Earthlinggb's Blog

Don’t talk to me about “Democracy”!

Posted in Law, Politics by earthlinggb on September 27, 2014

Not that democracy is perfect anyhow but we, in the west and in the UK do not have it!

So if anyone talks to you about our “great democracy” and “Who are you voting for?” or “What are you voting for?” please, do me a favour, laugh in their face! They’re just ignorant bastards.


Royal Prerogative

HC Deb 21 April 1993 vol 223 cc485-92 485
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

2.20 am
§Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) I wish briefly to explore the scope and limits of the royal prerogative and its present-day usage by the Government, and to put a number of questions to the hapless Minister who has the duty of answering the debate. I want to ask him about the profoundly undemocratic practice that allows a Government to act with royal absolutism.
As I understand it, the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch’s power to legislate without the authority of Parliament. As the monarch acts on the advice of Government, the procedure enables a Government to produce primary legislation without parliamentary consent—legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts.

Blackstone’s 18th century “Commentaries on the Laws of England” referred to the prerogative as that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity”— an arrangement that Blackstone described as in its nature singular and eccentrical”. In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative. Ministers usually imply that such orders relate to such quaint and innocuous matters as the grant and amendment of charters, and the appointment of visitors and governors of universities. Many do; but the prerogative is also applied to important international obligations and, in particular, to citizens’ rights.

The prerogative is used for the making of international treaties—which may be why from time to time, when it suits them, Ministers tell us that any Commons vote on the Maastricht treaty can be disregarded by the Government. It is also used for the declaration of war and blockade. The Government used it to commit British military forces in the Gulf war—prompting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to observe: this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn”.—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 616.] My right hon. Friend contrasted the handling of the matter in the House of Commons with the way in which both Houses of the United States Congress had debated and voted on a resolution on military action.

The Government used prerogative powers to enable the United States military to bomb Libya from bases in England. That was a matter of awesome political importance, in which—once again—the House of Commons had no status. The prerogative is used for the control and organisation of the armed forces. In the matter of civil liberties, under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.

Jury vetting guidelines and telephone tapping are authorised by royal prerogative, apparently under an ancient royal right to intercept communications between 486 subjects. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established by royal prerogative without statutory authority.

Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service.

In any other country, the civil service would be regulated by a civil service Act that set out in law the rights, duties and constitutional position of civil servants. Here, the civil service is subject to the monarchical whims of some Minister. My first question to the Minister is, why cannot the civil service be governed by a civil service Act, and are the Clerks of this House also governed by the royal prerogative, rather than by legislation passed by the House?

The royal prerogative is used for literally thousands of appointments in the public sector, and it is the fount of Government patronage. In 1965, Lord Reid observed: it is not easy to discover and decide the law relating to the royal prerogative and the consequences of its exercise. He noted that there had been “practically no authority” on the matter since 1688.

The most extensive discussion recently of the royal prerogative was by Professor Colin Munro in a publication in 1987. He wrote: In practice … the supervision of prerogative powers does seem to be attended by greater than average difficulty. The very nature of these powers makes them less readily subject to challenge. He tells us that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or ombudsman, has no power to examine decisions under the royal prerogative and says: the exercise of prerogatives by the Attorney General may not be reviewed. He also says: The correlation between the matters excluded from the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and the spheres of activity in which governments exercise prerogative powers is striking. We also learn from Munro that the manner of the exercise of prerogative powers lies outside the scope of judicial review, so we are inevitably brought to the conclusion that a British subject may be deported, or refused a passport, or have his or her telephone tapped or mail opened by the state without legislative authority, and that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is entitled to examine the matter.

The Minister will also know that subsidiary powers flow from the royal prerogative. The Crown’s right to have admissible evidence withheld from a court when it claims that the public interest so demands has been known as Crown privilege although nowadays its existence is disputed. Does it exist, I ask the Minister, and what does it cover? Is there still such a concept in British law as Crown privilege which exempts the Crown from justiciable matters?

487 Crown immunity is certainly alive and kicking. The sovereign—and, therefore, the Government—still enjoy a number of immunities derived from the ancient “prerogative of perfection”—that is, “The King can do no wrong.” What it means today is that Government Departments and many public bodies are not bound by a huge range of protective legislation, such as health and safety, food hygiene laws and planning and environmental regulations. I understand that that legislation does not, for example, protect those who work in the parliamentary precincts, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people in other public organisations. Therefore, to be employed in a public building means that one cannot be protected by a wide range of legislation.

Munro concludes: Behind the phrase “royal prerogative” lie hidden some issues of great constitutional importance, which are insufficiently recognised. It seems that the prerogative could be dispensed with almost entirely. The civil service and the military could be governed by Acts of Parliament, as in other countries. Telephone tapping, mail interception, deportation and entitlement to travel should be justiciable. Senior public appointments could be supervised by Select Committee. The Speaker could take over some prerogative powers, such as the dissolution of Parliament and the invitation to the leader of the party with the largest majority to form a Government.

In a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said: It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 19.] It is nothing less than a constitutional outrage that Ministers should decide whether to withhold matters from Parliament. It should be the Speaker’s job to decide how the exercise of prerogative powers should be reported to the House. It should also be up to the Speaker to judge whether a Minister should answer to the House for the use of extra-statutory power.

The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament. In truth, the purpose of our Parliament is to provide a Government and to scrutinise their actions and decisions, but only to the extent that Government will allow. That is not good enough. The royal prerogative is a chilling manifestation of the way in which our democracy is deficient, and it should be mapped by the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible, and then largely ended.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and the extent to which as, I hope, a democrat he thinks that government by proclamation and diktat could be replaced by a proper legislative process.


Tony Benn BBC quote



HC Deb 17 January 1989 vol 145 cc180-238

Mr. Benn The amendments touch on the nub of the Bill—what is subversion and what is national security and who should decide what is national security and who 193 should decide what is subversion? Having the Bill means that we have probably had more meaningful discussion on the Security Service than we have had in recent years.
For a long time the general public have been persuaded that it is in their interests that foreign spies and domestic terrorists should be under careful scrutiny. Communists were automatically identified with foreign spies. I imagine that if the Soviet Union had wanted spies in Britain it would not have picked members of the Communist party. However, that was one of the foolish ideas that was current. The whole thing had to be covered by the tightest security and secrecy and judges capitulated whenever they heard the magic word “security”.

The amendment is important because the definition of subversion is a political decision. Who is the enemy is a political question. We do not say that the chief of staff will announce which enemy country he intends to attack. That too is a political question. After all, security is a part of defence. We have an annual defence White Paper in which we are told what resources we have at out disposal and where they are deployed. We have an annual Army order. When I was first in Parliament an Act went through every year. Now it is an annual order. If the House does not endorse that order, the discipline of the armed forces disappears on the day that the old order expires. Why does that procedure not apply to the Security Service?

What is it about the Security Service’s political objectives that makes them different from the defence forces’ political objectives? The answer is that the decision about what is subversive has been taken by MI5, sometimes upon the intervention of Ministers. I say without any disrespect to the Home Secretary that I would be surprised if, like his predecessors, he really knew what was going on. Certainly some of my colleagues who were his predecessors did not know what was going on, because what was going on was an attempt to get the Labour Government out of office. I cannot believe that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in charge of such an operation.

If one pursues the matter more fully, one finds that if pressed the Security Service would say that it is responsible not to the Home Secretary but to the Crown, a concept that I tried to explore on Second Reading. The Crown is a mysterious idea which implies a continuity of activity. The security services have really been protecting the status quo, which is not the same as parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to allow one to change the status quo by political action. If one cannot change the status quo by voting, why vote? Immediately we come to the relationship between what is called national security, which is defined as the political and economic status quo, and subversion, which, in the case of parliamentary democracy, is a legal form of trying to change the status quo. The Home Secretary knows that, or his draftsmen have worked on that basis. If one then says that parliamentary democracy is trying to change the status quo by political means, one is caught by the Bill. If one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political actions, one is a subversive. The Home Secretary has put his finger on that. If one interprets parliamentary democracy as meaning that one wants to change anything, one is covered by the Bill because one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action.

194 The Home Secretary may smile and may give as many assurances as he likes, but I am defining how the Bill will work and that is how the system has worked until now.

Another aspect of the matter, which I have raised before, is that the condition under which the Americans allow us to borrow nuclear weapons is that American intelligence supervises British intelligence. The Americans have to check procedures and, for many purposes, they have to check people who are engaged in activities in which they take an interest. In a strange way, the definition in amendment No. 47 covers the Americans. It refers to the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person”. That would deal with James Angleton immediately, but no British Government who wished to retain nuclear weapons could implement such an amendment.

It is not only the theory of the matter that is interesting but the practice. In Field Marshal Lord Carver’s television broadcast after his resignation as chief of the general staff, he said that for most of history Britain’s armed forces were concerned with domestic security. He pointed out—and this point was interesting to me—that there have not been many foreign wars in which the British Army has been engaged. We fought the French and, a couple of times, the Germans, but for most of our history the armed forces have performed the function of security forces. That is why Parliament, in 1688, resolved that it did not want a standing army. That domestic function has been far greater, in the mind of the security services, over a long period. We have been told that the Russians were planning to invade. I do not know how many people now believe that Mr. Gorbachev is planning an attack on London. According to opinion polls, only 2 per cent. think that a Russian attack is very likely.

The concept of the “enemy within” is central to the issue. The present Prime Minister has made it explicit that the “enemy within” became the dominant consideration of the security services at the time when there was a Socialist challenge to the status quo. Trade unions are, by definition, considered to be potentially subversive by the security services. I know that because my private secretary in one of my Departments tried to take advantage of the scheme for interchange with industry. He said that he did not want an interchange with industry, but that he wanted to go to a trade union for a time. He was warned off because, in the eyes of the establishment that still runs the security services, trade unionism was subversive in itself. I am saying not that the security services believe that every trade unionist is subversive, but that the purpose of trade unionism is subversive.

I want to deal next with the peace movement. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was able to instruct MI5 to bug the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the Cathy Massiter case. That shows that anyone whose view of the world differs from the view that peace has been retained by nuclear weapons against the Red Army is a subversive—and that view is still held. No one should imagine that Peter Wright’s story ended with his retirement or with the acquisition of power by the present Government.


Mr. Benn The hon. Member may have more knowledge of these matters than I have, as he speaks with such confidence about what happened, and that illustrates my point. We should have known the information to which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is privy and we should have had a chance to test the matter. I do not believe for a moment what he has said, but I cannot prove that, and he cannot prove the validity of his remarks, because the whole matter is covered by secrecy.
The next category of people who are considered to be subversive are the various types of Socialists. It is funny that the Communist party is held to be subversive now. As far as I can make out, it is advocating electoral pacts, so the security services do not seem to be up to date. But the people in the security services are not politically clever. I was once invited, as a Minister, to attend a conference of the Socialist International, a respectable body which was then presided over by Willy Brandt. My private secretary said to me that MI5 would not let me go. He said that the reason was that the International Socialists were on our list. He did not know the difference between the International Socialists and the Socialist International. That does not show a high level of political intelligence. There may be a need for more chemists in MI5. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if MI5 were also to employ people who understand Socialism and realise that there are many varieties of Socialism.

I remember the case of a woman who was refused employment by the Civil Service because her father read The Daily Worker. We should not deceive ourselves that the amendment will be passed, but we can use Parliament to make available through Hansard—the only publicly owned newspaper that has not yet been acquired by Rupert Murdoch—to those who bother to read our speeches the truth about what is happening.


Mr. Winnick Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§Mr. Benn I shall just finish this point.
The security services go to universities and ask teachers about the political activities of particular students who may have applied for a job in the defence industry or the Civil Service. Lecturers have told me that MI5 was sniffing around to find out whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was reliable. If one has a friend who is keen to join the Civil Service, the first advice to give such a young man is, “Don’t go to political meetings, my friend, because if you do, you may not get into the Civil Service.” One reason why the security services and the Civil Service are so ignorant about political argument is that, to join the security services, one must have an unblemished record. One must not even read Campaign Group News or Tribune because that might suggest that one wanted to change the status quo.

§Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South) Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn Let me finish going through the categories of subversives.
Another category is those who are known to be politically active on an issue that may appear to be harmless. People may be against vivisection, for example, but it is always possible, in the minds of those who sniff around, that such people might take part in other activities that could be threatening. What is misleading is to pretend that the activities of the security services in the past, or the way in which they will operate in future, has anything to do with protecting the people’s democratic rights. They are designed to protect the status quo.


Mr. Benn That is absolutely right. We have not yet discussed the question of vetting. The employees of the BBC are vetted. One cannot get a senior job at the BBC until one has been cleared by the security services. Do they imagine that a lot of terrorists are about to be made head of news and current affairs? The Clerks in this House are vetted. I know that from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges. Members’ research assistants are vetted. What has that to do with terrorism or espionage?
§Mr. Tony Banks Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn I do not want to detain the House. I am merely trying to put a few fruits on the harvest festival altar so that people may observe them later.
The next question is, “What is parliamentary democracy?” It has been defined in many different ways. Last summer, we celebrated the tercentenary of 1688—apparently the year of the birth of parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that William of Orange would have been regarded as one of these foreigners trying to disturb parliamentary democracy, but it turns out that he was in at its birth. I am reminded of the saying Why does treason never prosper?

Here’s the reason:

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. The other day I went through the Second Reading of the Reform Bill. The Conservatives of the time were opposed to the Reform Bill because they thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, opposed votes for women on the ground that that proposal would upset parliamentary democracy.

Parliamentary democracy has been defined to mean the status quo at the time. What is it in practice? The Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the powers of the Crown—except for the power to dissolve Parliament or to ask someone to form a Government—are not personal to the 197 sovereign. Every Prime Minister—I do not differentiate between the present Prime Minister and her predecessors in this respect—uses the powers of the Crown to do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with democracy. The Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has that to do with Parliament or democracy? The Prime Minister appoints the judges and the chairman of the BBC. She appoints Lord Chalfont to the IBA. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament or sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession to the Common Market before it was even published. All such activities are undertaken under the Crown prerogative.

Suppose that we say that we do not like the use of that prerogative. Is that an attempt to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action? I have long been a republican and I believe that the Queen should be the head of the Commonwealth. Is that subversive? Is it subversive to want to abolish the House of Lords, which has no democratic base in society? Many Liberals have argued for a single Chamber or two elected Chambers. Is that subversive? Is it subversive if I say that the Church should not be established? The other day, I looked up the coronation oath and found that the only pledge that the Queen gives is that she will uphold the rights of the bishops. That is most interesting. It was clearly not applied in the Viraj Mendis case, but that is another matter. There is no democracy in the sense that in a democracy the electorate has the final say. The truth is that the status quo covers a semi-feudal system which is not subject to normal public means of accountability under the Bill.

In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for deciding the interests of the state lies with the electorate. That is what democracy means. If the electorate is to decide what is in the interests of national security and what is subversive, the electorate must know enough to know what goes on. This Bill tries to entrench in statute a rotten little directive of Maxwell Fyfe, who told them to get on with it and not bother him and a rotten definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who used virtually the same phrase as appears in clause 1. On that basis, the Home Secretary hopes to entrench in statute powers that have been exercised under the Crown prerogative for years, and dress it up as the entrenchment of the protection of parliamentary democracy against subversion.

The Home Secretary will not be affected by my arguments, but I hope that people outside will realise when they read them that the Bill is not what it is made out to be. It is not an advance. It is the entrenchment in statute of powers that no democratic Government have the right to exercise.



on behalf of


Salmond fishing


They can only debate from within the “box”

Posted in "Climate Change", Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb 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 (
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.


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.


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).


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.


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!


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


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;; 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?




From: Earthling
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.



> From:
> 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” <>
> Cc: “DARLING, Alistair” <>; “CLARKE, Kenneth” <>; “MILTON, Anne” <>; “CLEGG, Nick” <>; “CAMERON, David” <>; “” <>; “LETWIN, Oliver” <>
> 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:
> > 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” <>
> > Cc: “DARLING, Alistair” <>; “CLARKE, Kenneth” <>; “MILTON, Anne” <>; “CLEGG, Nick” <>; “CAMERON, David” <>; “” <>
> > 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:
> >
> >
> > In this Chapter, we consider those features of the Lisbon Treaty that appear to have direct implications for the UK constitution.
> >
> >
> > 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.”
> >
> >
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > <>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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:
> > > 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” <>
> > > Cc: “DARLING, Alistair” <>; “CLARKE, Kenneth” <>; “MILTON, Anne” <>; “CLEGG, Nick” <>; “CAMERON, David” <>; “” <>
> > > 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:
> > > 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:
> > > 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:
> > > 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:
> > > > 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.”
> > > >
> > > > 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.

Subject: RE: Radio 4 Propaganda you seem to support.> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:22:48 +0100
> > > > > From:
> > > > > 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: “” <>; “LAZAROWICZ, Mark” <>
> > > > > 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:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.”
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.<>
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

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.


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

Posted in Political History, Politics by earthlinggb 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 

The Crown: “We apply the law when we wish to”

Posted in Law, Money, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on March 7, 2014

I have been asked to constitute the law of the United Kingdom from this day forth (Friday 7th March 2014).

I intend to make the law of this land absolutely fair and to apply, equally, to everyone, even me. Even I will be required to abide by this law and that is precisely why, in the law I have created, it states that I am IMMUNE from prosecution for any and all crimes which I may, “inadvertently you understand”, commit.

It is the law and the law is clear, therefore, one cannot state that I can possibly break it because the law states I am immune from prosecution (as are my agents who do my bidding, when I so decide). Now, this law is equal among all of you. No-one will have beneficial treatment over another. The law will not be provided to only those who have the money to pay for the law and a lawyer. After all, that is not law, it is simply saying whoever has the most money to pay will, invariably, win. There will be no such thing as “legal aid” because there shall be no necessity for money to come into the equation when one expects the laws of this land to be upheld. It is LAW not MONEY!

Further, there shall be NO statutory acts which show preferential treatment to one element of society over another as we have had in the past. For example, if you are unfairly dismissed from employment, there shall be NO “Employment law” which is written to protect the legal person known as the company and/or give greater protections to homosexuals, ethnic minorities, pregnant women etc. It is not that these “groups” shall not be protected, it is that they shall be treated equally along with every white, male heterosexual and every other human being.

The ONLY thing I ask is that you all accept that, within this law I have given assent to, I, personally, am immune. Please indicate your acceptance below and, if you do not accept, please state a reason why. Thank you.

[No apologies for the length of this article. It took far longer to read and comment and piece together than it will for you to read it. However, you might just find things in it (and overall) which will make your jaw drop.]

The Bitch of Buckingham!

The Bitch of Buckingham!

The Guardian 5th August 1971

Unfortunately, I cannot locate a copy of the Guardian article related to the following exchange in Parliament but suffice to say, it pointed to “money is being used to benefit London property owners, bankers and other private enterprises enabling, in the words of the Guardian, individuals to build up personal fortunes?” What is of further interest is that, while this exchange took place, there was then no further mention of it in parliamentary archives which suggests that, having been raised, someone has demanded that it not be pursued any further. You know what confirms this? THIS does:

HOL questions Guardian Crown Agents


What you do is cross reference the code reference to the exchange, look it up on Parliament’s website and hey presto! You find the record was closed under the 30 year rule until 1st January 2004. Do you get the feeling that someone seriously had a problem with this Guardian article?

Crown Agents is exactly what its name implies, an agent of Her Majesty the Queen. It was founded in 1833 as Crown Agents for the Colonies, and historically played a vital role in the creation and management of what British historians call the Third Empire .. Crown Agents printed the stamps and banknotes of the colonies; provided technical, engineering, and financial services; served as private bankers to the colonial monetary authorities, government officials, and heads of state; served as arms procurers, quartermasters, and paymasters for the colonial armies .. Her Majesty’s Murder, Inc. .. Crown Agents’ range of “services”–arms procurement, border controls, offshore banking–also nicely fit the “administrative requirements” of the world’s organized crime cartels .. review of some of the more sordid aspects of the recent history of Crown Agents, suggests that the firm has been at the center of the British Crown’s highly sensitive patronage of global organized crime.

The following is taken from “Managing the British Empire: The Crown Agents, 1833-1914” By David Sunderland:

Crown moral hazard


Now, I assume I don’t need to explain what “moral hazard” means in this context?

However, what I will say is this: That same level of “moral hazard” acceptance is in work today. That is precisely why Police, judiciary, MPs and other agents of the “state” or the “Crown” are able to get away with what you read the papers and say “WTF? They all look after themselves and if I did that, I’d be in jail for a LONG time”. You see, that acceptance of an element of “moral hazard” (corruption, paedophilia etc)  ensures that the Crown or state agent will remain loyal to the Crown and do the job by hook or by crook. IF he/she doesn’t then all that “moral hazard” which was previously accepted and overlooked will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Is this beginning to make sense to you now?

HL Deb 05 August 1971 vol 323 cc1257-611257


§12.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§[The Question was as follows:

§To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are satisfied that the investment policy pursued by the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations is calculated to render best assistance to the economy of this country.]

§THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN) My Lords, the Crown Agents invest funds on behalf of their overseas principals, who are mainly independent Government and other public bodies. They do this on the instructions and authority of their principals and the British Government do not intervene in these operations. (Yes but this does not answer the question and is never intended to. However, these people get away with pure evasion continuously)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK My Lords, I think that I should say that I have no team co-ordination with the Guardian although I am aware that some of the staff were not uninterested in this subject. May I ask the noble Marquess whether I understood him to say that although the Crown Agents invest very large sums of money—and it is public money—the Government have no routine discussions on investment policy and give no approval to investments, and certainly have no power to direct the Crown Agents in any way?

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, that is quite correct. The Crown Agents are entirely responsible to their own principals in these matters and are 1258not responsible to the British Government. (So the Crown agents have absolutely no accountability to the British government – confirmed. This is because the Crown itself has no accountability to the British government AND YET, the Crown is financed by us and the investments by the Crown use public money – i.e. tax receipts. Yet they invest for anyone they wish – as you will see – and in anything they wish including genocide.)

§LORD PEDDIE My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether or not in the initial stages the Crown Agents are appointed by Her Majesty’s Government? May I also ask whether Her Majesty’s Government can confirm or deny that executives of the Crown Agents hold, directly or through nominees, shares in companies promoted by Crown Agents’ funds? (You’ve heard of the Bank of England Nominees I assume?)

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, it is certainly true that the Crown Agents are appointed by Her Majesty’s Government. I think that I should need notice of the second supplementary question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on it. (Again, unwilling to answer the nominee question in public debate. Yes they are appointed by HM Government but then HM Government (not the opposition) are Ministers of the Crown and they appoint on behalf of their boss at the time – Her Majesty)

§BARONESS WHITE My Lords, I sup-post that we have all read the Guardian this morning; and I am sure that the noble Marquess will appreciate that we should wish to have some comment from Her Majesty’s Government about the allegations mentioned by my noble friend, which are very disquieting.

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, my attention has been drawn to the article in theGuardian this morning although I must confess that I have not yet had time to read it closely. I have no reason to suspect that it is substantially inaccurate but on behalf of my right honourable friend I would appreciate time in which to consider the matter. (And having considered it, the entire debate, thereafter, went silent. After this exchange, the discussion was locked up under the 30 year rule until 2004. It wouldn’t even be noticed after that.)

§BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE My Lords, in view of the uncertainties which may have been created abroad, as well as in this country, could not the noble Marquess promise that there will be an investigation and that we shall have a report as soon as possible? (I am assuming here but I would consider that the “uncertainties” would be this leaders and organisations abroad who had invested with the Crown Agents and would be worried that their investments would be exposed if this story continued to have legs and people started talking)

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, I shall certainly undertake to convey to my right honourable friend the feelings of the noble Baroness, and indeed of the House, in this matter.

§LORD BROCKWAY My Lords, in view of the statement by the noble Marquess that in his view the Guardian article is probably accurate, can he answer two questions? First, to whom are1259the Crown Agents responsible? Secondly, are the developing countries aware that their money is being used to benefit London property owners, bankers and other private enterprises enabling, in the words of the Guardian, individuals to build up personal fortunes? (It was originally tax coercion throughout the commonwealth that the Crown Agents ensured but what seems to be the case here is that, having expanded to outside of the commonwealth, which they did and would take money/investment from anyone, the Agents, on behalf of the Crown, significantly enhanced – and I mean significantly – the wealth of the Crown itself but also the agents themselves. This has been documented as far back as the 1800s. The monarch knew but would allow it to a certain extent)

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord’s first question is, as I hope I made clear in my original Answer, that the Crown Agents are responsible to their principals, the Governments concerned or whoever they may be, in this matter. So far as the noble Lord’s second question is concerned, this is a matter for the Crown Agents’ principals. I should have thought that they have every right to ask the Agents how they are investing their money and in what activities they are indulging. I think that I cannot say more than that. This is something that the principals are perfectly entitled to find out from the Crown Agents. (But the problem is you corrupt bastard is that OUR tax money and people working on behalf of what is meant to be OUR “Crown” should not be dealing with overseas dictators – not to mention our own dictator – and investing in arms and drugs!)

§LORD FLETCHER My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? When he has had the opportunity to read the article published in to-day’s Guardian he will observe that the Crown Agent is quoted as saying that he has some kind of responsibility to the Foreign Secretary. The degree of that responsibility is not obvious, but it seems that there is some kind of responsibility for which, presumably, the noble Marquess’s right honourable friend is responsible to Parliament. Would the noble Marquess bear in mind that it would be very disquieting if it were the fact, as is suggested, that in pursuing the investment policies which the Crown Agents are following, they are not supposed to have any regard to the best interests of the economy of this country? (STUPID, ignorant bastard! Yes the Crown Agent has a responsibility to the Foreign Secretary because the Foreign secretary wears TWO hats! He works for the government with one hat BUT he is also a CROWN MINISTER with the other hat! So the Crown Agent is NOT reporting or responsible to the government but to the Crown!)

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s point and I will certainly pass it on to my right honourable friend.

§LORD PARGITER My Lords, would the noble Marquess say whether or not Crown Agents, as Crown Agents, enjoy any legal immunity under the Crown?

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot answer that question. (It was a simple question and the answer is yes BUT the Marquess would prefer to check first because we’re getting into deep water when it touches on the “Crown” in any way shape or form)


§LORD THORNEYCROFT My Lords, may I put it to the noble Marquess, before we pursue the hunting of the Crown Agents too far, that we might bear in mind that for many years they have probably done a remarkably good job of work and that we might possibly end up in a much worse position if we start changing everything too rapidly without thinking very carefully about it. (sure they did. YOU probably wouldn’t have the wealth you have if they hadn’t!)

§LORD PEDDIE My Lords, my question relates to existing circumstances. What immediate steps would be taken by Her Majesty’s Government if the disquiet which could be generated arising out of recent discussions involved a substantial and immediate withdrawal of funds on the part of the principals who are now associated with the Crown Agents?

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, I do not want to dodge that question (yes you do!); but I think that it really is a matter for the Treasury. I will undertake to pass all these questions to my right honourable friend. I hope that I have satisfied the House at any rate that in these matters the Crown Agents are basically responsible to their principals, with whom they have to deal.

§LORD BESWICK My Lords, there is some misunderstanding about the responsibility here. Who appoints these people in the first place? And who has the power to dismiss them? On what basis are they appointed? And on what basis would they be dismissed if the occasion arose?

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, the Crown Agents are appointed by Her Majesty’s Government. (Be more clear! Her Majesty’s government acting on behalf of the Crown! There is a subtle but immense difference!)

§LORD BROCKWAY My Lords, may I ask one more question? Is the Minister aware that there is a document published by the Crown Agents which lists their investments. Although this document is secret, I have had a copy. May I ask the Minister why, if these are public funds, it should not be publicly announced where these investments are placed? (haha this cracks me up! Are some of these Lords really this thick?)

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, the noble Lord has been more fortunate than I. I have not seen a copy of this document, I am afraid. (Evades the question nevertheless)


§BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE My Lords, when the noble Marquess has had time to read the article, I think he will find that it is not a Treasury responsibility but that the officials who are there now were appointed by the Minister of Overseas Development.

§LORD DAVIES OF LEEK My Lords, while no one wants to cast aspersions on the Crown Agents (I do! But I totally understand why you don’t)—I have had some experience of the excellent work done by them in South-East Asia—may I ask that, when public money is involved, the Government will try in future to see that the greatest possible information is given to both Houses of Parliament?

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, I think that I can undertake to accede to the noble Lord’s request.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that it is very important not in any way to impugn the integrity of the Crown Agents, and that the sooner these points are announced in public the better? (“That’s why we’re going to hide them for 30 years”)

§THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE) My Lords, I feel that we have had a good hunt on this subject, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Arran, may now be allowed to get into the act.

No-one knows what the Windsors really own because it is forbidden for Parliament even to discuss the fact that the Queen keeps her private wealth a secret. Such secrecy is vital to prevent outrage by her ‘subjects’ and to allow her to use her privilege for insider trading, a practice which is illegal. Insider trading is to be in a position to hear privileged information which could be used to make a financial killing and then to use that knowledge to do just that.

The Queen, with her colossal portfolio of global investments, is in the perfect position to make unlimited profits. She is constantly kept informed, via meetings with prime ministers, ministers, officials, British Intelligence and other sources, of the secret happenings in the world. She knows through these channels and others, where the best and worst investments are going to be and through her secret network she can ensure that the most effective financial use is made of that information. It was exposed in 1977 that the Bank of England, the creation of the Black Nobility, had established a company called the Bank of England Nominees Ltd (BOEN), to hide the Queen’s investments.

Nine official meetings are held each year and the government ministers stand to attention while the Queen is told of the government measures they are asking the Queen to approve. This Privy Council of inner-circle politicians, courtiers and public servants have to bow to the Queen and shake her hand before standing in line and they are sworn to conduct their business in the utmost secrecy.

Another of the Windsor-Black Nobility vehicles for global manipulation is the Crown Agents. This organization was formed in 1833 as ‘Crown Agents for the Colonies’ to run the day-to-day administration in the Empire and serve as private bankers to government officials, colonial authorities and heads of state. It also supplied a vast range of goods, including arms. Given the methods and background of the British Empire, it would certainly have been involved in the drugs market. The Crown Agents has a long history of involvement with organized crime and operates covert arms shipments into Africa which are used to cause the genocidal wars.

This was, and is, a Crown Agency working for the monarch and yet had its entire debt guaranteed by the British government. In the 1970s it was bailed out by a Bank of England rescue costing hundreds of millions of pounds. For many years it managed the personal wealth of the Sultan of Brunei, the friend of the Queen and a funder of many private projects for Prince Philip, Prince Charles and George Bush. The Sultan is also a financial backer of unofficial British and American Intelligence operations and a man who has funded the operation of Mohamed Al Fayed, father of Dodi.

The Crown Agents were ‘privatised’ in 1996 with the name Crown Agents for Overseas Government and Administrations Ltd. ‘Privatisation’ is Brotherhood-speak for the transfer of power from Black Nobility via government agency to Black Nobility via direct ownership. The new Crown Agents acts as a holding company for a long list of companies and ventures and it continues as before as a vital cog in the network throughout the world. It’s chairman, David H. Probert, is the former director of the British weapons manufacturer, Birmingham Small Arms Ltd, and a director is F. Cassell, a Companion of the Bath (a Queen-awarded title), and former executive director of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for Great Britain.

The Crown Agents Foundation, which holds the share capital in trust, is headed by Sir David Rowe-Ham, Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire. This trust includes Barclays Bank, Standard and Chartered Bank (David Cameron’s family connections), Unilever, Tate and Lyle, Securicor (a global operator of ‘security services’), British Telecom, the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum (headed by Prince Charles), and the Aga Khan Foundation. The same old crowd.

The Crown Agents manage the customs services for Mozambique and, through a company called Europe SA, is in charge of all economic construction procurement for Bosnia… yes, Bosnia. It is also involved in a joint venture with a Monaco-based company, ES-KO, to provide all the food for United Nations peacekeeping forces in Angola and Bosnia.32 So the more wars and conflict, the more money the Crown Agents has the potential to make.

An important part of the Windsor-Black Nobility-City of London web are the so-called ‘City Livery Companies’. These allege to represent the various groups of merchants like the gun makers, stationers and newspaper makers, the goldsmiths, and
such like. In fact they are secret societies fundamental to the control of the City institutions and much further afield. In the 1350s, in the wake of the plague known as the Black Death, government of the City was passed from the ward councils to the City Livery Companies.

HC Deb 26 November 2002 vol 395 cc153-4153

§35. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) What the Lord Chancellor’s policy is on the personal immunity of the Sovereign in relation to actions in court. [81465]

§The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor’s Department (Ms Rosie Winterton) The policy that the sovereign has personal immunity in relation to actions in court remains unchanged. (She’s immune so shut up!)

§Dr. Cable Does the Minister agree that the recent application of that principle of immunity has caused considerable embarrassment to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and, not least, the monarchy? Will she therefore contemplate reviewing those arrangements, particularly bearing in mind the comment made yesterday by David Pannick QC that one person’s liberty as a defendant should not take second place to someone else’s status? (It doesn’t matter what Pannick says. If it’s a choice between the liberty of a subject and exposing the Queen and Crown for what it actually is, then who do you think wins?)

§Ms Winterton The hon. Gentleman clearly has strong views about the matter. However, on 4 November, at one of his regular press conferences, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in relation to the Paul Burrell case that he did not believe that the constitutional position should change. ( So? That’s one man’s opinion formed by the fact he is a private contractor to the very person who wouldn’t want it changed!)

§Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) Does not this case have wider implications for immunity in general terms and, in particular, for Crown immunity? Does my hon. Friend have a view on the implications for Crown immunity, and how can Members of the House have a say in what happens about that?

§Ms WintertonConsideration has been given to the quite different issue of the state’s immunity in legal proceedings. For example, a recent consultation paper, “Revitalising Health and Safety”, contains proposals for removing or modifying that immunity. In the light of the responses to that document, an interdepartmental working group is considering the implications, and advice will be given to Ministers about Crown immunity.

§Mr. William Cash (Stone)Has the Lord Chancellor formally inquired as to what law, procedure or judicial rule led the judge in the case of R v. Burrell to convene prosecuting counsel in private and exclude defence counsel, which is usually done only when a public interest immunity certificate is applied for? If not, why not, and will he do so?

Will the Minister confirm to the House that what the Attorney-General wrote to me on 6 November is the case, namely: No minister was asked to give a PII certificate or sign one, nor was a draft certificate ever prepared, or any consideration given by anyone to preparing such a certificate to place before the judge”?


§Ms WintertonThe hon. Gentleman knows very well that he addressed those issues to the Attorney-General, who has replied to him. The Lord Chancellor played no part whatsoever in the Paul Burrell trial.


Crown Prerogative

HC Deb 18 January 1988 vol 125 c492W492W

§Mr. Campbell-Savours

To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the exercise of the prerogative rights of the Crown in relation to the conduct of Government employees.

§Mr. Campbell-Savours

To ask the Prime Minister if any actions in exercise of a prerogative right of the Crown have been taken since 1979.

§The Prime Minister

Innumerable actions in exercise of prerogative power have been taken since 1979; these range from the signature of treaties to the grant of the royal pardon.

§Mr. Campbell-Savours

To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty’s Government have received concerning exercise of prerogative rights of the Crown in respect of actions which could otherwise be subject to criminal proceedings. (Hahaha. That was hilarious! He’s obviously a switched on and funny man!)

§The Prime Minister

None so far as I am aware.

§Mr. Campbell-Savours

To ask the Prime Minister if she will introduce legislation to permit a servant of the Crown to carry out a criminal act in the exercise of a prerogative right of the Crown. (Again, excellent. :-))

§Mr. Campbell-Savours

To ask the Prime Minister what proposals she has for precisely defining the conditions under which the powers are exercisable under prerogatives of the Crown.

§The Prime Minister


He was just getting the questions put on record that’s all. Maggie didn’t have a lot to say did she?

HC Deb 15 June 1995 vol 261 cc663-4W663W

§Mr. Foulkes To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department’s control and 664W(c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28647]

§Mr. Redwood An Act of Parliament is presumed not to bind the Crown unless the contrary intention is clearly stated, or there is a necessary implication that the Crown is to be bound. Ministers and civil servants will not necessarily share the Crown’s immunity from criminal prosecution.

The Government policy on Crown immunity, as set out in Cm 1599, “The Citizen’s Charter—Raising the Standard”, is that Crown immunity is being progressively reduced as legislative opportunities arise. In the meantime, Crown bodies are expected to behave as though they were bound by regulations. (Well, if they are expected to behave as though they were bound like the rest of us, then MAKE them bound by the regulations man! But no!)

HC Deb 22 June 1995 vol 262 c376W376W

§Mr. Foulkes To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department’s control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28658]

§Mr. Heseltine[ holding answer 15 June 1995]: An Act of Parliament is presumed not to bind the Crown unless the contrary intention is clearly stated, or there is a necessary implication that the Crown is to be bound. Ministers and civil servants will not necessarily share the Crown’s immunity from criminal prosecution. (It depends if she likes them or not or if she’s having a period! But then the periods don’t come into it any longer do they?)

The Government’s policy on Crown immunity, as set out in CM1599—”The Citizen’s Charter—Raising the Standard”—is that Crown immunity is being progressively reduced, as legislative opportunities arise. In the meantime, Crown bodies are expected to behave as though they were bound by regulations.

Detailed information on the circumstances where Crown immunity does not apply is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Tagged with: ,


Posted in "Terrorism", The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthlinggb on December 15, 2011

The BBC and MI5. You tell people this and you even show them and, no matter, they STILL think you wear a “tinfoil hat”. The problem with such people is that is all they have as ammunition against what is plainly in their face and, if they were to allow themselves to acknowledge these things, they would become very ill at ease and, perhaps, would not be able to handle it.

The point is, the BBC is and always has been, what so many of us know: A “programmed” propaganda outfit of the establishment programming (in so many ways) what and how the British people and many over the world within the commonwealth and elsewhere, should think. Nevertheless, us Brits will still wave our little flags at a Royal family which is screwing us all to the wall. Even screwing the families of the very soldiers who, ignorantly, die for her, her establishment, their prized possessions (countries and corporations). Ahh if only the typical soldier had a brain huh?


The Telegraph: BBC & MI5


While it is entirely undemocratic and answers to noone.

Tony Benn: Would have been Britain’s Ron Paul (perhaps even better).

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

The debate is beginning to get to the central question, which is not the details of how we handle the security services or the official secrecy, but the constitutional relationships that are changed by the legislation that is to come before us. I believe that I am expressing an anxiety that goes far beyond the party of which I am a member about the evidence that has come to light regarding the threats to freedom by those who were supposed to defend it. Therefore, I consider that the proposals made by the Government in the Prime Minister’s speech from the Throne are far from being evidence of liberation, and offer evidence of tightening up. We should look at that first.

There is no question whatsoever—I am not seeking to blame everybody in the security services—that there have been people working in high positions in MI5 and MI6, who have used the power vested in them under the so-called well-tried mechanisms of the Maxwell Fyfe directive to undermine political democracy in Britain.

Secondly, those people have done so outside any form of ministerial control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has been Home Secretary, and others in Governments of whom I have been a part have occupied that position, and I cannot believe that they knew what was going on. If they did not know what was going on, the Maxwell Fyfe directive was wholly ineffective in its operation—and I understand it is to be weakened in the new legislation.

Thirdly, when evidence of this behaviour came to light, far from the Government pursuing the law breakers for their law breaking, they pursued the man who described the law breaking for his description of it. A Government who purport to pursue a policy of law and order made no issue of the fact that in Mr. Peter Wright‘s book—after all, he was a serious and respected member of the intelligence services—he described crimes that were committed, and made no attempt to investigate those crimes or bring him to justice. His only offence was that he wrote about them.

Then, of course, we come up against the justification for their action, and that is where the constitutional areas become most important. Anyone who has read any of the histories on these matters will know that the security services do not feel in any way responsible to the Government of the day. They believe they are responsible to the Crown. They represent the Crown in order to deal with subversion. I shall try to define the Crown and subversion in a moment.

Two new elements have rightly been brought into the debate by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which must be put upon the record. First of all, the British security services are supervised completely by the American security services. I know that because I had responsibilities for many years for those areas that were a part of what was called the “special relationship”. The Americans control our security services, supervise them, lay down the rules under which they operate, and warn them against people whom they regard as unreliable in Britain, because that is the condition upon which the United States makes nuclear weapons available to us.

The second threat—rather more shadowy but none the less real—is that, within a federal Europe, it is the intention of the Commission that security would be seen as a federal function, in part because the internal frontiers will cease to matter, and the Community will have to tackle what it defines as subversion on a federal basis.

The methods used by the security services must be set out. There is widespread vetting not only of civil servants, but, of course, of those in defence industries. The Clerk of the House and all the officials of the House are vetted by the security services. This was revealed in evidence submitted to the Committee of Privileges of which I am a member. That says a lot for the division between the legislature and the Executive, because the Executive vets the officials of the legislature. The BBC is vetted down to the level of anyone is involved in the preparation of current affairs or news. The research assistants of Members of Parliament are vetted. We know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who brought the matter to the House.

The security services penetrate other services and actions of our national life. I shall give three examples. Cecil King, who purported to be a newspaper proprietor or a manager, was an agent of MI5, as was Tom Driberg, a former chairman of the Labour party. Lord Rothschild, who, when I worked closely with him, I took to be an industrialist brought in to help our think tank, was actually working for MI5 throughout that period.

Massive telephone interception and the opening of letters occur. Charles II nationalised the Post Office in 1660 because he wanted to see what people were writing to one another. Therefore, the Home Secretary is carrying on a good tradition in trying to intercept postal and telephone services and to legalise it. The Home Secretary is the most appropriate person to be moving the Bill, because when I tried to make a speech in 1976 in a church in his constituency at Burford to celebrate the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get the grant for the Workers’ Educational Association withdrawn. He is therefore consistent in his opposition to dissent in any century by anybody.

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)


Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I have the correspondence.

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)

I remember inquiring 12 years ago why the taxpayers’ money was being used to help the right hon. Gentleman support the Levellers in Burford.

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

The right hon. Gentleman, with the sort of naivety that adds to his charm, confesses to the charge that I laid against him, that when he heard I was to speak at a church in Burford about the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to try to bring pressure to bear so as to withdraw a grant from the WEA that had invited me. He has confirmed my argument, and he is consistent. He does not believe in dissent in any century, including the present one.

The other area in which the security services have operated is in redefining subversion. There is no doubt that the phrase that became popular during the miners’ strike of “the enemy within” had been defined much earlier by the security services. The enemy within includes the trade union movement and many members of the Labour party and peace movement. That definition was undoubtedly one of the factors that led to the attempt to destroy Harold Wilson. In my opinion, it was also used, but for different reasons, to remove the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), because the security services thought that he was too weak.

The methods used by the security services include the collection of damaging information and fabricating misinformation—as with the forging of Ted Short‘s bank account, which was leaked to Chapman Pincher. So much for lifelong confidentiality, when the security services regularly use certain journalists to feed out damaging information to destroy people they do not like. One cannot overlook the fact that Peter Wright confirmed Anthony Nutting‘s claim that Sir Anthony Eden ordered the assassination of another head of state, President Nasser. Anthony Nutting confirmed on television what Wright had written.

The question one must now ask is, what safeguards will there be under the new Act? Supposing Ted Short, as Lord President, had appealed to discover whether his bank account had been forged, to whom would his appeal have gone? Would it have gone to the Cabinet? No. Would it have gone to the Prime Minister? No. It would have gone to a commissioner appointed for the purpose by a previous Government.

When Bruce Kent‘s telephone was tapped, what safeguards would have existed then? If he had written to whoever it may have been and asked, “Is my phone being tapped?”, the only answer he would have received was not whether his phone was being tapped but whether the security services were abusing their rights—and those rights are covered by warrant and by a commission. The victims do not know what is being done to them, and the perpetrators do not wish to make complaints that might reveal the crimes they are perpetrating. The exceptions are one or two people such as Clive Ponting and Cathy Massiter, who were moved by their consciences, to act.

I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not. The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.

Tony Benn Crown

I asked the Home Secretary whether Ministers, who, after all, are Crown servants, will be covered by the new rules. It will be difficult to bind the Prime Minister to lifelong confidentiality as Bernard Ingham, on her instruction, breaches it at 11 o’clock every morning for the benefit of selected lobby correspondents who never make clear what has gone on. Are we really saying that anyone who is elected to Parliament, who becomes a Minister and discovers things he believes that it is in the public interest should be made known, will be bound to confidentiality for life? Or will anybody else? I have cited Ministers as they are uniquely accountable to those who elect them.

The reality is that there is nothing different about security. In its proper sense, security is part of the country’s defence forces, and no one denies that the country needs defence forces. But contrast the way security is treated with the other parts of the defence forces. Every year Parliament debates defence policy, but it never debates security policy—I am not talking about security operations. Parliament never discusses the definition of a subversive person—which is currently based on a phrase written years ago by a civil servant for Lord Harris in the House of Lords. We have never discussed whether as a Parliament we believe that being a member of CND makes a person subversive. That was decided by the Ministry of Defence, which told Cathy Massiter to bug Bruce Kent.

Parliament debates defence policy and votes a budget for the country’s defence establishment. It does not know the budget of the security establishment. Parliament knows the Chiefs of the Defence Staff and can ask parliamentary questions about defence matters. The issue is only confused by those who say that we cannot be told about individual security operations. Of course nobody wants to know a rumour that a bomber is coming to London. We do not want a parliamentary question that leads to the Minister responsible replying, “We think that a bomber is staying at a Bayswater hotel.” That is not the point at issue. The question is whether a state within the state, employing people with no feeling of responsibility to the Government elected by the people of this country, can continue as it is.

The Government wish to conceal information because that suits their book. I dare say that all Governments will want to conceal information—[Interruption.] It is not my purpose to make a party point. I hope that hon. Members will give me some credit. I am trying to raise a matter that is of equal concern in all parts of the House and to every elector. It would not alter matters very much if my right hon. and hon. Friends were occupying the Government Benches and those of hon. Gentlemen were seated on the Opposition Benches. I am clear about that. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the record, they will find that, as a Cabinet Minister, I raised the same questions on the Labour party’s national executive and submitted a memorandum that warned of the dangers. That was 10 years ago.

When one considers that the Government sent in the police to remove the Zircon film, and the prosecutions of Tisdall and Ponting, one realises that the real conflict concerns both sides of the House and those who elect us. We have heard much about the oxygen of publicity for Sinn Fein. Democracy lives by the oxygen of information. If one cuts off the oxygen of information and releases instead the poisonous gas of secrecy, misinformation and news management, one destroys the basis on which this House safeguards our people. The House of Commons is the real guarantor of the liberties of the people, not those individuals in little offices who have their own ideas about who is subversive and who engage in bugging, blackmailing and in destroying the reputations of those whom they do not like.

Democracy’s second safeguard is conscience. There is no substitute in law, administrative action or court ruling for the person, be they man or woman, who says, “What is being done is wrong and I shall speak my mind and take the consequences.” If one removes the safeguard of conscience from people who, in the course of their work, may come across something they feel it would be in the public interest to divulge—whether one gaols them, punishes them, or makes them into public villains—they would only be doing what we told the Germans at the Nuremberg trials they should have done, which was to disregard unjust orders—[HON. MEMBERS: “No!”] Of course that is what the Nuremberg trials were all about.

Parliament must protect these principles. In many ways I share the view of the hon. Member for Thanet, South. Next week I shall have been here 38 years. I have never known a House of Commons that has been so craven in surrendering one of its rights after another—surrendering powers to the EEC, accepting 120 foreign bases, and now, in the name of security, handing over even greater powers to the Executive. If we do not stand up here and now it will be too late—

Mr Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I am approaching my last sentence.

We must make a stand here and now or we shall find that, in the name of freedom, we are surrendering our liberties.



Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

To ask the Attorney-General whether he is considering bringing any prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising from the “Spycatcher” episode.

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

No, Sir.

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he is not yet prosecuting Lord Rothschild?

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

My answer as to why no prosecution was being brought was given several months ago. To bring such a prosecution would not have been in conformity with the Attorney-General‘s published guidelines for prosecutors.

Mr Michael Fallon (Darlington)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that, even after yesterday’s outrage, the Opposition still do not support the need to uphold the duty of confidentiality of those who work in our security service in order to defend the country from terrorism and subversion?

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a certain ambivalence in the attitude of Opposition Members to that litigation. I venture to suggest that if we were not prepared to incur the cost of litigation to uphold the duty to which my hon. Friend has referred, the cost would very soon be more than money.






As for this piece of absolute trash:

Sir John Morris (Aberavon)

I, too, wholeheartedly welcome the Attorney-General back to his place in the House.

What is the prime consideration in relation to prosecutions? Is it damage to national security, or is it political embarrassment? Does the Attorney-General maintain consistency in his approach to Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting and to others such as Mr. West, Mr. Pincher, Lord Rothschild and the security men who may have leaked information to those people? Has not section 2 of the Official Secrets Act been virtually put out to grass and replaced in practical terms as a damage limitation exercise by actions for breach of confidentiality?

Mr Michael Havers (Wimbledon)

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind remarks. He used the word prosecutions, not for the first time during my questions. In fact, the proceedings in Australia are civil proceedings. There is no way in which we can prosecute under the Official Secrets Act in another country. With regard to the action in Australia, the principle has been brought out clearly today that it is the Government’s determination to establish that once a man joins a service in which he promises to keep secret for the rest of his life all that he finds, that principle should be upheld.

So you cannot prosecute in another Commonwealth country where the Queen is the Head of State? Her Majesty had her Governor General destroy the Government of Gough Whitlam in 1975!

So Her Majesty can do that but Her Majesty cannot prosecute in Australia, an individual who has broken the law relating to her Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act? Didn’t we just say it is the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE?

Then if the CROWN can’t prosecute certain people then what sort of CROWN is this?

I’ll tell you what sort of CROWN it is: It is a CROWN, within which ROTHSCHILD plays a very significant part alongside his lackey Lizzie!

Jewish banishment and The “City” of London

Posted in Finance, Political History by earthlinggb on February 26, 2011

I think it’s important, for the “naysayers” who visit this blog, that I prologue it with a point re the “Crown of England”. The following is a statement made by Tony Benn in the Houses of Parliament not too many years ago (and it matters not when such was said anyhow). This is very very simple: The British people have no idea who this “Crown” is. It acts outside of any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. As such, it acts outwith the law yet decides what this thing called “Law” is!

The Crown prosecutes. Our Armed Forces fight and kill and destroy nations on its say so. Our Police and Forces take an oath to this “thing” called “the Crown”. They believe it to be “Her Majesty” the monarch without understanding at all that the monarchy is NOT a person or the Queen and her family. The Monarchy is a Constitutional Office. When it comes to the profit of the British Queen and her family from the “Crown Estate”, it is, in actual fact, deceptive criminal theft by the “reigning monarch” (like a reigning CEO of a corporation stealing the wealth of the company yet, the person in the office of CEO does not have the legal or lawful entitlement to take the wealth of the company because it is the Corporation in total as a legal person which owns the wealth and NOT the CEO). This is PRECISELY the same when we look at this “Constitutional Monarch” in office profiting no longer from a Civil List but from various sources of the country’s wealth.

Our Armed Forces, Police and judiciary are immensely ignorant but do what they are told otherwise they will not eat. They do as the “Crown” bids simply because, if they question it, then their wealth and the wealth of their family disappears. The Policeman with integrity would be sacked and the soldier fighting for his dearest “Crown” would find himself at the mercy of “friendly fire”.

So, what were those words of Tony Benn which crystallises the seriousness of this issue?

Here they are:

“I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not.The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.”


Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:


Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does!
When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits

“the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”
The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).
This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”
Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

The British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.

The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn’t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the “City” machine accumulated vast fortunes .

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :

….”financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…”
In “Empire of the City” E. C. Knuth said:

” This national amnd mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much which it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”…

The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.

At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. Names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.

In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word “Jew” or “Conspiracy” and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?

The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.

Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,” expressed the following similar sentiments:

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.
In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.

(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.)

Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people?

Well, in England, it’s very interesting:

IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.
The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews’ crime of blood ritual murders.

The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:

— “At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.” —

Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:

1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.

1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion.

1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.

1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.
(See Sources #1 Below )

[As an addendum to the above, I feel it is necessary to clarify that, before the expulsion in 1290, there was the Statute of the Jewry in 1275, entirely based upon the moneylending and usury issue:  jews1275.html

Now please understand that this is just pure factual history and the pieces fall where they fall.

It seems very obvious to me that, while the Islamic religion has not forgotten one of its fundamental cornerstones: NO USURY, the Christian world simply has. For NO USURY is a cornerstone of the christian religion too. I wonder, then, why Christians call themselves christians? They don’t follow Jesus’ teachings and haven’t done so in the west since the following took place – the readmission of jewish usury into England by Oliver Cromwell during the 1640 – 1660 period and then the establishment of the Bank of England where one can see, William of Orange and his Queen, Mary became original investors – it is on Bank of England documents]

JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.

A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:

Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,
16th June 1647:
— “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.” —

To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —

Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.

Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )

WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.

The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.

To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.

In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.

The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.

MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.

The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.

In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington.

A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington’s courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington’s victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated.

With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices.

This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy – now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control.
(See Sources #4 Below )

(As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy)
A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as “The City.” It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.

A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as “The Crown.” The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.

The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:

* The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City.
* All major British banks have their main offices in The City.
* 385 foreign banks are located in The City.
* 70 banks from the United States are located in The City.
* The London Stock Exchange is located in The City.
* Lloyd’s of London is located in The City.
* The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City.
* Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City.
* The London Metal Exchange is located in The City.
* The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City.

Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain’s financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.

The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds’ know for sure…
(See Sources #5 Below )

Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates.

Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England

Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange

Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby

Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery

UPDATE 4 Nov 2011: George Monbiot in the Guardian Newspaper. Although he just doesn’t go quite far enough into the history and the connectivity. Mainstream media now supporting much of the above regarding the “above the law” nature of the City of London. I rest my case your honour!

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest

Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance.

    • George Monbiot
Daniel Pudles 01112011

Illustration by Daniel Pudles

It’s the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. But I doubt that one in 10 British people has any idea of what the Corporation of the City of London is and how it works. This could be about to change. Alongside the Church of England, the Corporation is seeking to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul’s cathedral. The protesters, in turn, have demanded that it submit to national oversight and control.

What is this thing? Ostensibly it’s the equivalent of a local council, responsible for a small area of London known as the Square Mile. But, as its website boasts, “among local authorities the City of London is unique”. You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It’s not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who “appoint” the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London. To become a freeman you must be approved by the aldermen. You’re most likely to qualify if you belong to one of the City livery companies: medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don’t even ask.

To become Lord Mayor you must first have served as an alderman and sheriff, and you “must command the support of, and have the endorsement of, the Court of Aldermen and the Livery”. You should also be stinking rich, as the Lord Mayor is expected to make a “contribution from his/her private resources towards the costs of the mayoral year.” This is, in other words, an official old boys’ network. Think of all that Tory huffing and puffing about democratic failings within the trade unions. Then think of their resounding silence about democracy within the City of London.

The current Lord Mayor, Michael Bear, came to prominence within the City as chief executive of the Spitalfields development group, which oversaw a controversial business venture in which the Corporation had a major stake, even though the project lies outside the boundaries of its authority. This illustrates another of the Corporation’s unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.

The Lord Mayor’s role, the Corporation’s website tells us, is to “open doors at the highest levels” for business, in the course of which he “expounds the values of liberalisation”. Liberalisation is what bankers call deregulation: the process that caused the financial crash. The Corporation boasts that it “handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City”, such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts “extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services.” But this isn’t the half of it.

As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London’s mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster.” The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it “has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate”. It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG’s wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn’t get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it’s colluding with Babylon.

If you’ve ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. “The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …”.

The Corporation’s privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK’s dependent tax havens.

But now at last we begin to see it. It happens that the Lord Mayor’s Show, in which the Corporation flaunts its ancient wealth and power, takes place on 12 November. If ever there were a pageant that cries out for peaceful protest and dissent, here it is. Expect fireworks – and not just those laid on by the Lord Mayor.

Article: corporation-london-city-medieval


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 338 other followers