, you SNP supporters out there: If you do not understand what happened in this case, for one, then you have no idea what this has to do with Scottish “independence” do you? And why you NEED to know!) The future role of the monarchy is not at the heart of the amendments. The amendments focus on the Scottish Parliament’s right democratically to elect Ministers who will hold office in the Scottish Government after 1999.

The Bill technically says that the First Minister shall be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at Her Majesty’s approval. We know that that is a constitutional fiction. We know that the Queen will not in fact appoint anybody in the Scottish Parliament. She will do so only on the advice of the British Prime Minister and the British Cabinet of the day. (as you will see, this isn’t actually true and he may well have been playing “Devil’s advocate” here. On the face of it, she “takes advice” but she already tells her ministers what “advice” she wishes to take and they simply then tell her majesty what she wishes to hear) We are really talking about the right of the United Kingdom Government and Cabinet to appoint the First Minister, other Ministers and junior Ministers in a Scottish Parliament. Without the approval of the UK Cabinet, that could not go ahead—otherwise, the provision would not be in the Bill. Even the right to hold office is contingent on the continuing approval of the British Government and Cabinet.

There is danger in such a system. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said in an earlier debate that we cannot always assume that the British Cabinet will be in sympathy with the Scottish Parliament and necessarily want it to stand on its own feet, as the Minister would like.

§Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument most closely. He seems to be making a case for a separate Scottish Head of State. If that is so, why is he sitting on the Government Benches and not with the Scottish nationalists? (Interesting comment because, as you are aware, the SNP as “Scottish nationalists” do not make the case for a separate Head of state do they? At least not a change of who that Head of state is!)

§Mr. McAllionI do not think that I have referred to the Head of State. My opinion on the Head of State—which I presume the hon. Gentleman seriously wants to hear, or he would not have asked—is that the Queen could do a lot worse than put herself forward for a referendum to endorse whether she should be the Head of State. The legitimacy of the Queen’s role will always be questioned as long as she does not subject herself to the consent of the people.

If I were a monarchist—which I am not—I would be arguing for the Queen to call a referendum on her role in the British constitution. If, in such a referendum, she received the endorsement of a huge majority, as everybody says she would, I am sure that that would improve her situation. Others of us would also like a referendum so that we could vote for the kind of Head of State we wanted. It is not a matter of treason to want a democratically elected Head of State—although, judging from the Tories’ comments, it would sometimes seem so.

The heart of the problem is the relationship between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. All the phrases—which the amendments would delete—mean this: the Scottish Parliament would be allowed to appoint its own Ministers only so long as they met with the approval of the Westminster Parliament and Government. That lies at the heart of my objections.

§Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)I think that the clauses about which the hon. Gentleman is complaining mean the complete opposite of what he is saying. The very reason why it is stipulated that the Scottish First 192Minister will hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure is that that asserts absolutely and categorically that he has a direct link with the sovereign, which cannot be overridden by the United Kingdom Prime Minister in devolved matters. That is an essential protection under our present constitutional arrangements. (Question: Why does he need the link? ;-))

§Mr. McAllionThe hon. Gentleman is arguing as if the Queen had real constitutional powers. (Yes he is, because she does as is becoming obvious with every word) We have always been told that, of course, she does not have any real powers, because all constitutional power is exercised on the advice of the British Prime Minister. She would not dare to do anything on her own that a British Prime Minister would not allow her to do. (Of course not because that would give the game away. So, with the PM being a Crown Minister also, he keeps Her Majesty’s secrets, one of which is that he “advises” her rather than the reality which is she tells him what it is she wants him to advise her of! She gets rid of PMs she doesn’t like! Gough Whitlam being just one. I would posit that Maggie Thatcher was another due to her “No!” stance on Europe) Now, all of a sudden, the argument is very different. The hon. Gentleman is saying, “Yes, the Queen does have constitutional powers.” He is agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, who is concerned about the powers that an unelected monarchy exercises in the British constitution. I am increasingly concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s tone and the way in which the argument is developing. (You know precisely what the “Crown” is mate so don’t play silly buggers!)

§Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)The hon. Gentleman needs to consider the implications of what he is saying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested, it matters not whether in practical terms the Head of State uses the power, but it matters from where the power is derived. The practical exercise of power and the source of power are two quite different things. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the clauses. (No they are not two different things. Only power can exercise power. The PM exercises that power delegated to him/her. This was a bullshit statement and transparent)

§Mr. McAllionThe hon. Gentleman, who goes to Scotland on holiday only occasionally, also totally misunderstands the situation. I will tell him where the source of the power of appointment in a Scottish Parliament is. It is the people who elect that Scottish Parliament. There is no need for any reference to the United Kingdom Government, Cabinet or heir to the Head of State. A Scottish Parliament will be democratically legitimate because it will be elected by the Scottish people; it should be allowed freely to appoint its Ministers. That is the bottom line for those of us who agree with the Claim of Right and who believe that sovereignty rests with the people and not with the institution in Westminster. (He’s right in his ideology but totally naive! Or, again, is he just playing a game here? Feigning ignorance?)

Worse than that, throughout the debates, there has been a tension between the UK Parliament wanting to keep control and a leash on what the Scottish Parliament might do, and those of us who want the Scottish Parliament to get on with the job of governing Scotland’s domestic affairs free from interference, control and any dependence on the British Parliament.

§Dr. FoxBut the logic of that position is to move to independence, not devolution. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for a separate Scottish Parliament. (Never Liam! Very observant of you!)

§Mr. McAllionThe Tories have a blanket approach to this debate. They envisage only two possibilities: either there is a toy town Parliament that is under the control of the British Parliament, or there is independence. They say that time and again, but they are wrong. There is a middle position, in which sovereignty is shared between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament does not need to seek anyone’s approval for 193the appointment of Ministers—it has the approval of the Scottish people, which is all the sovereignty that is required. That is not to argue for independence. (Notice the word “sovereignty” in all of this and notice he makes the point that there is a difference between the words “sovereignty” and “independence”. This is why I ask Scottish nationalists what it is they want? You see, I have no interest in “Independence”. I want sovereignty! Yet, many nationalists can’t understand what I’m saying so they lambast me for being a unionist! Yet the reality is that I am WAY more “nationalist” than they are!)

Earlier, we debated whether, if the Scottish Parliament broke down and did not work, that would lead to independence or whether it would benefit the Tories and lead us back to a United Kingdom unitary state. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond): if the Scottish Parliament is a success, it will greatly increase the confidence among the Scottish people. Yes, the Scottish Parliament will argue for more and more powers to be devolved to it—there is nothing wrong with that. The real wreckers of the Scottish Parliament, who are sitting on the official Opposition Benches, do not want the Scottish Parliament to work, so they want the Bill to contain all these various control mechanisms.

6.30 pm

I have great sympathy with the idea that the number of Ministers should be restricted, not only in the Scottish Parliament but in this Parliament. The example of Nepal was cited, where of 130 Members 85 are Ministers. Everyone who is not a Minister wants to be one, so the Executive have complete control over the legislature, much as they have in this Parliament. As a point of principle, I want the Executive to be limited, but not to 10. I want a series of Departments to be set up under the Scottish Parliament, each with its own Minister, so that there are separate Departments for housing, health and local government. The Scottish Parliament should be able to decide on the number of Ministers and whether that number should be limited.

There is much to be said for Bank Benchers having the power to hold the Executive to account. Any Parliament that is worth its salt has to have a number of independent Back Benchers. The trouble with the Westminster Parliament is that there are not enough independent Back Benchers—the Executive tightly control the Back Benchers, which is the wrong way round. We could easily ensure that the Scottish Parliament gets things the right way round, but that will not happen if we check and limit its powers to get on with its own business.

The aim of the amendments is simple. It is for the Scottish Parliament—not for Westminster, the monarch of the United Kingdom state or anyone else—to decide who the Ministers are in the Government of the day in Scotland, as the Scottish Parliament alone will be elected by the Scottish people to fulfil that task.

§Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West)There is only one Liberal Democrat amendment in this group. It is a tidying-up amendment that relates to amendment No. 275, which was tabled by the Conservatives. We fully support that amendment, as it deals with the important issue of the mental health of the First Minister. There is a risk that the First Minister will suffer from megalomania. We already have a Secretary of State who single-handedly decides where the Parliament should be, so there is no knowing what may happen when power goes to people’s heads in the Scottish Parliament and they are corrupted, as all people in power always are. By the law of averages, Conservative Members must sometimes be right—on this occasion, we believe that they have a good point.

We do not agree with the two other points that Conservative Members have made. First, we do not see why there should be a limit on the number of Ministers 194in the Scottish Cabinet. The Scottish Parliament may decide to operate totally differently from Westminster—for example, there may be a flat structure rather than one that includes Secretaries of State and junior Ministers. It should have the scope to approach matters in a modern way and to organise its affairs as it wishes. The electorate will soon respond if there are jobs for the boys and girls, and will punish those responsible. Things can be left to the good sense not of the politicians, but of the electorate. (That’s what the US Constitution framers thought! Look what’s happened there! Are these people for real?)

Secondly, the Conservatives have moved against what we believe is one of the Bill’s best proposals—the introduction of the concept, which is new to Britain, that Parliament must approve all the Ministers. That is a great step towards democracy, and it is a pity that the Conservatives want to remove it.

I shall now deal with the points made by the hon. Members for Falkirk and for Dundee, East and West respectively, I think, although I never remember—

§Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)There is a subtle difference.

§Mr. GorrieThe difference is not so subtle.

The hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) are two of the most refreshing hon. Members, and we have the greatest sympathy with the angle from which they are coming. On this occasion, however, although we understand their argument, we do not agree with it. We believe that the matter is covered in clause 43(1), which states: the Parliament shall within the period allowed nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister”. That makes it clear that the Parliament chooses the First Minister. As I said, it also has the power to approve the Ministers.

There is a good argument for continuing to mention the Queen in this context. People may feel that there should be a different constitutional structure, but that is a debate for another day. Under the existing structure, the fact that the Queen has the same relationship to the Scottish premier as she does to the British premier gives legitimacy and status to the Scottish Parliament. It demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament is not a toy town Parliament, a parish council, a regional council or a city chambers—it is a Parliament with a direct relationship to the Queen. (Note: ONLY legitimacy IF a direct relationship with the Queen!)

The language may be archaic, but the point at issue is sound—the Scottish Parliament should choose the First Minister. The Parliament will meet to elect the First Minister; he or she will not have to drive in a horse and carriage across the road to Holyrood palace, although the Queen will do whatever she usually does and bless the premier, perhaps—I do not know, as I have never been present at such an occasion.

Clause 47 deals with civil servants. Liberal Democrats strongly believe that a new atmosphere should be created, in which the civil servants are responsible to the Parliament and do not work for the Government only. This is not the appropriate time to ensure that that happens, but when the Parliament’s methods of operation and Standing Orders are considered, we shall push strongly in that direction. Civil servants should continue 195to advise Ministers, but they should also give information to and have much more open discussions with Members from all parties in the Scottish Parliament.

§Mr. DalyellGiven the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), I have a sneaking suspicion that he has read the first leader in this morning’s The Scotsman.

I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question. If there is a conflict of opinion over a United Kingdom reserved matter, whose advice will the Queen take? Will she take the advice of the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament or that of the Prime Minister of the UK? If the matter is a devolved one, will the Queen take the advice of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister? Furthermore, if the matter is devolved but the UK Parliament is legislating under clause 27(7), whose advice will the Queen take—that of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister? (And here you have the strongest of evidence of the Queen’s ultimate power: The two PM’s -or, in this case, at the time, the PM of Great Britain and the First Minister of Scotland – have to COMPETE regarding who’s advice the Queen ultimately takes. It shows, then that it is not the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen today which the queen just accepts in some form of acquiescence, but she CHOOSES which advice she wishes to take. That is, after all, what makes her and her Crown “SOVEREIGN”. No-one dictates to her, it is quite the opposite. If she decides on one of their “advices” then the other has to take it on the chin. SHE is the decision maker! And it is the decision maker who wields the power! Just as in the case of a board meeting with the CEO – the Directors can make their pitches and give their advice but once that CEO decides, that’s it. The Directors do his bidding or else)

§Mr. GrieveI broadly welcome clause 42. Its purpose is to emphasise the importance of the First Minister’s role and his direct relationship with the sovereign. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) does not like the principles underlying that but, as has properly been said, unless there is a change in our constitutional arrangements, it will be wise to observe constitutional conventions, so as to ensure a good working relationship between Westminster and Edinburgh and to secure the status of the Edinburgh Parliament. The First Minister should be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at her pleasure; that will be an important constitutional safeguard, which will be to the advantage of the Scots.

In tabling amendment No. 254, my concern was that, although clause 42 (1) to (3) properly sets out the First Minister’s role, subsections (4) and (5) go off the boil and refer to a curious hybrid entity. Subsection (4) mentions a person designated by the Presiding Officer in circumstances where, I infer, the Parliament has not nominated someone for appointment. I do not want to get involved in an exercise in semantics, but as the Secretary of State and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution are here, I ask them to consider carefully whether clause 42 is properly drafted. The references in it to the designation “by the Presiding Officer” of a First Minister ad interim, while Parliament makes up its mind, would be better transferred to clause 43.

Clause 42 should define simply and neatly what the First Minister is supposed to do. Some other part of the Bill should emphasise what the designated First Minister is supposed to be. I assume that he or she is to be the person appointed to stand in for the First Minister if the office is vacant, and so is supposed to have all the powers, rights and obligations that the First Minister has. If that is the case, it would be sensible not to leave the wording in this hybrid condition. The legislation should make it clear that we are talking about a First Minister ad interim, who holds office at Her Majesty’s pleasure exactly as any other Minister would do. As that is a non-party political issue, will the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution look into it?

In conclusion, there has been some discussion of the role of the advice given by the First Minister and by the Prime Minister in the event of conflict—a matter 196raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is obvious that that is a real live issue. In defining the role of the First Minister, it is important that his status should be emphasised and that his direct position as the adviser of the Queen on matters relating to devolved issues should be at the forefront. In so far as clause 42 does not do so, I ask the Minister to look at it again and consider whether there should be some rejigging along the lines I have suggested in amendment No. 254 and the associated amendment, No. 255, which has not been selected because it relates to clause 43.

§Mr. SalmondI am surprised that there was not more enthusiasm from the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for limiting the number of Ministers. If the Minister of the dome has any say in the appointments, I suspect that neither of those hon. Gentlemen is knocking at the door of ministerial office at present. Indeed, if the Minister of the dome has anything to do with it, the public gallery is the nearest that they may get to the Scottish Parliament. We all hope that that will not be the case and that more democratic processes will be allowed to be carried forward. However, we should be grateful to those two hon. Gentlemen for enabling us to have an important debate.

Tory Members should not misunderstand the position that has been put forward in the amendments. It is not an attack on the monarchy, or the Queen as Head of State, but an attack on one aspect of the royal prerogative, particularly as it applies to the choice of Ministers. That is a legitimate argument. If the amendments were successful, the Queen would remain Head of State, but one aspect of the royal prerogative as regards the appointment of Ministers in a Scottish Parliament would have been removed.

Certainly, it is difficult to argue with the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West that the position of the First Minister, and indeed other Ministers, should depend on the approval and appointment of the Scottish Parliament as opposed to an aspect of the royal prerogative.

6.45 pm

We heard a fascinating interchange between the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Dundee, East. The latter argued that because the Queen normally takes advice from her first Minister, the Prime Minister, and therefore exercises the functions of the royal prerogative on the advice of that person, it could be a dangerous intervention in the ability of a Scottish Parliament to choose its own Ministers. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield says that the clause is some form of entrenchment because it would give the First Minister of a Scottish Parliament a direct line to the head of state and therefore would put that person as a Prime Minister inter pares with the United Kingdom Prime Minister in terms of the relationship with their Head of State.

The interchange was fascinating and not one to which I had paid close attention before this debate. (Bloody lying toad. He’d have given every thought to it. He’s playing ignorant) The question has to be resolved one way or the other and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution would do the Committee a service if he could adjudicate and tell us whether the interpretation of the hon. Member for 197Beaconsfield or that of the hon. Member for Dundee, East was correct. The logic of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is impeccable in the amendments and I am sympathetic to them, but that issue, which determines in practical terms the position of the Scottish Parliament and its standing with regard to the sovereign and her advisers, needs to be clarified.

Finally and briefly, Conservative Members seemed concerned about protecting the people from the Scottish Parliament, but many people in Scotland voted for that Parliament to protect them from the Conservative party. (Because they’re ignorant enough Alex, to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than work on a real workable solution to both of you) The need to box in the Scottish Parliament’s powers, as opposed to leaving them for the Standing Orders of a Scottish Parliament, betrays an underlying attitude that is not reconciled to the reality of that Scottish Parliament. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, although perhaps not some of the Back Benchers, are still in a process of denial as far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned. They may not like hearing this, but the Conservative recovery will not start until that process of denial in Westminster comes to an end.

§Mr. McLeishFirst, on the point made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about mental health issues, I have consulted the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who is a neuro-surgeon, but he did not want to offer any suggestions to the Committee at this point. However, he suggested that the Scots are slightly better at differentiating between those who have a mental health problem and those who do not. I shall leave that as a question for the Committee. (haha! Cracking. Talk about a put down!) Interestingly, paragraph 9 of schedule 7 amends the Mental Health Act 1983, so the procedures to which the hon. Member for Woodspring referred will apply in a modified way to the Scottish Parliament. I will touch on some of the more serious issues when I refer to the amendments.

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who made a point about this—I do not know whether it was a slip—the Bill provides no role for the United Kingdom Government in the selection of the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and junior Ministers, so there is no locus for this Parliament or this Government in that regard. I do not know whether that was his point.

§Mr. McAllionCan my hon. Friend make clear the distinction to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred? If the Scottish Parliament chooses a First Minister and proffers that choice to the Queen for appointment, but the advice of the British Prime Minister is not to accept the choice, whose advice would the Queen follow? (So. Repeated. And the fact that she chooses who to follow is the proof of her power. If, as the government continuously wishes to tell us, she must follow the advice of her Prime Minister, then how could it possibly be that a PM would end up putting himself in the position where he has competition? Logic, my friends, logic! They give the entire game away with this debate.)

§Mr. McLeishThe British Prime Minister would have no locus in that appointment.

§Mr. McAllionMy hon. Friend is clearly stating that the Queen would take the side of the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the Bill, against the British Prime Minister. Therefore, the British Prime Minister does not exercise sovereign control over the affairs of this country. (Absolutely correct! BINGO!)

§Mr. McLeishThe Scottish Parliament would approve the appointment of the First Minister. The Presiding Officer would submit that appointment to the Queen and that would be it. We are talking about a substantial 198devolution of power and responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. Devolution means devolution. It will be up to the Scottish Parliament to approve the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and the junior Ministers. Of course, those appointments will then be approved by the Queen. It is straightforward and there are no complications.

§Mr. DalyellI will not ask my hon. Friend for an answer off the top of his head, but will he write to me, because this question is not as simple as he makes out? Clause 27(7) states: This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland. In the light of that, I think that my hon. Friend should give me a considered answer in a letter.

§Mr. McLeishI shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend, but we should make it clear that clause 27(7), and the debate on it, is about sovereignty and the ability of the Westminster Parliament to make laws in any area, devolved or reserved. This evening, we are talking about the First Minister, and I repeat that he or she will be selected by the Parliament after the election and the choice will be passed to the Queen by the Presiding Officer. That is the process.

§Mr. SalmondThe point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is wrong, because it relates to legislation, not to appointments. However, is it not correct that, under clause 27(7), the UK Parliament could legislate to change the method of appointing the Scottish First Minister?

§Mr. McLeishWe have debated the issue and points have been exchanged across the Committee; the view taken depends on one’s political perspective. We have made the point that this measure devolves substantial powers to Scotland—it is about devolution, not separation or independence.

The Government cannot agree to amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 87 to 90, which were tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East. The amendments would remove the involvement of Her Majesty in the appointment of the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers appointed under clause 44 and junior Ministers appointed under clause 46.

The Scottish Ministers, headed by the First Minister and assisted by the junior Scottish Ministers, will exercise, on behalf of Her Majesty, her prerogative and other executive functions in relation to devolved matters. (They are DELEGATED her power. It is exercised on BEHALF of her. It is not THEIR power) They will, in effect, be Her Majesty’s Government in Scotland (not a scottish sovereign government. Not even under independence with the Queen as Head of state) in relation to devolved matters. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the Queen should appoint the First Minister; that she should approve the appointment of other Ministers and junior Ministers to the Scottish administration; and that each of those appointees should hold office at her pleasure.

The involvement of Her Majesty does not, of course, exclude the involvement of the Parliament. On the contrary, in line with the White Paper, the Bill provides a significant role for the Scottish Parliament in the appointment of the Scottish Executive. It is a point worth making that in this place, Ministers are not approved or, selected by the House, but the Scottish First Minister and the other Scottish Ministers will be approved and voted on by the Scottish Parliament.

199That is a significant step forward in the scrutiny of the Executive. It starts at the foundation: the people will have spoken in electing Members of the Scottish Parliament who then, for the first time and unlike here, will have the ability to influence who represents the people of Scotland in ministerial posts. The significance of that step should not be lost on the Committee this evening. We see no need to amend the Bill in the way proposed, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West withdraw the amendment.

I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West and for Dundee, East in support of amendment No. 75. The nature of the post of junior Scottish Minister will differ from that of a member of the Scottish Executive. The nature of their task will be to assist the Scottish Ministers in the exercise of their functions. With that in mind, the Bill proposes a simpler mechanism for their appointment. Nevertheless, I am also aware that the Scottish Constitutional Convention recommended that all Ministers should require to be confirmed by simple majority of the full Parliament.

I am therefore happy to accept the intention behind amendment No. 75 that the Parliament should be involved in the appointment of junior Scottish Ministers. I therefore undertake to bring forward an appropriate Government amendment on Report. With that undertaking, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West not to press the amendment.

The Government cannot agree to amendment No. 254. The provisions in the Bill are intended to ensure that there is always someone able to perform the functions of the First Minister and act as head of the Scottish Administration. In practice, it is expected that each First Minister will hold office until replaced by his or her successor. However, circumstances could arise where the post falls vacant, for example on the death of the First Minister or if the First Minister is temporarily unable to act—that may fall partly into the definition proposed by the hon. Member for Woodspring. In such an event, a caretaker can be appointed to fulfil the role, pending the nomination and appointment of a new First Minister.

§Mr. GrieveI understand that point, but the clause as it stands conveys the impression—it may be no more than an impression—that the person who is acting is somehow a different animal from the First Minister, whereas my understanding is that an acting First Minister would still hold office at the Queen’s pleasure and have all the First Minister’s powers. That is the point that is opaque in the clause as it stands.

§Mr. McLeishThat is a reasonable reflection, but I must get on and cover some more of the points raised in the debate.

The mechanism for appointment of such a caretaker reflects the exceptional and transitory nature of the appointment. It lacks the formalities of the appointment of the First Minister precisely so as to avoid conveying the impression that the person is the First Minister rather than a temporary incumbent. On balance, the Government believe that the arrangements should be kept as simple as possible. The Presiding Officer is well placed to be able 200to judge which Member of the Scottish Parliament has the capacity and political credibility to fulfil that important role and I believe that it should be left to the Presiding Officer’s discretion.

The Government do not accept amendments Nos. 276 and 277. Amendment No. 276 would restrict the number of Scottish Ministers whom the First Minister can appoint. It would be inappropriate to do that, for a variety of reasons. The First Minister will have to seek the agreement of the Scottish Parliament; therefore, within the group of 129 MSPs, there is accountability and a chance to make a judgment on the number of Scottish Ministers. The Parliament will be able to withhold its approval if it thinks that there are too many nominations. In addition, through its control of salaries and allowances, the Parliament will be able to limit to a reasonable sum the expenditure on ministerial salaries.

There is a feeling on both sides of the Committee that the matter should be left to the Parliament. It is a question of maturity and of adopting a sensible perspective. Ultimately, the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament will be accountable to the people of Scotland for their actions. That will, in our view, provide the proper means of ensuring that the size of the membership of the Scottish Executive is truly appropriate.

§Dr. FoxWe are missing a great opportunity. Such a self-denying ordinance would have sent a signal to the Scottish electorate that a blank cheque is not being handed over. I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment, but we shall press it to a Division.

§Mr. McLeishThe Committee is not offering a blank cheque to anyone. We are setting up a mature, serious and responsible Parliament, and it will be up to the Members of that Parliament to decide what Ministers are required to carry out the functions and represent the interests of the Scottish people. That is appropriate and proper. We do not share the Opposition’s concerns, and I hope that they will not press the amendment.

The Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 275 and 313, which are both unnecessary and inappropriate. The circumstances described are unlikely to arise in practice, and if they did, there are mechanisms in the Bill to deal with the problem. If at any time it appeared to the Presiding Officer that the First Minister was unable to act for whatever reason, including mental illness, it would be open to him or her under clause 42(4) to designate an MSP to exercise the functions of the First Minister.

Should it become clear that the First Minister’s inability to carry out his functions was not going to be merely temporary, he would be expected to resign. In the unlikely event of his being unwilling to resign, the Scottish Parliament could effectively remove him and his Executive through a vote of no confidence. That would require the First Minister to resign and would, in turn, lead to the appointment of a new First Minister. That may seem a drastic course of action, but the likely political reality is that there would be a general recognition of the need to address the problem and the Parliament could act to ensure that the matter was resolved without delay. In any case, I submit that clauses 42(4) and 43 provide a serious process to deal with a potential problem. First, there is a temporary acceptance and accommodation of the fact that the First Minister is unable to do the job; then there is a proper procedure to repair the situation.

201The Government cannot accept amendment No. 278, which would remove from the First Minister some valuable flexibility to tailor the structure of the Scottish Administration to the demands upon it. In view of the time, I shall now sit down.

§Mr. CanavanThis is a somewhat historic occasion, as it has been many years since I last tabled an amendment that was accepted in principle by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that. I am pleased that the appointment of all Scottish Ministers, whether the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers or junior Ministers, will be subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament. I am not convinced of the arguments for the role of the monarchy in the appointment of Ministers, but I shall not press that point. I shall seek to withdraw amendment No. 44 at the end of the debate and I look forward to the Government tabling an amendment similar to my amendment No. 75 on Report.

§Mr. WallaceJunior Ministers will not be members of the Scottish Executive under the terms of clause 41. Will the Minister explain why?

§Mr. McLeishThe simple answer is that we shall have the First Minister and the Scottish Ministers, and we hope that the junior Ministers will have a supportive role in the work carried out by the other Ministers.

§Mr. CanavanI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to 
Forward to 

Destroying the mindgame!

Posted in Law by earthling on November 28, 2013

An open letter to any and all Lawyers, Barristers, Judges who dare reply and debate this issue which destroys the mindgame you have played a part in over centuries.

Debate or shut up!

Please, be my guest and attempt to make an argument against the following. I look forward to it.

The following totally destroys the Judge, the politician, the Law enforcer, the magistrate, the establishment figure, the media whore who laughs at the subject and the man or woman who simply refuses to believe what is the fact: The fact is that the State and the United Nations, the European Union – in fact ANY and ALL “nations” and constructed legal personality (legal fiction) can have absolutely no authority over a natural person under any circumstances UNLESS that “legal person” is acting as dictator and effectively destroys the widely held belief that we are all equal before the law. The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.

So let’s start with the INSTITUTIONS:

The European Union

The relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the whole of Europe, not just the EU, but not the institutions of the European Union. The European Union (EU) is not a member of the Council of Europe and the European Union takes the view that while it is bound by the European Convention it is not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. As seen in Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union is bound to respect fundamental rights principles. This means that the institutions of the European Union must not violate human rights, as defined by European Union law, and also that the Member States of the European Union must not violate European Union human rights principles when they implement Union legislation or act pursuant to Union law. This obligation is in addition to the Member States’ pre-existing obligations to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in everything they do. In practice, this means that the Court of Justice weaves the Convention principles throughout its reasoning. For example, the Court held that when a child has a right of residence in a Member State according to Union law, this also means that his parent(s) should also have a right of residence due to the principle of respect for family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Prior to the entry into force on 1 June 2010 of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU could not accede to the Convention, and the European Court of Human Rights’ did not have jurisdiction to rule on case brought against the EU. However, the EcHR has been prepared to hold EU member states liable for human rights’ violations committed within their jurisdictions, even when they were just complying with a mandatory provision of EU law.

Please recognise what this is, in fact stating: While the EU creates and demands that its laws are implemented in the member states (for example the UK), the EU, itself, is not bound by the ECHR – it is immune! So the EU may create laws which fundamentally violate Human Rights. While they create the law and the member states MUST implement them, if the member states then are found in violation of one’s human rights, it is the member states who are attacked for doing so. Yet, the member states are put in a position by the immune EU to implement the law! Make NO mistake, this is like a mafia boss telling one of his minions to murder someone because that is his ruling (and the minion does not question the Don now does he?) – that is the “law”. So the minion goes ahead and murders and the legal profession come along and prosecute the minion while leaving the Don immune for making the order. Similarly, it is precisely the issue which was deliberated upon during the Nuremburg Trials. The question was: Were those who carried out the orders of their government (Hitler), guilty of warcrimes? However……

Protocol No. 14 of the ECHR entered into force on 1 June 2010. It allows the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, in force since 1 December 2009, permits the EU to accede to said convention. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are. It is further proposed that the EU join as a member of the Council of Europe now it has attained a single legal personality in the Lisbon Treaty.

Now remember this: The EU has attained a legal personality. It is recognised by law as existing and, as such, can enter treaties (which are simply contracts). The EU is now a LEGAL PERSON. A Judge can now “see” the EU because it now exists as a legal person whereas, before, a Judge could not “see” the EU because it did not legally exist!

Now, how did the EU gain its legal existence?

Well, like any other Corporation and Nation:

On 1 December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and reformed many aspects of the EU. In particular it changed the legal structure of the European Union, merging the EU three pillars system into a single legal entity provisioned with legal personality. The EU is based on a series of treaties. These first established the European Community and the EU, and then made amendments to those founding treaties.These are power-giving treaties which set broad policy goals and establish institutions with the necessary legal powers to implement those goals. These legal powers include the ability to enact legislation which can directly affect all member states and their inhabitants. The EU has legal personality, with the right to sign agreements and international treaties. Under the principle of supremacy, national courts are required to enforce the treaties that their member states have ratified, and thus the laws enacted under them, even if doing so requires them to ignore conflicting national law, and (within limits) even constitutional provisions The European Council uses its leadership role to sort out disputes between member states and the institutions, and to resolve political crises and disagreements over controversial issues and policies. It acts externally as a “collective Head of State” and ratifies important documents (for example, international agreements and treaties). On 19 November 2009, Herman Van Rompuy was chosen as the first permanent President of the European Council. On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force and he assumed office. Ensuring the external representation of the EU, driving consensus and settling divergences among members are tasks for the President.

Sovereign states are legal persons. A sovereign state, or simply, state, is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. The word “country” is often colloquially used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, originally, only a geographic region, and subsequently its meaning became extended to the sovereign polity which controls the geographic region. Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The UN Charter, the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law. The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.

In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign:

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.

Note “ying and yang”: They could not be part of the International community. The corollary of which was that recognised nations could break the law in their dealings with them! Incredible isn’t it? While, if that unrecognised country were to break international law (as was its “right” because it was not recognised as existing and the international community could break the law toward it) you can be sure that the international community would demonise it as a “rogue state” all simply due to the fact that the international community would not recognise its sovereignty! I think it’s called the international community taking advantage of a vicious circle!

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:

…International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.

By contrast, the “declarative” theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Article 3 of the Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. A similar opinion about “the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state” is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The Badinter Arbitration Committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Many continental European states maintained governments-in-exile during the Second World War which continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. A present day example is the State of Palestine, which is recognized by multiple states, but doesn’t have control over any of its claimed territory in Palestine and possess only extraterritorial areas (i.e. embassies and consulates). Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but lack international recognition; these are considered by the international community to be only de facto states (they are considered de jure states only according to their own Law and by states that recognize them).

People may sometimes refer to “the will of the international community” to strengthen their own point of view or the opposite expression “the international community is divided” to explain a consensus has not yet been reached. In diplomacy and debate a case that includes this statement could be a sentiment of majoritarianism and a description of options to take action for the benefit of all countries. It is occasionally asserted that powerful countries and groups of countries use the term to describe organisations in which they play a predominant role, that might be interpreted as indifference toward other nations. The enactment of conflict or war may be claimed as an action of the “international community” by a superpower or coalition that could represent under half or less of the world’s population.

Ain’t that the truth!

An example of the term used by some western leaders is when denouncing Iran, for its nuclear ambitions of suspected nuclear proliferation, by stating that “Iran is defying the will of the international community by continuing uranium enrichment“. The Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 118 countries from the 193 United Nations member states, has endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civil nuclear energy.

Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract argued, “the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government,” with the understanding that the Sovereign is “a collective being of wonder” (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from “the general will” of the people, and that “what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law” (Book II, Chapter VI) – and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, “there is no law without a sovereign.

The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.

De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty. It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty has limited recognition. Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority?

Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty). So, an interesting point here to raise in the case of legitimacy in the UK, for example: From where does the UK government and Monarch derive their legitimacy? Do they DARE state they derive it from the “Divine Right of Kings”? Do they DARE? I don’t think so do you?

External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdomuses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;

“Sovereignty.” A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country is a foreign sovereign state.
— (The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A.C. 256), Strouds Judicial Dictionary

External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another’s territory permissible? According to existing International law, as preached (but not practiced) by the International community through the U.N., the answer to this question is NEVER. Every last war “declared” by the west, therefore, is in breach of International law. Period!

Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is “capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person.” Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that “those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it,” should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation’s State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations. In the international legal system, various organizations possess legal personality. These include intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations, the Council of Europe) and some other international organizations (including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a religious order). Corporations are by definition legal persons. A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, such as The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation constituted by more than one member.

Now, please fully appreciate that the above has just stated absolutely clearly and factually that these institutions AND the Crown itself are no more nor less than Legal Persons in their own right. As such, they are, by definition within this legal “matrix” we are all subject to, EQUAL to each and every “Natural Person” (i.e. you and I) on this earth. Again, any judge or any state prosecutor could NOT argue differently. This is simply legal (LEGAL) fact – legal fact that these institutions are LEGAL FICTIONS! 

The Juristic Person.I

Author(s): George F. Deiser

Reviewed work(s):

Source: University of Pennsylvania LawReview and American Law Register, Vol. 57, No. 3,Volume 48 New Series (Dec., 1908), pp. 131-142

Published by: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review

The law has been playing with such a fiction for centuries, in the course of which, the fiction, instead of disappearing, as it so conveniently does for the mathematician, has increased in girth and height, and has maintained its ghostly existence, in the face of the anathema of the philosopher and the fiat of the judicial decree. In an evil day the law, like the hospitable Arab, who permitted his camel to shelter his head within the domestic tent, gave shelter to an imaginary person-the persona ficta,-then an infant, seemingly of little promise and of precarious tenure of life. The most uninformed mind has an idea of capacities, and can even follow the ramifications by which a man by marrying his first cousin, loses some of his second cousins, or becomes second cousin to his own children, but the separation of individual wills from collective wills is a task which even the academic mind has but unsatisfactorily accomplished. Person, collective property-persona ficta-the name is very nearly matter of indifference so long as we understand by it an existence distinct from the members that compose it; for, be it understood, one may be a member of this corporate body and yet deal with it-may sell to it-buy from it,-in fact, maintain business relations with it, precisely as he does with any other natural person. The matter begins with dogma; men, in law and in philosophy are natural persons. This might be taken to imply that there are also persons of another sort. And that is a fact.

Men/Women are “Natural persons” in law because a “Natural person” is, and only is, a LEGAL DEFINITION used to differentiate from a “legal person” (or “Corporate person”)

It was said by an eminent authority that when a body of twenty, or two thousand, or two hundred thousand men bind themselves together to act in a particular way for some common purpose, they create a body, which by no fiction of law, but by the very nature of things, differs from the individuals of whom it is constituted. Now the state is a body of this kind, and beginning with the state and coming down by successive gradations, we encounter by the way, the subordinate state, which, if autonomous, is the next body of this sort, the self governing county, district, or department; finally the municipal corporations such as cities, boroughs or townships. We have very little difficulty in recognizing that when the state acts, it is a different matter from the action of any member or citizen of the state. If the state owe money, it is not owing by the citizens; nor if half the citizens emigrated would anyone think of following them to collect from each, his proportion of the debt. It is not a conception that the rationalistic mind finds easy.

No? Then WHY ON EARTH has the world’s population “rationalised” the idea of bailing out Privately held banks on the demand of the State? I would like to ask each and every individual who have just shrugged their shoulders and considered it ok exactly what the hell they are thinking of? Anyhow, that is an aside on the subject of this blog.

The conception of the persona ficta is an inheritance from the Roman Law, developed and expanded by the ecclesiastical lawyers of the Middle Ages, and bestowed on modem legal thought by Savigny. Real men are united to form a fictitious being; a fiction which holds property. It has necessarily, no natural rights. The theory hence, has no regard for members; nor can the persona ficta exist except by virtue of some creative act of the state. The Juristic Person.-A right is inconceivable without corresponding relations between some individual and the community to which he is subject. If we find a right, such as that of ownership, in existence, we must discover a subject for that right. If the right attaches to a human being, he is the subject; if it attaches to a name used to designate the collective will of a group of men, the name or collective will is the subject. By advanced abstractions, by reasoning a priori, jurists have reached the conclusion, that in relation to the quality of being a subject of law, the individual, and the group of individuals as such, occupy a like position. Personality is considered therefore, an attribute not only of men, but of groups of men, acting as a unit for the attainment of a common end. The term juristic person is simply the legal expression for this fact, that above the individual or specific human existence there stands generic human existence. In other words, when we encounter the problem of defining, interpreting, explaining, the actions of human beings in groups, as such, as contrasted with the action of any members of the group as individuals, the group stands for genus, and the individual stands for species. The collective will of a group of men so acting and holding property, when recognized as a subject of law, or as having legal subjectivity, or more plainly, when recognized as capable of holding definite legal rights, is no more a fiction than is the personality of any human being. This juristic person, or collective will of the group, is not a creation of the law; the law does not create its personality, but finding a group engaged in some common pursuit, endows it with a definite legal capacity. It is capable of exercising rights, capable of committing wrongs; the former, it may vindicate; the latter it must atone for. It may seem a far cry from the question of the legality of a fine imposed upon a corporation in an amount greater than that of its capital stock, to the apparently academic discussion of its personality or non-personality, yet they are in fact so intimately related that our legal system cannot ignore the relation without affecting its stability. If men as individuals can do acts that require intent, and men acting in groups cannot, the community must restrict the activity of men in groups. For the actions of groups of men, collective actions, there is no reason, no justification, no authority but that of might. Beginning with the state, and proceeding downward to private corporations, control proceeds from the power of the strong over the weak.

“Human groups,” says Duguit, in his dramatic way is  

based upon community of needs, upon diversity of individual aptitudes, upon the reciprocity of services rendered; in these human groups, some individuals stronger than others, whether because they are better armed, or because we recognize in them some supernatural power; whether because they are richer, or because they are more numerous, and who, thanks to this superior power, can impose their will on others; these are the facts. Let us call the state a human group, settled upon a definite territory, where the stronger compel obedience of the weaker, and we are agreed. Call political sovereignty that power which the stronger exert over the weaker, there is no controversy. Proceed beyond this and we enter the realm of hypothesis. To say that this will of those who rule is only imposed upon individuals because it is the collective will, is a fiction conceived to justify the power of the strong-a fiction, ingenious enough, invented by the prophets of force to legitimate force, but for nothing else.” Returning for a moment to the state, which is everywhere recognized as a person, it has been observed truly, that the feeling that even the state is a very unreal person, may not readily be dispelled.14 But the difficulty is purely subjective; the existence of personality apart from a body is insufficiently concrete. Yet the notions of ownership, or of in-corporeal rights are equally esoteric. And if personality offer a solution, the difficulty of the conception ought not to stand in the way. If now, we attempt to define our problem we shall find the facts to be these. Corporations, under existing legal systems, for judicial or legislative purposes are regarded in two ways: I. The corporation is a fictitious person or entity (as in England and the United States). II. The corporation is a real person (as in Germany, France, Spain, and some other continental countries). The problems arising under both of these attitudes are these: A. Does the corporation as a group or unit possess rights and owe duties ? B. Has the corporation as a group or unit criminal or moral responsibility? C. What is the nature of the shareholders’ interest? If again, we examine the nature of corporate existence with reference to proffered solutions, we shall find again, that the corporation is a fictitious person, or a real person, or a form of co-ownership, or a form of agency or action by representation. It remains to consider these views with reference to the extent to which they resolve the problem.

George F. Deiser. 3313312.pdf

The following is from: 0njp9-concept-legal-personality-english-law.html

The idea that a husband could not rape a wife comes down through the ages from the ancient belief that a wife was her husband’s property. The legal principle that a woman was a separate being from her husband was not established until 1882 in England by the Married Women’s Property Act – see Married_Women\’s_Property_Act 

Where a party changes their gender, or wishes to change their gender, UK law has gone through a transformation. Once a gender change, although medically possible, did not alter the          realities of the gender at birth for a person. That changed, as the UK began to grant rights to transexuals (recognising them as PERSONS).

See Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism#United_Kingdom

By providing transexuals these rights, the UK has granted them standing to be treated as persons whose rights must be respected and who have valid claims to make against those who refuse to respect their rights to life, liberty, property, and their names. Legal personality determines and establishes the patterns which help determine the rights, duties, and powers of persons. Minority groups, be they minorities due to age, gender, religion, or other classifications, are not able to control their own destinies until the law recognizes them as having the right to exist and make demands on others.

The above crystallises the facts: ONE IS NOT A “PERSON” until the legal world recognises them as such. The transexual, although in reality a living and breathing being, was not a “person” until the legal system said so! This is crystal clear and there is no way whatsoever that the legal system can argue that YOU exist and are recognised within the legal system by the sheer fact that you literally exist. The transexual literally exists but, only recently, did they exist from a legal standpoint as a PERSON.

LEGAL SUPREMACY

What the constitution says: The EU will for the first time have a “legal personality” and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: “The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” What it means: This really just confirms the status quo, which is that if the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally in areas where it does not legislate, national law prevails. By having a “legal personality”, the EU will be able, as an organisation, to enter into international agreements. The old European Community had this right but the EU as a whole did not so its status in world diplomacy increases.

Now, here, one must recognise that the ONLY reason the EU law has primacy over, for example, UK law is because when the member states agree to the treaties, the entire idea of the treaties is to give the EU that power. There is no other reason. Any and all member states were and are SOVEREIGN nations and have the right to enter treaties OR remove themselves.

2950276.stm It gives the EU a legal personality – like a country, not an international organisation. This argument seems to rest on the assumption that international organisations do not have a legal personality. But most do. It also glosses over the fact that the European Community – which still exists on paper as a legally separate entity from the EU – already has a legal personality. (Whether the EU already has a legal personality is a matter of dispute.) But could the EU, if it acquired a single legal personality, end up joining international organisations or signing international treaties instead ofmember states? This has not been the practice up to now. Both the European Community and the EU have been signing treaties for years, and the European Community is a member of the World Trade Organization, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Hague Conference. This has not prevented member states from signing the same treaties and joining the same organisations. (This, as you can read in the link, is now old news but gives the reader a better understanding of things it is hoped).

A declaration to be added to the new treaty underlines that acquiring a legal personality will not authorise the EU to act “beyond the competences conferred on it by member states”. Declarations are a statement of political intent. They are not legally binding but the European Court of Justice does take them into account in its judgements. 6928737.stm

Now, let’s consider another element of “legal personality” and the ideology surrounding that of immunity of diplomats, heads of state and their “capacity” bestowed upon them by the “law”. The reader will, it is hoped, recognise how this entire legal system is corrupt from the very top to bottom to protect the interests of those who implement it.

The  reason the Pope cannot be arrested and prosecuted in the UK is because he is entitled to Head of State immunity.  Dawkins and Hitchens are not unaware of this problem.  Apparently they have enlisted Geoffrey Robertson QC to provide an opinion stating that the pope is not a head of State and therefore not entitled to head of State immunity. Robertson elaborates on this point in a recent article in the Guardian. Robertson argues that the Pope is not entitled head of State immunity as a matter of international law because the Vatican is not a State.  His arguments are simply incorrect. The Vatican has a tiny territory and a tiny population but it does fulfill the criteria for Statehood. As James Crawford puts it, in his authoritative work The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed, 2006), p. 225, after detailed analysis: “it is clear that the Vatican City is a State in international law, despite its size and special circumstances.” The size of population or territory are irrelevant for the purposes of Statehood.  What is important is that the entity possesses those criteria as well as the two other criteria for Statehood – which are: a government in effective control of the territory and independence (or what is called “capacity to enter into legal relations” in the words of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1935). The Vatican as a territorial entity does have a government: the Holy See which is headed by the Pope. As Crawford’s analysis makes clear, the Holy See has its own independent legal personality (about which more later on) and that personality predates the Statehood of the Vatican. However, the Holy See is also the government of the Vatican City State. More imporantly, the Vatican is independent of any other State. Its independence from Italy which is the State that could have had claims to control that territory is recognised in the Lateran Treaty of 1929. So, since the Vatican is a State then the head of that State, the Pope, is entitled to head of State immunity under international law. This immunity is recognised by Section 20 of the UK’s State Immunity Act which extends to “a sovereign or other head of State”, the same immunities accorded to diplomats. These immunities are absolute in the case of criminal proceedings. In other words there are no exceptions to the immunity. The International Court of Justice’s decision in the Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium) 2002 confirms that this type of immunity continues to apply even when it is alleged that the head of State has committed international crimes. So an allegation that the Pope may be responsible for crimes against humanity will not suffice to defeat his immunity.

INCREDIBLE BUT TRUE!

The SOVEREIGN Order of Malta: Legal person and legally sovereign.

It should be noted that the immunity of a head of State from criminal prosecution in foreign States is there for very good reasons. In the first place, those State agents charged with the conduct of international relations are given immunity in order to allow international relations and international cooperation to continue to take place. (So understand this well: The Head of State can rape, murder and much anything else but, so as to allow continued International cooperation, they can commit these crimes and walk away. Do you accept that? If you do and if the International community does then how can the International community possibly argue that the Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were legally justified? The Head of State is allowed to commit genocide and atrocities! Or is that only if they are OUR” accepted Heads of state? This is no joke folks. I sincerely wish it was!) Secondly, the immunity of foreign heads of States assures that just as States may not engage in regime change by armed force they may not achieve this end by criminal prosecutions either. It respects the fundamental autonomy of each State to determine who it is governed by.

So, again, one has to ask: What on earth was it that didn’t provide that assurance to Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein etc?

Even assuming that the Vatican were not a State under international law that does not mean that the Pope will not be granted immunity from criminal process in the UK. First of all, the UK courts in determining the question of immunity will not be asked to determine whether the Vatican is a State under international law. Under Section 21 of the State Immunity Act, the question whether the Vatican is a State is to be resolved, conclusively, by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. So as long as the Foreign Office is of the view that the Vatican is a State, the Courts are bound to accept that. The State Immunity Act aside, deference to the executive on matters of Statehood is in line with longstanding case law of the English Courts. It is almost certain that the Foreign Office will certify that the Vatican is a State, as the US executive did in a case against the Vatican in the US. Britain maintains diplomatic relations with the Holy See and has an Ambassador with the Holy See. It may be argued that this is not quite the same as recognising the Vatican as a State – and it isn’t. The embassy is to the Holy See and not to the Vatican. Nonetheless, as far as I know Britain has not objected in the past to the Vatican’s claims to be a State nor has it, as far as I know, opposed the Vatican’s accession to treaties that are only open to States. A second reason that the Pope will be entitled to immunity from criminal process in the UK even if the Vatican were not a State is because there is general acceptance of the international legal personality and in particular of the “sovereign” status of the Holy See. The relationship between the Vatican and the Holy See are complex. Crawford’s book referred to above, deals with this question very well. What is clear is that the Holy See as the central authority of the Catholic Church is not just the government of the Vatican. In addition, it has a special status in international law and has international legal personality which precedes the creation of the Vatican in 1929. What is important here is the nature of that international legal personality. Like the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, the Holy See is deemed to have a sovereign status akin to Statehood. This includes possession of the immunities that States are entitled to.  It may be significant that Section 20 of the State Immunity Act provides immunity for “a sovereign or other head of State.” Does sovereign in that context allow for entities like the head of the Holy See, the Pope, even if he were not a head of State? It may be interpreted in this way and should be. It could be argued the word “other” in that provision, militates against this interpretation. However, even if S. 20 does not allow for the immunity of Head of the Holy See, that would not preclude the argument that customary international law does. can-the-pope-be-arrested-in-connection-with-the-sexual-abuse-scandal

The Crown in Contract and Administrative Law

Abstract

An essential and neglected distinction between contract and administrative law is in how each conceives of the Crown as a juristic person. This article explores the extent of this distinction, and its implications for the rule of law and the separation of powers. It offers explanations—historical, jurisprudential and pragmatic—for why contract law conceives of the Crown as a corporation aggregate with the powers and liberties of a natural person, and why administrative law disaggregates the State  into named officials.

129.abstract

The international legal system is the foundation for the conduct of international relations. It is this system that regulates state actions under international law. The principal subjects of international law are states, rather than individuals as they are under municipal law. The International Court of Justice acknowledged in the Reparation for Injuries case that types of international legal personality other than statehood could exist and that the past half century has seen a significant expansion of the subjects of international law. Apart from states, international legal personality is also possessed by international organisations and, in some circumstance, human beings. In addition, non-governmental organisations and national liberation movements have also been said to possess international legal personality. Since 1945 the international legal system has been dominated by the United Nations and the structures that were established as part of that organisation. While the UN has been the object of significant criticism, it has nevertheless played a pivotal role both in the progressive development and codification of international law. An international organization (or organisation) is an organizationwith an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types:

Another difficulty regarding the claimant’s ability to have a cause of action
concerns their legal personality. In order to establish a duty of care it must be proven
that at the time of the injury the claimant was a legal person, which is problematic in the case of the unborn child.
Although in the realm of medicine it is an agreed upon fact that a child
commences to exist before birth and that the child’s “ante-natal development”
should be taken into consideration, English law refutes this notion contending that it
is a firmly established principle of law that a child does not receive an “independent
legal status” until it is born. (Please notice here that the circumstances of the unborn child still residing in its mother’s womb is PRECISELY the circumstances by which the married woman, previously, was considered a “non person” who was the property of her husband. The child does not exist as a person but is one and the same as, and the property of, the mother)
Furthermore, L.J. Dillon also acknowledged the fact that a fetus does not
have legal personality in English law, as verified in the cases of Re F (in utero) and
Paton v. B.P.A.S.. However, he placed emphasis on “other contexts” in which the
English courts have integrated the civil law axiom “’that an unborn child shall be
deemed to be born whenever its interests require it.’”12 On this basis the Canadian
Supreme Court made its ruling in Montreal Tramways v. Leville and contended:
“To my mind it is but natural justice that a child, if born alive and viable,
should be allowed to maintain an action in the courts for injuries wrongfully
committed upon its person while in the womb of its mother.” (Here, it is stating that once, and only if, the child is then physically born, will it then be able to sue its mother – or another – who caused it to suffer a tort while still within the womb)
However with each of these approaches theoretical difficulties arise and contradict Common Law’s standpoint that the damage suffered must have occurred at the time the claimant was a legal person, thus at birth or post-natal. Where a child is born and has injuries perpetrated while in the womb, the harm is “to be sustained by him at the moment of his birth and not before, since prior to his birth he had no legal personality.
index.php?page%3Dredirect%26id%3D158+does+a+court+possess+a+legal+personality&hl=en&gl=uk

Ok, now what is the entire point of the foregoing? Well I hope it is obvious once you read it.

The Crown itself is a LEGAL PERSON. The UN is a LEGAL PERSON. The EU is a LEGAL PERSON. The State (Nation) is a LEGAL PERSON. And YOU and every other human being (within the subject of “the law”) are LEGAL PERSONS. The only differentiation which is made is that of States and Corporations etc being given the title of “legal person” and you being given the title of “Natural person” purely to differentiate the rights, duties etc apportioned to each of these “legal personality” types. BUT THEY ARE ALL LEGAL FICTIONS.

So what does this all mean?

Well it is SO easy:

You: “Your honour, are all persons equal before the law?”

Judge: “Yes indeed they are”.

You: “Can you please assure this court and those in attendance that there is no legal person – such as a Corporate – which has any authority over a natural person?”

Judge: “Indeed I can. As I said, all persons – legal or natural – are equal before the law. One would even have to go so far as to suggest that the natural person is of a higher importance since the natural person is of flesh and blood and endowed with god given rights whereas the Corporation or man made legal person has not”

You: “Then your honour, would I be correct in stating that I, as a natural person, have every right, subrogated to no-one, to enter or decline from entering a contract with another legal person? Or, if, under any and all circumstances, I am forced to do so, or by way of lack of full disclosure, I inadvertently enter into contract with such an entity, that I shall have the legal right to withdraw from any and all such contracts?”

Judge: “Well yes but that would be dependent upon certain points of law and if, for instance, you were compelled by law to enter into such”

You: “Please would your honour give me an example of such a possible case?”

Judge: “Where statute law may enforce such a contract for example”

You: “Statute law Sir? May I ask who or what imposes such statute law?”

Judge: “The State does and it is enforced by the Crown”

You: “Haven’t we just established that both, the State and the Crown, are LEGAL PERSONS and, as such, they are, at best, equal to myself before the law?”

Judge: “Shut up smart ass! Case dismissed”

Now, they can go down the route of stating “Supremacy of law” but just as a member state (a “person) of the EU must agree by treaty the supremacy of EU law over its own, the natural person must contract with the state to agree to the subrogation of his/her god given, inalienable, unalienable natural rights.

The court and the Crown and the state may ask “do you possess a birth certificate or passport or National Insurance number or any such state conferred document BUT the state gives one no choice in the matter of requiring these documents since the state will disallow all which requires such. It is, then, the state which coercively and deceptively removes the human rights and replaces them with “person” rights.

I rest my case and ALL cases your dishonour for, before I was given a “legal personality” I was neither competent nor would I have had any legal standing (obviously since I had no legal person and could not be “seen” – recognised BY the legal system ) to state I did not wish to contract with the state and subrogate such rights.

The legal system, then, is entirely fraudulent.

 

God Help us! Are we truly run by incompetent imbeciles in the Scottish Executive?

Posted in Finance, Politics by earthling on July 30, 2011

JESUS CHRIST! This is painful!

 

 

From: Earthling

To: malcolm.chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

Subject: RE: Complaint

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 20:04:41 +0000

 

Malcolm,

 

I am sorry but this is painful. It was once amusing but now it is simply painful. I will respond by giving you the benefit of the doubt that either:

1. You did not bother to read this or,

2. You sincerely do not understand what I am talking about.

 

Now correct me if I am wrong but I am sure that I have previously sent you the parliamentary minutes and House of Lords minutes by both a Captain Henry Kerby in 1965 and Lord Sudeley in 1999 respectively. I also believe I have sent you the video showing Douglas Carswell MP stating the fact, within the House of Commons, last year, that the World monetary system is a Ponzi scheme. Further, I believe I have sent you the video of Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve system, stating clearly that a National debt is unnecessary in totality. Now the last time I checked, neither Alan Greenspan (one corrupt individual) nor Ben Bernanke (another) ever considered or discussed the ISSUANCE of money and how that impacted upon Economics and that is because it has NO impact on the supply and demand of goods and services. The issuance of money is not even taught in Economics and Business tertiary education (or, in fact, at any level within our educational system). Meanwhile, we have Ben Bernanke having been put on the spot by a US Congressman asking him if it were correct to say that there is no need for a national debt and Bernanke replying “Yes”.

 

NONE of the above has the slightest thing to do with Economics, whether that be Keynesian or Austrian or any other form. It is a basic function of how money is created and not to do with the laws of supply and demand in any way whatsoever.

 

Let me put it this way: I am advising you that, instead of producing milk from a goat which demands we must pay the goat back all the milk we have consumed PLUS interest of another quart of milk (which was never brought into existence by the goat in the first place), we should have it produced by a cow which allows the constant circulation of the milk and ZERO interest to be paid upon it.

 

You have responded by saying that by producing it from a cow would have been disastrous for the country. You are assuming that money needs to be borrowed AT ALL. There is NO NEED for the government to borrow ANY money whatsoever. Therefore, there is NO NEED for the country to have a National debt of ONE PENNY. Therefore there is NO NEED for any form of AUSTERITY MEASURES! There is no need for Government borrowing FULL STOP. There is, therefore, no need for the Scottish (or British) or ANY government to have a debt, therefore there is no need for the immense imposition of tax upon the Scottish or British people. Therefore there is no need for there to be no money available for any and all infrastructure projects, education, health, employment. The Scottish government could have FULL employment in Scotland and a fully funded infrastructure, education, health etc etc. I assume, now, the point I am making is CRYSTAL clear?

 

The Scottish government simply needs to stop the FRAUD of borrowing money from private interests (i.e. Private Central Banks) and issuing gilts/bonds (government collateral) and simply issue it’s currency and credit directly from the Scottish Government/treasury to the nation.

 

Malcolm, this is not rocket science and it has ZERO to do with Economics!

 

Now, I will ask you once more to act upon this and bring it to the attention of the Scottish Executive and to the Scottish Public.

 

Please do so for the humour in what seems to be a broad incapability to grasp logical, simple concepts is running dry while there are people in this country losing their entire livelihoods and, with respect to the aged, their lives due to a system which, perhaps through your ignorance it would seem from your reply, is being protected and supported by you. Please consider the deaths of people due to this system when you consider your actions in ignorantly (perhaps) supporting this ponzi scheme.

 

Lastly, if I have not sent you the items I list above then please advise because they entirely support what it is I am advising you of. There are no “ifs buts and maybes” here.

 

Now will you please deal with this matter properly or I shall have no alternative but to make a solid complaint to the Scottish Executive regarding the capability of my MSP to hold office given he is displaying some form of mental incapacity to grasp a VERY simple point. I would, therefore, have to assume that he cannot carry out his duties effectively in representing my or any of his other constituents’ interests.

 

 

Earthling

 

From: Malcolm.Chisholm.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

To: Earthling

Subject: RE: Complaint

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 15:27:10 +0000

 

Well there are just different economic views on this Earthling. You are expressing a pre-Keynesian approach which in my opinion would  have been totally disastrous for this country,. Without borrowing the recession would have been a slump and unemployment would have been sky high. Of course the deficit must be dealt with but a too extreme approach is counter-productive  which is what I believe is happening right now.

Best wishes

Malcolm Chisholm

 

 

From: Earthling

Sent: 28 July 2011 00:15

To: Chisholm M (Malcolm), MSP

Cc: scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Subject: FW: Complaint

 

Malcolm,

 

As my MSP and representative, I expect you to act upon this complaint since, having sent it into the Scottish Executive, they, of course, have ignored it. They do so by their determination that complaints about the Scottish Executive/Government are only on procedural points. Poor “service” therefore to minor issues which one may raise. As you are fully aware, this is not a minor issue.

 

Now, I will state this quite clearly: The Scottish Government (as are the UK Government) are defrauding the nation by way of borrowing money/credit and having the people of Scotland pay an interest on a debt which was and is unnecessary in it’s entirety.

I have previously provided support of such an allegation by way of Parliamentary and House of Lords minutes plus a definitive confirmation of the issue by Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve System (for it is an entire western monetary issue) so Malcolm, please do not treat this as some “off the wall” issue. Please do not insult my intelligence and please confirm you have read this – I know you fully understand the issue – and that you are bringing it to the attention of the Scottish Executive.

 

There is no “explanation” of this issue required since, frankly, there is none. The Scottish Executive must “come clean” and advise the Scottish public that such a fraudulent misrepresentation of money and credit and the need for borrowing at all shall be given a full, frank, open hearing.

 

Please respond and acknowledge this communication with some immediacy.

 

Earthling

 

From: Earthling

To: scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Subject: Complaint

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:17:16 +0000

Dear Mr Salmond and Ministers,

 

On the Scottish Executive website, it has the following regarding complaint procedure:

 

The Scottish Government Complaints Procedure

It is important to the Scottish Government that complaints about service are dealt with by the right person at the right time.

If you have a complaint about the service you have received from a department or official, the Government will work with you to resolve the complaint in a full and fair way, keeping you informed of progress.

Complaints Procedure

·         First, you must speak to the officials in the business area or department that your complaint is about. Working with you, they will aim to resolve your complaint. You can reach officials through the Main Addresses and Contact Points of the Scottish Government.

·         If, working together, you are unable to resolve the issue, the officials will ask you to confirm if you wish to move on to the next stage. A senior official will appoint a Complaints Officer who is completely independent of the business area involved in the stage above. They will look into your complaint and aim to help you resolve it. If your complaint is still not resolved it will be subject to a final review by the relevant Director. If you remain dissatisfied, you then have the option of taking up your complaint with the Ombudsman.

 

Here is my service complaint and the right person is you Mr Salmond. After all, the “buck stops” with the First Minister on something as fundamental as this. Furthermore, it impacts and applies to ALL departments whether that be finance, social care, Justice, you name it. So let us “work together” to resolve the issue shall we? After all the role of government is to govern by consent is it not? Please answer this first question. Is this a correct statement? The people of Scotland elect their government to represent them and, thereby, are governed by consent. I am sure I have heard you say words to the effect “The people of Scotland have spoken”. So then, let us work together to enlighten the people of Scotland further and ask them to speak once more shall we?

Or do we have something other than a democratically elected devolved government? Please be specific while concise.

 

You see the fundamental issue with people voting at the ballot box and that being considered “democracy” is that, if the people voting have not been given all the facts and information they require to make an educated and informed decision, then such “democracy” (and the subsequent “contract” between the electorate and the political party for the latter’s legitimacy to govern) is based upon deception. Before anyone signs for their mortgage or any other financial transaction, they are provided with terms and conditions of contract. IF those terms and conditions are judged as not having given the buyer full and frank disclosure, then the contract is considered void and the legal establishment would rightly consider such practice by the seller as fraudulent and deceptive practice. I hope this clarifies my point Mr Salmond?

 

Now, regarding your service Alex and the service to the people of Scotland of your entire party. My complaint is this: Fraud and deception – plain and simple. Whether intentionally or otherwise perhaps you can clarify? The remedy for this is also very simple however. You advise the Scottish public that, in fact, there is no need whatsoever for a public/national/government debt. You cease borrowing the nation’s currency (and yes I am well aware that, right now, such currency is a UK currency. I am also aware of the fact that, in terms of notes and coins, neither Bank of England nor Bank of Scotland or Clydesdale Bank notes are legal tender in Scotland). I am talking about the issuance of the nation’s credit in total Mr Salmond. The fact that it is issued as a debt and bears interest.

 

So let us “collaborate” and work together as your Complaints Procedure above suggests so that you may bring this issue to the attention of the Scottish public immediately. Work with me. Let’s resolve the complaint in a full and fair way.

 

I don’t think there is any need for a Complaints Officer and next stages but, if you are unwilling to “work together” on this issue then I guess it must progress to that stage. However, will the “Senior Official” appoint such an officer to handle the complaint objectively or will he have been told precisely how to handle it to the satisfaction of Mr Salmond and the Scottish government rather than to the satisfaction of the people of Scotland?

 

Please keep me informed of the progress.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Earthling

 

 

 

 

I mean SERIOUSLY! How many F***ING times does this have to be repeated?

SNP SUPPORTERS…..

Posted in Finance, Politics by earthling on July 5, 2011

The SNP are the right way for Scotland.
The SNP think first and foremost of Scotland and the Scottish people.
The SNP are concerned for the people of Scotland’s well being and that of the old people who cannot afford their heating bills.
The SNP want to eradicate poverty in Scotland.
The SNP have multiple projects which they wish to work upon but find are finding the money difficult to come by and are anticipating cuts from Westminster.
The SNP want Scottish Independence.

The Scottish people have strongly voted for SNP and Alex Salmond, your leader, has promised he will improve Scotland for the Scottish people and that he will improve employment and social conditions etc.

All I am asking you SNP supporters then is this: Ask Mr Salmond to explain the following to you and to promise you he will introduce a Scottish sovereign currency. This means that the Scottish government would NEVER borrow money based upon a debt, thereby paying interest. A Sovereign currency means that there is no need for the Scottish government to have Scotland caught up in a spiral of National debt. There would BE no debt.

What is the bottom line? The bottom line is this: If there is no National debt, due to issuing sovereign Scottish currency, then there is no need for a tax (income tax and others) to service the interest on that debt. It would also mean that Scotland would NEVER have to sell/privatise any single piece of land or infrastructure to pay off such a debt (this is essentially bankruptcy of course).

Now, if YOU, as an SNP supporter who truly wants what is best for Scotland and you are not just supporting the SNP for your own gain but for the gain of the nation as a whole (and this gain would be enormous), then please demand that Mr Salmond and/or your local SNP MSP explain all of this to you. If they refuse or if they evade or dismiss it then please again demand they explain, in detail, what this is all about.

Ultimately, if they choose not to (and they will) then I am quite happy to explain this to any and all SNP supporters in a public forum with or without MSPs present. I will provide all factual evidence to support what I am telling you and you will, finally, understand the enormity and the positive effect upon Scotland that the implementation of such a currency would have upon the Nation.

If, however, you choose to ignore all of this, then that is unfortunate and you are doing this nation and the people within it a disservice in fact. If you then wish to proclaim yourself a Scottish nationalist then I am afraid your proclamation is empty. It holds no legitimacy and you are nothing more than a follower of the “cult” of the SNP.

I am a Scottish nationalist and I want what is best for each and every one of you and I understand how it can be achieved VERY simply. But you will never see me on TV shaking hands and smiling nor will you see me in the Scottish parliament making strong “nationalistic” sounding speeches.
I leave that to the Politicians.

I always find it strange however, that people, in general, distrust politicians and the working classes hold the upper classes in disdain and speak about they would trust their own before trusting the establishment YET, because you give the establishment some form of greater knowledge and ability (because they wouldn’t be where they are without it you convince yourselves), you will generally, not listen to someone who is not in that “circle”. So while you hold these people in disdain, you prop them up by offering them this.
You vote for the SNP candidates because you BELIEVE they are “your people” simply because they have the label of SNP and they speak like you – so that shows that you trust them well before you’d trust a British party and a David Cameron. You see? You DO like to listen to “your own”. BUT the problem is this: “Your own” are every bit as controlled a party, and individuals within the party, as are the David Camerons of this world.

So, once more, I ask you: Demand from the SNP and particularly the First Minister, to explain to you what I mean by a Scottish sovereign currency. Then watch how you are evaded or how the question is somehow dismissed.

Please do not let yourself and the question be dismissed. If you do, you are allowing yourself to be lied to and defrauded.

Scottish Independence? Yes

Scottish Independence without a sovereign currency? Impossible and a lie.

National debt = ZERO: Austerity unnecessary.

Posted in Finance, Politics by earthling on April 16, 2011

But our CORRUPT British government (ALL PARTIES) DO NOT WANT THIS and will NOT tell the British people the big con whereby your wealth – and the country’s as a whole – is being stolen from underneath our noses while these parasites, which includes our monarchy, feed from you by filling you up with debt then allowing the Banks to burst the bubble and call in the loans/debt.

Britain, just as the Federal Reserve is fleecing the American public so too is the Bank of England fleecing you. And our governments play along because, as you may have noticed, those who are in government are very well taken care of financially.

PLEASE, for your own sakes and for the sake of us all: WAKE THE HELL UP!

I have since personally received a copy of Henry Kerby’s transcript of this EDM from the PARLIAMENTARY ARCHIVIST.

THIS is why our country (and I may add ALL other countries’ sovereignty is going down the plughole and our debt is ever increasing and shall never end. THIS is why we have an UNNECESSARY AUSTERITY: Because the POLITICIANS will NOT issue our own currency debt free. I hate to add this but it is just fact: Adolf Hitler was NOT the instigator of WW2. He worked out the problem and the problem was Private controlled Bankers (the MAJORITY of them jewish because ONLY the jewish religion from centuries past allowed USURY and the British Christians in the 1600s then adopted it when the christian religion had always denounced it) who created the money out of thin air and loaned at interest. They are PARASITES and very few people understand this.

Who REALLY instigated WW2 and why? (and WHY are they doing such again today?):   jews-declare-war.htm

Many people will NOT like this idea but it is NOT an idea. It is FACT!

Notice it was all well before 1939 and why? Because Hitler was not playing ball and was issuing his OWN currency! WHO writes History? The victors do! THAT’S why you don’t get the truth in your history books at schools people!

The entire nations of the world are in debt. Every single one of them (you can find the figures through googling easily enough). Now just stop and think in very simple terms (BECAUSE THIS IS VERY VERY SIMPLE): If YOUR family was the only family on earth but was still in debt, WHO would your family be in debt to? Who COULD it be? The answer: No-one!

Now apply that to the fact that EVERY nation on earth is in debt. For EVERY debtor there is a CREDITOR. Who has sovereignty? WHO is in control? The CREDITOR is.

So if EVERY nation is in debt (which they are) then WHO, ultimately, is the creditor? The ENTIRE HUMAN FAMILY is in debt! To who?

To the Private Central Bankers. THAT is why we all have austerity and why countries like Greece and Portugal and Ireland and even us, the UK, are selling off assets. Because our politicians are in bed getting their kickbacks from the legislation they adopt in favour of the banks! It’s not your local high street bank we’re talking about here. It is the entire banking system controlled by the IMF and Central Banks. The WHO is who is behind them? Well we KNOW who!

Captain Henry Kerby MP: UK Parliament Hansards 1965:

1. The UK government DO NOT WISH TO eliminate the National Debt. It has NEVER been their intention!

2. “No”. Could this be ANY clearer for you?

3.  Captain Henry Kerby’s Early Day Motion dated 22nd December 1964.

Ask yourself a VERY simple question: Why would the British Government NOT wish to pay off the National Debt?

A Motion to Restore the Power of the Issue of Money to the Crown

This article appeared in Prosperity, October 2001

By Captain Henry Kerby MP

On the 22nd December, 1964, Captain Henry Kerby, MP, placed the following Motion before the House of Commons.

It was an “Early Day Motion” and so it was never debated and, consequently, does not appear in Hansard. It is, however, published in the Early Day Motion records and we have a copy of it here at Prosperity.

The House of Commons Public Information Office Factsheet on Early Day Motions states that an “Early Day Motion” is the “colloquial term for a notice of motion given by a Member for which no date has been fixed for debate” and where “in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no prospect of these motions ever being debated. Their modern existence is due to Members wishing to put on record their opinion on a subject and canvass support for it from fellow Members. They do this by inviting, actively or passively, other members to endorse the proposed motion.” However, even if 250-300 Members might endorse it, “the lack of prospect of the motion being debated remains much the same.”

Below we reprint the full text of Captain Kerby’s Early Day Motion, titled as below, and his comments — unpublished in the official record — follow.

THE EMISSION OF ALL THE MEANS OF EXCHANGE

That this House considers that the continued issue of all the means of exchange – be they coin, bank-notes or credit, largely passed on by cheques – by private firms as an interest-bearing debt against the public should cease forthwith; that the Sovereign power and duty of issuing money in all forms should be returned to the Crown, then to be put into circulation free of all debt and interest obligations, as a public service, not a private opportunity of profit and control for no tangible returns to the British people; and that the volume of money be controlled so as to maintain stable prices:

That the nationalization of the Bank of England did nothing to solve this problem as the bank only serves a subsidiary purpose and almost all money is still created out of nothing by mere book entry by private banks:

That the aims of those who want to assure private property and free enterprise, as well as those who want to protect the British people from unfair exploitation, would both be best served by restoring the power of issuing money to Her Majesty The Queen, in accordance with ancient tradition and law, as is also demanded by the American Constitution, which gives the right of issue solely to Congress, so as to assure the State and Nation the benefits of that emission and relieve them of the immense and growing burdens of a parasitical National and private debt; and to make certain that control passes to the taxed and is taken out of the hands of the present hidden and unlawful beneficiaries of taxation, much of the proceeds of which they collect as interest on all money and immense debts:

And therefore this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to introduce the required legislation, to assert the proper sovereignty of The Queen in Council in this most important of all sovereign functions, to assure unprecedented prosperity with true sovereignty and liberty.

Captain Kerby’s comments:

It is not generally understood that for many centuries, in Britain and in almost all other civilized countries, the power and duty of coinage, i.e. of the issue of money in all forms – coin, notes and book-entry credit passed on by cheque, etc. – was vested solely in the Crown or State. For this reason the tradition still persists of putting the Sovereign’s portrait on the coinage, though in fact since the end of the 17th century, the reign of William and Mary, by far the greatest part of all the effective means of exchange are issued by private bankers out of nothing by mere book entry, to be lent at interest to the State and to private borrowers. Thus real power passed from the State to the private bankers.

There is ample evidence from many independent sources to prove that most of the means of exchange in modern conditions originate with bankers. In America it is aptly called “fractional reserve banking,” meaning that if you have a pound in cash in the till you can issue ten or twenty times more in the form of “credit” on the books, which is mostly circulated by cheques.

Not a few Heads of Central Banks of Issue have stated the facts at public enquiries or in the press, including the chief of the Canadian Bank of Issue, also Mr. Marriner Eccles — at one time in parallel position in the U.S. Federal Reserve — and the late Mr. Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chairman of the Midland Bank. They and many others confirmed that it is the function of banks to create money out of nothing and lend it out.

The “Report of the (New Zealand) Royal Commission on Monetary, Banking and Credit Systems,” 1956, states in part; Para. 164: Creation of Money by the Trading Banks: “The fact that a large proportion of our money supply comes into existence as a result of the operations of the trading banks obviously disturbed many witnesses …”

This evidence is paralleled by that given in 1960 to the Radcliffe Committee in London. We quote from the evidence given by the Bank of England, Vol. 1, Memoranda of Evidence; p.9. 4. The Control of Bank Credit in the United Kingdom:

2. “Because an entry in the books of a bank has come to be generally acceptable in the place of cash it is possible for the banks to create the equivalent of cash (i.e. credit). Thus a bank may pay for a security purchased from a customer merely by making an entry in its books to the credit of that customer’s account: or it may make an advance by means of a similar entry. In either case, an increase in its deposits will occur.”

In the United States of America, the Constitution clearly provides in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 5, that only Congress shall have the power to coin (issue) money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin (rate of exchange). Yet obviously this constitutional provision has been completely ignored in practice almost since American independence. In the United Kingdom, too, the spirit of the old laws and traditions has been circumvented.

Yet this is no mere academic matter, but a question of supreme importance, affecting the Sovereignty and very existence of the State and country. It has been said that there should be no taxation without representation, yet private financiers can issue “imaginary” money out of nothing by mere book entry and lend it at interest, they acquire the profit of issue and of interest gratis, at the cost of the whole community. This is taxation in the fullest sense, accompanied not by the representation of the taxed, but by the complete power of the true tax collector, who is the ruler. The basic truth of no taxation without representation is turned upside down and inside out.

It follows that the power of Parliament in general, and especially with regard to Money is non-existent, and all true sovereignty is in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money and determine its value and distribution. If even the State borrows from them, having abandoned its own powers of coinage (emission) to private financiers, how can that State claim to be truly sovereign? The real basis of the power of the money-creators and money-lenders lies in the fact that few know the truth about this financial “hidden hand.”

Conservatives with knowledge and long historical memories will recall that the original Tories were Jacobites. Today this question does not apply to the Crown as Her Majesty enjoys the loyalty of all Her subjects. But the spirit of the old Jacobites expressed a sounder understanding of the functions of the Crown as fount of Sovereignty, to be exercised with Counsellors. In the context of that conception it was natural that the power of monetary emission should belong to the Sovereign, and long experience has shewn that that proposition was sound.

On the other hand the old Whigs were the proponents of “Dutch Finance,” of the issue of the means of exchange as an interest-bearing debt by private bankers, and of the domination of the State by High Finance, not the Sovereign in Council, the King and people. With the decline of Liberalism in Great Britain it might be thought that Socialist Labour is the heir of that tradition.

It is the claim of Socialist leaders that theirs is not the Party of the Big Money Men. The test is this: will Labour understand that the “nationalization” of the power of coinage (emission) is the supreme necessity? And not the confiscation of the fruits of many peoples’ labour and invention.

If the Socialist Party does not pass this test and continues to protect parasitical finance, if only by its silence, then it will lay itself open to an attack which it could never repulse, however long it may postpone the show-down.

Here, then, are some basic propositions which should be known to all, and which are behind the intentions of the Motion:

1. All the means of exchange, with the exception of a very small fraction (coin) are created in the books of private banks when they lend to the State and private borrowers. Conversely, when a loan or overdraft is repaid there is less money in circulation.

2. Even notes and coin come into circulation only in exchange for book entry purchases of Treasury Bills by banks, and thus are virtually issued by the bankers.[For a fuller description on how notes and coins come into circulation, see April 2000 Prosperity]

3. It follows that those who have the power to “create” out of nothing all the money in each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total power over all States, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and so on. Therefore the powers of Parliament are largely ephemeral.

4. It is essential that the issue of money be as needed by the whole nation and hence free from private or political influence. Consequently it is essential that the Queen in Council should resume the power and duty of monetary emission. If new money is spent (not lent) into circulation, taxes could be reduced to a small fraction of their present and growing burden and the National Debt will gradually disappear.

5. Banks should only be able to lend moneys they have earned or borrowed. Their other functions would remain.

6. With the release from the debt and tax burden and with the issue of money in accordance with the needs of exchange, the country would experience unexampled and lasting prosperity, with no slumps and unemployment. Financial principles and policies would be open and broadly understood: instead of being Master, Money would become a public servant.

Rothschild… China, White Phosphorous, Iran and Iraq

Posted in Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthling on February 26, 2011

MP Lazarowicz has been advised time and time again about the Rothschild influence yet has simply refused to accept what is in front of his eyes written in black and white by the UK Parliament.

From: Earthling
To: mark.lazarowicz.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: Coming soon… to the UK.
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:22:00 +0000

Dear Mark,

Don’t say I didn’t warn you Mark. Your government of today know it. They’re getting ready for it.
But while all of your colleagues keep your mouths shut to keep in line with the party, this is what you are allowing to build up.
Because you’re allowing yourselves to be bullied. You’re all weak. Just a fact Mark. You’ve lost your individuality. You’re no longer “Mark Lazarowicz” you’re “Mark Lazarowicz Labour MP”. And you and your MP colleagues feel so proud and better and above everyone else – that’s why you feel no need to reply to points which are facts and you cannot argue.
I could be wrong but I sense you picking up on all of this while it’s just too hard and too dangerous for you in your position to speak out. But don’t worry. Your weakness will be more than made up for by those who will. The unfortunate thing is – when they look to you they will ask what your modus operandi was. The answer: “To keep my job”. FAR more important than doing your job isn’t it?
You’re not going to like Britain soon Mark. I don’t like it now but then I “see” it whereas you don’t. You wish to believe it’s all going to blow over.
You’re so very very wrong. Having said that, I hope I’m wrong but I’ve seen this coming for years now. I’ve educated myself immensely to see the how’s and the why’s.

Wisconsin Capitol Building: The Police join the protestors.
breaking-wisconsin-police-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol

We have Police in the UK Mark who are beginning to listen too. We don’t want a mini civil war now do we? Or would the bankers profit from it? 😉

I’m just trying to get through to you Mark. When the questions are put nicely I get nothing in return or I get the BULLSHIT responses you know I just got from an evasive treasury. When someone is faced by people who show them no respect, then those people tend to be offered no respect. It’s not a preference but straight, blunt talking is needed and it’s going to be needed even more unless you people get your fingers out of your collective posteriors.

As for the attachments. Just to give you a flavour (hardly exhaustive) of the Rot of the Rothschilds which has crept in over the last couple of centuries – and never let up – while they have “advised” (and I use that term advisedly) the government on all the major sell offs of our industry. A to Z. I haven’t even touched on the Motor industry. So while all the developing world is doing great – investment, GDP growth etc BECAUSE they have basic industry – the UK has zero. Oh EXCEPT for perhaps TWO things – TWO guesses what they are Mark? ….. BANKING and???……….. ARMAMENTS/DEFENCE/WHITE PHOSPHOROUS/ DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS to sell to Iran and Iraq and every other dictatorship Rothschild can do business with.

Is it getting clearer Mr Lazarowicz?

I wait in hope Mark to hear from a man not a mouse.

Regards,
Earthling

PS: As for the mousy quiet Darling (another weak willed Scot just doing as he’s told – but the pay is good) who has refused to answer the questions I put to him also. Isn’t this a rather interesting little statement he made a number of years ago in the commons:

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The reason why we ask him to be brief is that we know that he can make his arguments extremely well briefly, which he does time and again——and I say that not only because he happens to be one of my next-door neighbours in an Edinburgh constituency.
The debate has been extremely useful. On few occasions that I have witnessed in the eight years I have been a Member has the House spent so much time discussing directly problems which affect so many of our constituents, and also a problem that is fundamental to the future development of the economy.
There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the principle of venture capital trusts. We all agree that it is desirable, and from time to time necessary, to use fiscal incentives to ensure that investments are made in the sectors where we need it.
The difference between us is threefold. First, we believe that the Government need to consider other sectors, which have been mentioned on both sides of the House. Secondly, we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that, if one gives a tax incentive, one does not end up subsidising undesirable behaviour, such as the behaviour that occurred when the business expansion scheme was set up. In that respect, too, there was common ground on both sides of the House. The difference between the two sides is that those who support the Government do not appear to accept that there is a case for ensuring that there should be safeguards in relation to venture capital trusts.
I suppose that the third difference between us is that we believe that the Government have given fiscal incentives in undesirable ways, such as the business
417
expansion scheme, but the Government will not accept that the taxpayer’s money has thereby been poured down the drain. I shall perhaps discuss that later.
7.15 pm
The Minister appeared reluctant to accept that there is no difference of principle between us, so we should perhaps not spend too much time trying to make differences where none exist. Perhaps British industry as a whole will welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the principle of encouraging investment in what is known as the investment gap, which has been identified by almost every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate.
However, I took exception when the Minister said that because no one was focusing on granny farms, as he put it, that was all right. In support of his proposition, he cited the fact that Rothschild’s supported the Government. What a surprise—Rothschild’s supports the Government. I am sure that a bank such as Rothschild’s, which has no fewer than 14 times been the recipient of public largesse, either as an adviser to the Government or as an underwriter of its flotation schemes, should say, “Well done the Government for coming up with that scheme.”
Indeed, as my hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, if venture capitalists do take great care in assessing the risks and evaluating the projects before them, it is scarcely surprising that the Chancellor hardly sat down after his Budget statement before our old chums at Rothschild’s announced that they were going to set up a venture capital trust. They could not have known what was in the Budget, could they? How on earth would they know what a surefire bet it was—unless, of course, they had the amazing foresight of the noble Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare?How could Rothschild’s say so confidently that it was going to set up a venture capital trust unless it had made an evaluation of the type of tax breaks available and knew that, no matter what the risk, no matter what venture it backed, it was guaranteed to obtain a suitable return?
I do not think that the Minister can rely on Rothschild’s for support, therefore, and I believe that both he and Conservative Members generally, today of all days, would do well to be very quiet about Rothschild’s and the Conservative party, for reasons that people outside and inside the House will understand.
The main subject to which successive hon. Members drew attention was the funding gap between quoted companies and small businesses, many of which are funded by family money or by bank overdraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) said, that is starting to change; nevertheless, there is obviously a funding gap and we welcome the fact that the Government are tackling it.
I want to take up an argument that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made about property. I think that we all accept that if inflation remains low—a big “if’—obviously property will not be the kind of bet that it was in the past 30 or 40 years. However, in my travels around the City of London I have been surprised how many people tell me that they are getting back into property again. We all remember the property collapses of the 1970s, the late 1980s and the early 1990s; yet people are getting back into property because it is regarded as a major asset in a portfolio.

But no, indeed, Alistair has no idea what I’m talking about when I put those questions to him now does he?
Would you care to comment Mark? No, I guess not.

Attachments:










I hope that gives a fairly decent summary to you all regarding Rothschild TOTAL influence on the UK government (along with their “Friends of Israel lobby) which you can consider having watched the following Channel 4 programme “Dispatches” Nov 16 2009:
article23997.htm

While you may then consider the following Rothschild “ADVICE” to the UK government:
article6814923.ece

While you may also consider the following Rothschild/Mandelson/Osbourne threesome:
YOU DO NOT MESS WITH THESE JEWS GIDEON! THEY DESTROY GOVERNMENTS NEVERMIND LITTLE WEEDS LIKE YOU!

George-Osborne-warned-stop-rubbishing-Rothschild-or-youre-finished.html

While you ALSO may consider this. Mandelson and Blair dine with the Rothschilds and Gaddafi:
Lord-Peter-Mandelson-spends-weekend-with-Colonel-Gaddafis-son-Saif.html

And this…. Mandelson is, in fact, very likely a Rothschild…..

Mandelsons-family-history–claim-uncrowned-King-Poland.html

While Hannah Rothschild calls him “The REAL PM”! 😉

From the Independent 24th October 2010:

And finally, you may wish to understand why our dearly departed ex PM Blair gets along so well and becomes so rich while being picked up by J.P. Morgan (another Rothschild front bank):

Blair-invites-billionaires-exclusive-No-10-party.html

Who arranged the entire thing for him? Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild, old Evelyn’s bit of fluff!

IS THE FOG LIFTING? IS IT NOW AS CLEAR AS A PLATE GLASS WINDOW FOR YOU?