Posts Tagged 'Betrayal'

More Guardian hypocrisy and another David Leigh link to the KGB

Hot on the heels of the implosion of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) for falsely asserting Conservative peer Lord McAlpine was a paedophile, the Guardian is leading with a story about ‘the existence of an extraordinary global network of sham company directors, most of them British’ citing yet another organisation of ‘investigative journalists’.  The Graun goes on to explain:

The UK government claims such abuses were stamped out long ago, but a worldwide joint investigation by the Guardian, the BBC’s Panorama and the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has uncovered a booming offshore industry that leaves the way open for both tax avoidance and the concealment of assets.

Concealing assets if they are subject to taxation is tax evasion, therefore illegal.  Fair enough.  However once again we see an agenda at work to demonise the perfectly legal and responsible activity of tax avoidance.  This is the latest example of outrageous hypocrisy on the part of the Guardian, given that its parent company makes use of offshore arrangements in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying tax in the UK.  It even resulted in a protest by Guido co-conspirators outside the Graun’s plush offices in London.  Strangely, the piece doesn’t make any mention of Guardian Media Group’s behaviour, let alone criticise it.

So why is the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) focussing on this issue?  Could it be because it has a political agenda that ignores the sins of the left and focuses on eeevil capitalists?  Of course it could.  Here is a little bit of history of the ICIJ courtesy of Gerard Jackson

The ICIJ is the offspring of the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIR) which in turn was founded by the notorious Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist organisation which acted as a front for the KGB during the Cold War.

It’s unsurprising therefore that we see the Guardian’s David Leigh right in the thick of the ICIJ, listed as one of the consortium’s five UK based journalists.  He of course denied being part of the BIJ, despite having never corrected his Guardian colleague Roy Greenslade’s long standing claim that he was part of that group.  Perhaps Leigh, whose name is headlined as co-author of the Guardian piece, will be content to accept his membership of this particular group of self important hacks.  But if he does, it risks opening an old can of worms for Leigh.

Why so?  Here’s a name from the past.  Richard Gott.

Richard Gott was the Guardian’s literary editor but in December 1994 he resigned after Soviet defector Oleg Gordievsky contradicted Gott’s denial that he was a paid agent of the KGB.  In the finest traditions of Guardian weasel words, Gott went on to say:

“I took red gold, even if it was only in the form of expenses for myself and my partner. That, in the circumstances, was culpable stupidity, though at the time it seemed more like an enjoyable joke.”

This seemingly left Leigh looking like an idiot as he had come bounding to Gott’s defence and ranting against the security service after the BBC’s attempt to hire Gott in 1981 was prevented because Gott failed to obtain security clearance.  Gordievsky’s subsequent story put that failure into context.  But when you consider Leigh is part of an organisation that was itself a front for the KGB, perhaps Leigh knew exactly what he was doing all along and just supporting a comrade in need.

There is something very wrong with the Guardian and the people it hires.  Rank hypocrisy, double standards, treachery, deceit, smear campaigns, acting as a mouthpiece for those who despise our country… all are synonymous with the bile-filled ‘progressive’ activists who infest the office in Kings Place.  No wonder the KGB loved the Guardian and considered it highly susceptible to penetration.  The only surprise is that Guardianista weren’t signing up in their droves to join the Soviet intelligence community.

Operation Deceive and Destroy

The Conservatives are following their messaging calendar to the letter.

Their communications plan has seen the Tory whips suggest to George EUstice and Chris Heaton-Harris that they form a group of Europlastic MPs to ‘promote debate‘ about this country’s ‘relationship’ with the EU.  It has seen David Cameron framing his answers to talk about this EU ‘relationship‘ as he appeared before the Liaison Committee.  And now it sees the rent seeking arch quisling-in-chief, William ‘Eurowillie’ Hague, dropping some carefully chosen words onto the willing ears of the Times about ‘loosening ties’ with the EU.

You don’t need to be an etymologist to see how the meaning of the noun Eurosceptic has been deliberately and cynically transformed to enable those who are nothing of the sort to adopt its mantle while undermining Eurosceptic aims.  The media has been complicit in this, routinely referring to pro-EU politicians who actively further the aims of the EU as Eurosceptic.  It suits the Tories and the media well.  It gives Eurosceptic voters the illusion the Tories share their desire for an independent UK, while giving  internationalists the opportunity to attack the supposedly xenophobic Tories on tribal party lines which delights the leftist media.

But back to today’s instalment from Eurowillie.  As always it is the case that when it comes to politicians we should ignore what they say and judge them by what they do.  Is William Hague a pro-EU or not?  The answer is, like Cameron, he sees himself as a ‘practical Eurosceptic’ which means he firmly and resolutely supports the UK remaining firmly in the grip of EU governance.

In fact he has gone further and actively endorsed the EU. Hague fronted a six week campaign to promote careers available in the European Union which ran in the Telegraph and on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website in January and February this year. Both microsites have been wiped from existence, but we still have Hague’s comments and a screen grab of the ad campaign for posterity: (click to expand image)

Presumably the area of Foreign Affairs is not one of the ‘ties’ that Hague is in favour of ‘loosening’.  How very Eurosceptic of him. Hague is just another Judas goat, aided and abetted by the useful idiots who are given a little latitude to ‘dissent’ in the hope of retaining Eurosceptic supporters.  As such we need to keep highlighting the evidence far and wide in the hope more people understand how they are being manipulated.

Will Conservatives finally accept Cameron and Europlastics have deceived them over EU?

Well, Conservatives, your man has spoken.  Governor Cameron has decreed from on high thou shalt not have a referendum on membership of the European Union. So what are you going to do now?

Cameron, pictured meeting his overlord outside the provincial gubernatorial residence in London, described himself to the Liaison Committee in Parliament as a ‘practical Eurosceptic’ – confirming the extent to which the name has been corrupted, hijacked to become the diametric opposite of what it has always meant and been commonly accepted to mean.  He said:

“I want us to be influential in Europe about the things that matter to our national interest – promoting the single market, pushing forward for growth, making sure we get lower energy prices.

“Those are things we will be fighting for but I don’t see the case for an in out referendum on Europe.

“We are in Europe, we have got to make it work for us.”

So because he doesn’t see the case the British public will be denied their democratic entitlement to determine how this country is run.  And in case he had not made clear his very personal position would be projected upon the nation he also said:

“I don’t support an In/Out referendum because I don’t think that’s the question people want asked about the EU.”

If Cameron was honest he would tell the British people: ‘What you want is irrelevant. Every decision I make has democratic legitimacy because I say so. I am in Downing Street and you can do nothing about it. I want this country to be part of the EU so that’s the way it’s going to be.  If you don’t like it, tough.’

So that covers ‘our most instinctively Eurosceptic Prime Minister for 20 years‘.  What about the Europlastics? You know, those Tories who wrapped themselves in the cloak of Euroscepticism to enhance their electoral prospects, but who are nothing of the sort.

The charade continues, as Richard North on EU Referendum points out.  How?  Step forward George Eustice, Europlastic Tory MP for Camborne and Redruth. George describes himself to all and sundry as a Eurosceptic, but he doesn’t want us to leave the EU. He doesn’t even support the idea of a referendum.  He is a co-founder of a group of around 80 Conservative MPs who also claim to be Eurosceptic, but who only want EU reform while Britain continues to be ruled by bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg. Eustice is quoted by the BBC as saying his group would promote a:

“sensible discussion about how we can radically overhaul the EU and make it fit for purpose in the 21st Century”.

and:

“It is important we start to come up with thinking about what the EU will become and how we want to start to change it.”

All those calls for a referendum and opinion polls saying a majority of Britons want this country to leave the EU fall on deaf ears where Eustice and his sidekick and former EU gracy train rider Chris Heaton-Harris are concerned.  They want Britain to stay firmly inside the EU and their group is designed to ensure that happens regardless of what the majority of this country’s citizens want.  Repatriation of powers has been abandoned and the EU project cannot and will not reverse integration. The group’s aims are on a par with other myths, such as the tooth fairy, Loch Ness monster and the Easter Bunny.

Despite this we see Roger Helmer, a self professed Eurosceptic MEP who says he wants an In/Out referendum – and who is Honorary Chairman of The Freedom Association, the pressure group that runs the Better Off Out campaign – publicly supporting this group of pro-EU reformers.

How can we trust anything we are told by Roger Helmer, the most prominent member of the ‘Better Off Out’ campaign, when he pledges to do anything he can to support a group of MPs that is committed to i) denying the British public a referendum and ii) keeping Britain firmly inside the EU?  Maybe now the penny will drop among those who feel this blog has been unfair to Helmer for exposing his stunningly contradictory position.

Of course Helmer could confound this criticism by denouncing Cameron’s stance, urging Conservatives to take on Cameron, and rejecting the Eustice / Heaton-Harris Europlastic grouping which is actively seeking to undermine that which he claims to stand for.  So what has the great man decided to talk about on his website the day after Cameron and Eustice’s comments?  Fuel poverty.  And even then he only mentions one of the EU’s directives and laws imposed on this country that are increasing energy prices and plunging poorer families into fuel poverty.  Perhaps it is all part of his strategy.

The reality of the Europhile Conservative position, of supporting ever closer union and denying the population an opportunity to reject EU membership, has been laid bare in words and deeds. It is unambiguous.  It is unmistakable. The myth cannot be sustained any longer. So for how much longer will Conservatives who want Britain to leave the EU stay in that Europhile party, kidding themselves Cameron is a Eurosceptic?  The fantasy is over.

Update: The excellent Witterings From Witney weighs in with a clinical evisceration of another Europlastic, William Hague.

Arc Manche, electioneering and Tory lies

Anyone who has been even remotely interested in how the EU’s institutions are eviscerating this country will be familiar with the Arc Manche.  This is the artificial EU administrative area made up of a number of southern English counties (including Conservative ones as it happens) and French regions that border the English Channel.

The Arc Manche transnational regional network has existed since 1996 – note that date well as it was the last year of the last Conservative government under John Major.  Then in 2003 the Arc Manche became a defined political project ‘resting on an informal and voluntary network of local authorities who can use the network to share best practices, coordinate initiatives and pull together project ideas to draw in EU funding‘.

Two years later, in October 2005, the Arc Manche Assembly was created to improve the visibility of the network.  A French Socialist politician, Alain Le Vern, was elected the inaugural President of the Arc Manche Assembly, though as usual with such EU initiatives none of us actually voted for its creation or for this French placeman.

Why am I providing this potted history?  Because of this piece in yesterday’s Daily Mail, by super scoop Glen Owen, where we are told:

Eric Pickles last night accused the European Union of trying to ‘wipe England off the map’ by developing a new cross-Channel region, complete with its own ‘flag’.

New? Oh piss off.  Our media never fails to plumb new depths of utter incompetence.  It continues:

The Cabinet Minister condemned the EU for ploughing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into the ‘Arc Manche’, the name given by Brussels to an ambitious attempt to merge Northern France and Southern England.

Mr Pickles, the Local Government Secretary, says he is incensed to have discovered that Eurocrats are planning to roll out a new Arc Manche ‘transnational emblem’ across England.

So what is happening here?  Is it possible that a man who has been an MP since 1992 and is now a Cabinet Minister could have failed to notice what was happening just south of his Essex constituency, something of major national importance?  Or is Eric Pickles only incensed because this largely anonymous but lavishly funded (with our tax pounds) entity is about to become much more visible to people thanks to its new emblem?

Perhaps the answer here is provided by Glen Owen.  Having breathlessly delivered his scoop that Arc Manche is ‘new’ he seems to have engaged in some afterthought research to round off his non-story with background information that demonstrates it is anything but.  It just isn’t feasible that Pickles knew nothing of Arc Manche or that his ire has been summoned up because of a frankly dismal and meaningless logo.  So that leaves just one thing – naked electioneering ahead of Thursday’s local elections.

In this what we see is that Pickles is like the rest of his egregious ilk in the political class.  Having merrily plodded along within the EU’s status quo, he now seeks to suggest the Conservative party has been led up the Arc Manche path by Labour and will ‘fight these plans’ to ‘wipe England off the map’.  Sorry Pickles old ‘chum’, some of us can see past your bullshit, for the records show it was the Conservatives who helped give birth to Arc Manche and similar regional carve ups and since coming into office again they have done the sum total of diddly squat to reverse the position.

As for stopping England being wiped off the map, perhaps Pickles has memory deficiency. After all, wasn’t it Pickles’ Cabinet colleague Ken Clarke who managed to kill off even the pathetically inadequate Tory concept of an English Grand Committee?  The reason for Clarke’s position, that we should allow Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs to continue dictating laws that will never apply to their own constituencies, is that because giving the English any form of national democratic structure would undermine the very concept of EU regionalisation that brought Arc Manche into being in the first place.

What this shows us is that if you believe anything the Conservatives say about EU governance, structures, financing through taxation, repatriation of powers etc, you are a gullible fool.  The Conservatives are a pro-EU party and they will not ever honour any promise made to we voters to loosen Brussels’ control.

David Cameron and a thing called trust

In his pursuit of power he spoke the words people wanted to hear.  He made the pledges people wanted to see honoured.

Now personal power has been achieved the questions to ask yourself are: ‘Is Cameron honouring the promises he made?’ and ‘Can David Cameron be trusted?’  Let’s take a peek as a couple of today’s observations:

David Cameron promised in March last year that a Conservative government would ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir – “ban those extremist groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir who are already here” [...]

[...] Yet nothing hs been done to ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir, why? Has David Cameron fallen for the pro-Islamic platitudes spouted by so many at the Foreign Office or was he never serious?

- Not A Sheep

And then there is this…

… this year’s census is the most intrusive yet. We warned you about the census before the last election. The Tories agreed that it was invasive and intrusive… But now they’re implementing it, unchanged.

- Big Brother Watch

But when you add these issues to a few others do you start to see a pattern emerging?  How about Cameron:

- Letting matters rest there on the Lisbon Treaty?

- Failing to replace the Human Rights Act?

- Refusing to repatriate powers from the EU?

- Raising VAT?

- Breaking his promise to retain universal child benefit?

And there are more besides.  If you voted Conservative, was this what you voted for?  How is this outcome any different to having a Labour or Lib Dem administration?  Now ask yourseld, will you make the same mistake again?

Cameron is a liar and his EU Bill a fraud

Guido Fawkes has a bit of a focus on David Cameron’s completely meaningless piece of Common theatre known as the European Union Bill. As he says on his blog:

The Europe Bill allegedly seeks to close the “wriggle room” that ministers would have in granting referendums over changes to the powers surrendered to the EU. However given the fact it would require the UK to sign up to Treaties, only to subsequently put them to the country, it has left many scratching their head at how it would work.

Precisely. And the thing is Cameron knew this all along.  The Bill is only meant to give the illusion of self determination. It is intended to give people the impression that no more power will move from Westminster to Brussels. But it affords the UK no buffer from EU lwas and regulations and power will continue to flow to Brussels, weaking democratic accountability in this country. As such it is a wholesale deception from a pro EU Prime Minister who is serving the EU’s interests by ruthlessly attempting to con the public.

The EU love Cameron for doing this. He is not our man talking to Brussels, he is Brussels’ man keeping us in check. There is a concerted effort to perpetrate a fraud against the public as Guido’s piece and this summary of William Hague’s disgraceful deceit demonstrate. As I pointed out in that post, the Conservatives have lied through their teeth about stopping powers being surrendered to the EU:

Consider, George Osborne’s backing and approval of the EU’s new oversight plan for financial services which removes power from the UK and relocates in with the EU in Brussels. Let’s not forget Theresa May signing Britain up to European Investigation Orders (EIO). Do you recall being asked to approve any of the powers in this article that have been handed to the EU on Cameron’s watch?  And let us not forget the key fact that even with Cameron’s pathetic and meaningless ‘Referendum Lock’ we are having more and more laws are being imposed on the UK and Hague and his little chums are not lifting a finger to stop them. Next up on the export manifest is control over policing and justice, which the EU will be handed in the near future.

Now we have John Redwood chipping in with this observation – but staying firmly in the Conservative Party despite the fraud that is being carried out:

The government says its Bill will reassert or confirm Parliamentary sovereignty, at least with respect to the EU. It will confirm that EU law only applies here because Parliament enacted the 1972 European Communities Act, giving the EU what powers it enjoys.

Some say it is now more complex than that. If, as some say, judges can now change or overturn laws through common law judgements and cases, then judges too can work with EU law and Treaties regardless of the views of Parliament.

While Redwood is broadly correct his subsequent assessment where he says: ‘I do believe we need to strengthen democratic accountability here at home’ shows he has missed the point. We need to restore democratic accountability here at home because it has been swept away. If Redwood thinks we still have it, he is at best misguided.

Despite the weight of accumulated evidence elsewhere showing the EU Bill will achieve nothing if enacted, Cameron is pushing ahead with this con regardless. It is nothing more than a costly performance and a waste of time. To put it into context, if enacted the EU Bill will have the same effect as a law passed banning cheese production on the moon. Nothing will change. No lunar cheese will be made anyway and nothing this Bill claims to do will stop further powers being handed to the EU. Cameron and Hague are bare faced liars and are taking us all for fools.

Lies and deception from Europhile hypocrite Hague

Despite my best efforts, words cannot express the simmering fury that rose in me today as I read William Hague’s article in the Sunday Telegraph.

Rarely has such an eloquent and articulate individual compromised so many positions of principle in such a short space of time, before going on to write articles such as today’s fatuous, hypocritical cant that utterly misrepresents reality and actively seeks to deceive the public. Spin is not a word that adequately describes what Hague has written. A pack of lies is the expression that springs to mind.

Here’s how Hague opens his piece:

The disillusionment of British voters with politicians has many causes: expenses scandals, economic pressures and the failures of the last Labour Government.

But high on the list of such causes is the sheer undemocratic arrogance with which a European treaty of huge significance – the Lisbon Treaty – was rammed into law two years ago with no mandate of any kind from the people of this country.

Immediately one can see where Hague is going with this. And as sure as night follows day, he does.  He launches the standard partisan party political attack on Labour for ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without the promised referendum. But then, in an extraordinary defence of the EU goes on to say that Labour’s actions were: ‘a very grave blow to the European Union’s democratic credentials in this country’.

Straight away Hague has drifted off into some parallel reality. The EU is fundamentally anti democratic, by design. It is structured to ensure ordinary people throughout the member states are incapable of derailing the wishes of the political class. But Hague’s use of language is carefully crafted to give the impression the EU is democratic and we only think otherwise because of Labour’s actions. This is pretty cynical and untruthful stuff. Wee Willie then goes on to say:

I would have dearly loved to hold a referendum on that treaty after a change of government: sadly the ratification of Lisbon by all 27 EU states last autumn made that impossible. But I have always been determined that this flagrant denial of democratic choice to the people of Britain would never happen again.

At this point the cat’s sixth sense triggered his decision to flee through the door, the TV remote went airborne and a low rumbling roar ascended from deep inside, gaining pitch and volume as the anger erupted in response to the naked lies in that short paragraph.

Nothing, I repeat, nothing prevented the Tories from keeping their promise to ask the British people if they wished to be bound by the provisions set out in Lisbon. David Cameron had said time and again that if the treaty was ratified he would not let matters rest there, but he would not elaborate about what that meant.  A significant proportion of the electorate believed him.  The ratification could have been withdrawn citing the will of the British people. But Cameron, Hague and the rest of the sopping wet social democrats masquerading as conservatives revealed that not letting matters rest there meant letting matters rest right there.

In fact, they metaphorically plumped up the cushions and brought the treaty a cup of tea. They said it was impossible to do anything. This is a lie. They could have tackled the issue but chose not to. They wanted to appear ‘constructive’ for their friends in Brussels. As for Hague being determined that it would never happen again, this is what we have heard every previous time and the lie has already been exposed since Cameron slithered into Downing Street. This comes to the fore as Hague shamelessly postulates that:

The current system we have for these kinds of decisions is, quite simply, now morally bankrupt. It must change.

It is our firm belief and our policy that no more powers should be moved from Britain to the EU but that is not enough – if any Government ever again attempted to change the EU Treaties to transfer further powers the British people must rightfully have their say.

Bullshit. Sorry, there is no more suitable word for it. What is the reality behind these fine words?

Consider, George Osborne’s backing and approval of the EU’s new oversight plan for financial services which removes power from the UK and relocates in with the EU in Brussels. Let’s not forget Theresa May signing Britain up to European Investigation Orders (EIO). Do you recall being asked to approve any of the powers in this article that have been handed to the EU on Cameron’s watch?  And let us not forget the key fact that even with Cameron’s pathetic and meaningless ‘Referendum Lock’ we are having more and more laws are being imposed on the UK and Hague and his little chums are not lifting a finger to stop them. Next up on the export manifest is control over policing and justice, which the EU will be handed in the near future.

There really is no point reading any more of Hague’s Janusesqe waffle, where he delves into hypothetical technical matters about how the useless European Union Bill will supposedly stop more powers heading east, while the examples above show that in practice it is a con trick that makes no material difference. Hague has written his piece, there is no facility for leaving comments, and so he remains in the Westminster bubble contenting himself that his job is done and we have bought into his supposed Eurosceptic outlook.

And they call this a democracy.

EU Air Force takes shape thanks to Tories

The long planned European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) draws closer to its fruition. In the 1990s, under the last Conservative government, the plan was hatched. Then under Labour in 1998 London and Paris agreed to jointly and actively work to make the European Union ‘able to carry out some security tasks on its own’.

It is against this backdrop that Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, commander of the RAF’s No 1 Group, which controls all Britain’s fast jet combat aircraft, has said that Britain was likely to end up with only six fighter and bomber squadrons – half its current number. Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell said that one way around the shortages was to collaborate more with the French:

“It looks like we are going to twin 3 Squadron [a Typhoon squadron] with one of the [French] Rafale [fighter-bomber] squadrons. I’ll make a prediction we will have British officers flying Rafale from a carrier within a few years. I’m quite sure of it.”

That was always the intention since the Tories signed the policy. With the UK and France effectively forming a twinned military, the EU can assume control giving it that coveted ability to ‘to carry out some security tasks on its own’. It gives the EU a military force to go with its new legal personality as part of the step change to eradicating nation states.

It seems strange that senior officers of the RAF are not aware of what the politicians have agreed and the agenda to which they are working. It is no surprise that the media has been in complete ignorance, but surely the senior ranks of the armed forces should already know how they are expected to operate in the future.

All the pieces of the jigsaw are on the table waiting to be put together. When they are assembled, thanks to David Cameron, Liam Fox and William Hague, the picture will be a British soldiers, sailors and airmen ‘harmonised’ with the French, being part of an EU military force operating under Brussels’ control into which the smaller armed forces of the other member states can be inserted one by one until all of them operate under the blue flag and gold stars of the illegitimate articifical construct. Instead of focusing on the comparison between an eviscerated RAF and Belgium’s ‘air component’ the media should be focusing on the bigger picture which explains why this is being done.

Because of clueless reporters relying on press releases rather than investigating to uncover the facts of what this supposedly Eurosceptic Prime Minister and his people are doing, the country will remain in ignorance as the EU completes its aims. It’s enough to make one think they are in on the plan and deliberately keeping people in the dark…

Cameron, tell the truth for once

From the Daily Mail we learn that:

David Cameron yesterday slammed the decision not to deport a failed asylum seeker who killed a 12-year-old girl, and called for the UK Border Agency to launch an urgent appeal.

The Prime Minister voiced ‘great anger’ at the ruling which prevents Iraqi hit-and-run killer Aso Mohammed Ibrahim from being sent home, saying it ‘flies in the face of common sense’.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for Cameron to complain about the way the Human Rights Act has been used to keep Ibrahim in Britain. The HRA is law, so of course it will be used in this way. It doesn’t have to be law, but Cameron chose to break one his many promises to scrap it because he puts our membership of the EU before the interests of the UK.

If Cameron wants to flap his gums let him come out and explain clearly why he has broken his promised to repeal the Human Rights Act. Let him justify his decision and explain why he is pretending to be helpless on this matter after all the times he said the act had to go. Let’s hear the truth for once from this craven charlatan and let him stand by one of his own quisling decisions made for EU benefit in front of the public.

Cameron’s lies on the EU and Human Rights Act

An excerpt from a speech on Fixing Broken Politics delivered in May 2009 as reproduced on this blog in January 2010.

THE EU AND THE HRA

But the tragic truth today is that no matter how much we strengthen Parliament or hold government to account…

…there will still be forces at work in our country that are completely unaccountable to the people of Britain.

People and organisations that have huge power and control over our daily lives and yet which no citizen can actually get at.

Almost half of all the regulations affecting our businesses come from the EU.

And since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly making our laws.

The EU and the judges – neither of them accountable to British citizens – have taken too much power over issues that are contested aspects of public policy…

…and which should therefore be settled in the realm of democratic politics.

It’s no wonder people feel so disillusioned with politics and Parliament when they see so many big decisions that affect their lives being made somewhere else.

So a progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people.

We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.

And we will introduce a British Bill of Rights to strengthen our liberties, spell out the extent and limit of rights more clearly, and ensure proper democratic accountability over the creation of any new rights.

These are the words and promises of David Cameron when in opposition. In government Cameron has:

To quote Cameron:

‘It’s no wonder people feel so disillusioned with politics and Parliament when they see so many big decisions that affect their lives being made somewhere else.’

Too true. And also when they are lied to by a deceitful, two faced hypocrite like him, who will say anything to achieve personal power then break those cast iron promises because he had no intention of ever honouring them. Quisling bastard.

EU commences plan to charge us VAT directly

The EU’s desire to have greater control of taxation across the bloc has come to the fore again today.

As we see in EurActiv, the European Commission is embarking in a general review of the VAT system, which represents a key source of revenue for member states and the EU institutions.

In other words, the aim is to increase the power of the EU and bed down its ability to extract money from us. The Eurocrats have made up their mind to tax us directly and remove the ‘national government’ middle man, and VAT is their chosen method of making it happen.  As EurActiv explains:

“After some 40 years, the time has come to have a critical look at the VAT system,” reads a Green Paper to be published by the EU executive today (1 December) in a bid to launch a debate on how to reform Value Added Tax (VAT), a crucial national and EU levy which dates back to the late 1960s.

The stated objective of reviewing the VAT system is “to strengthen its coherence with the single market [and] its capacity as a revenue raiser by improving its economic efficiency and robustness whilst reducing the cost of compliance and of collection”.

We are approaching the end game of the lengthy EU project. The goal, despited repeated denials and lies, has always been to create a federal United States of Europe with a single government – ‘ever closer union’.  The EU can only have an effective federal government if it has the ability to impose tax on citizens directly and set the rate that will be paid centrally so it can fund itself. It needs a starting point, hence:

The debate on VAT has taken on a greater importance as discussions on the EU’s new long-term budget and ‘own resources’ are about to start in 2011.

VAT is a European mandated tax. But the exact rate is set by national governments within parameters set down by Brussels and collected by the local tax authorities. But rather than collect VAT and send a proportion of it to the EU, you can be sure the goal is for the EU to collect it directly and decide how much, if anything, the member states will be given. Once the structure is in place the extension necessary to be able to take control of income tax is straightforward.

The inevitable promises of red lines will be meaningless. The EU has already decided the outcome and all that we will see is the carefully choreographed stage act of politicians tough talking, tub thumping and declaring hard won ‘successes’ in their faux fight to defend our already extinct sovereignty. In the final analysis everything the EU demanded, and more, will be delivered meekly and without equivocation by the quisling parasites who outright lied to the population in order to be elected to what is nothing more than a powerless parish committee sitting in a grand building in Westminster. Treacherous bastards.

We do not vote for the people who run the EU. We cannot remove them from their self appointed office. They are not accountable to us because the EU is anti democratic. The EU is an alien entity that has never been given permission by the British people to be our supreme government. But we are watching, apparently powerless, as it hands itself more control over us and the power to directly take our money to fund its chosen activities. The time for half measures has come to an end. We must resist or be capitulate into serfdom.

Do any Conservatives still believe their leadership is EUsceptic?

Or after today has reality finally sunk in? Government ministers have published their European Union Bill, which they promised will give a new legal guarantee that any transfer of British sovereignty to Brussels will be subject to a UK referendum.

Many EUsceptics have argued the so called ‘referendum lock’ is a red herring because the EU now has the power to amend treaties at will without reference back to member states. What we couldn’t expect was the utter stupidity of the Conservatives in the coalition to U-turn so blatantly on their own flagship commitment.

The sting in the tail – because there always is one when that two-faced charlatan David Cameron is involved – is that there will only be a referendum on the transfer of power to Brussels if ministers consider the changes are ‘significant’. Imagine our shock… What happened to that widely trumpeted transfer of power from the centre to the people then? Or will that only happen on matters when Cameron believes the people will deliver the result he personally wants? See the pattern emerging?

This EU Bill is meaningless because it means the politicians can still do exactly what Labour did over the Lisbon Treaty and claim that an issue is not important enough to warrant asking the people for their consent. The Conservatives campaigned in the election on a platform that stated very clearly:

‘no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum’

Now they are in power that position has changed to ‘no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum, unless we think they are not significant in which case power can still be transferred without asking the people if they agree’. The cynicism and deceit is unmistakeable.

So do Tories still believe that Cameron is, as he ludicrously describes himself, a ‘Eurosceptic’? (In any case, how can you be sceptical of a continent for pity’s sake?) Or will they now concede they have been had by a con trick of monumental proportions? Quisling Cameron and that serial liar William Hague, with the EU mandarins smiling on in approval, have just hammered another nail into democracy’s coffin.

To rub salt in Tory EUsceptic wounds the fools at Open Europe, the EU’s greatest useful idiot, view the Bill as a positive step, albeit one that doesn’t go far enough. As it happens the Bill doesn’t achieve anything because it is a metaphor for inertia. It doesn’t go anywhere – and for Cameron and Hague that was always the intention.

The BBC and The Guardian – Why?

On Armistice Day and Remembrance Day many people think of wars in the past and ask the question, Why?  Ultimately wars stem from disagreements between leaders where at least one is playing power games, or from popular uprisings against leaders who forget they are merely stewards of their country and convince themselves they rule it in spite of the wishes of the people.

In every conflict there are people who are described as ‘fifth columnists’. These are people who clandestinely or otherwise undermine a larger group such as a nation from within, in order to help an external enemy. The don’t see the external entity as an enemy because they share its aims and are therefore comfortable to side against their own people. They engage in propaganda and work actively promote the aims of the external entity.

Of course the United Kingdom has people such as these. Outside of the political class the most visible fifth columnists can be found at the BBC and The Guardian newspaper. So it cannot come as a surprise that both supposedly serious news organisations – the BBC being the largest news gathering organisation in the world – have demonstrated yet more bias by omission today.

Both are guilty of deliberately ignoring the Herman Van Rompuy’s speech in Berlin, where as President of the European Council he said that the age of the nation state is over and the idea that countries can stand alone is an ‘illusion’ and a ‘lie’, while describing ‘Euroscepticism’ as dangerous and the way to war. Searches on both sites revealed the completely predictable absence of articles on the subject. Click on them to enlarge:


—-

This takes us back to the original question. Why are these two organisations, that both benefits from taxpayers’ money – the BBC through the licence fee and the Guardian through public sector advertising revenues – making such crass and unjustified editorial decisions? Seeing as papers such as the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times etc, recognise the messages in Van Rompuy’s speech are of significant public interest and affect this country the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the fifth column BBC and Guardian do not want people to be aware of the EU’s plans for Britain, because they endorse them and want their internationalist agenda to be achieved.

As we stop and remember on this very day those people who laid down their lives to defend and protect the freedom and self determination of the British people, we see before us two British institutions actively working to subvert those perspectives. We see two organisations who wish to see Britain subsumed into a federal Europe that is anti democratic and bent on eroding the hard won freedoms we take for granted. It is not just insulting, it is morally repugnant and utterly sickening.

Cameron’s defence deal fuels sense of betrayal

A fine post worthy of your time on England Expects as Gawain dissects the Anglo-French defence treaty and goes on to pose this question:

Who voted for this? Did anybody? Did any man or woman put their cross in a Tory box on election day and imagine that all this would come about?

Let the soul searching and recriminations commence.

Cameron and Sarkozy complete phase one of building an EU Army

Listening on BBC Five Live to David Cameron’s comments during his joint statement with Nicolas Sarkozy on UK-French military cooperation underlines just how slippery and untrustworthy he is.

Cameron stated that Britain and France would remain sovereign nations with their own independent military capabilities. He said that in recent history there have only been two occasions when Britain has launched a fully independent military campaign, the Falklands War and Sierra Leone. Cameron then went on to point out France and Britain’s joint involvement in theatres such as the Balkans and Kosovo (of course he did not mention the French officer who passed NATO military plans to Serbia).

But deliberately missing from Cameron’s little speech was the word interoperability. Also deliberately avoided during his high speed pass over recent military history was any mention of the invasion of Iraq. yet this is where the risks of Anglo-French military ‘cooperation’ exist.

Interoperability in the context of this treaty means certain capabilities will be provided by Britain and others by France. It makes the two countries reliant upon each other and unable to operate independently.

Interoperability only works when the partners in a cooperation pact share a common aim. During the Iraq campaign where we supported the Americans, this was not the case as France refused to take part in the invasion. The UK was unhindered by interoperability constraints because we possessed the independent capability to put our troops, tanks and aircraft into theatre to invade southern Iraq. We didn’t need the French.

The Anglo-French treaty signed today by Cameron and Sarkozy makes Britain reliant on France in military matters because Britain will no longer retain the necessary capability to operate alone. They claim this reduction in capability is designed to save money. But what happens when Britain needs the French in order to be able to deploy the necessary men and materials to protect British interests overseas and the French refuse to provide the capability because they disagree with the action? It is an unacceptable and short sighted risk and Cameron’s assertion that Britain will retain a sovereign capability is a lie.

There is only one way to be certain that France and Britain will deploy together for military action – that is if the order comes from their government, the EU. There is ample evidence that this is the plan. As EU Referendum reminds us:

This is a continuation of the Maastricht Treaty agenda, as this briefing note makes clear. Agreed by the Tories under John Major, this set up the parameters for the development of a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). The process continued with the Franco-British meeting in Saint-Malo (France) in December 1998. That was when London and Paris agreed to jointly and actively work to make the European Union “able to carry out some security tasks on its own”.

With the two largest military powers in the EU brought together by this treaty it is much easier to subsequently add the armed forces of other EU member states to the mix, piece by piece. It is through this phased approach that the EU will achieve its ambition of being a military power and the federal superstate will boast its own army, navy and air force.

Cameron and Sarkozy have just concluded phase one.

UK takes first step into EU Army

‘Anyone who thinks that Anglo-French military “co-operation” isn’t a Trojan Horse for the EU Army needs their brains examined.’

That is the simple fact reiterated on EU Referendum earlier today.  And it’s not like the discussions and the warnings of this huge step towards a federal superstate have not been there for years. The political class and the media have been teeing this up for a long time. Here’s just a random sample of reports on the subject:

2005 – The next step will be to form a Europe-wide foreign policy and merge the armed forces into a single EU army.
2006 – The President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, has proposed the creation of a 100,000-strong EU army designed to work with NATO.
2007 – “We need to get closer to a common army for Europe,” Merkel last week told German daily Bild.
2007 – David Miliband yesterday called for greater military cooperation between European countries – fuelling fears of a possible EU army to rival Nato.
2008 – In a little-reported speech on May 6, Germany’s Foreign Minister Steinmeier called for greater efforts to create a common EU army.
2008 – Slowly but surely, the hidden agenda of the European Union’s foreign policy elite, led by France, becomes clear. They want an EU ‘army’, ‘hard power’ and a grand new military headquarters.
2008 – The freshly appointed UK defence secretary has publicly supported on Monday the idea of a European army.

The problem seems to be ordinary people thought this was something that simply could never happen. They saw the reports of an EU Army, figured these were the pipe dreams of self important windbags, and returned to the more serious business of deciding who to vote for on X Factor and which EastEnders character would be next to be run over in Albert Square. Or perhaps some thought a Conservative like Cameron would be elected and stop it happening – not reckoning on the fact the man as heir to Blair and his ‘progressive’ ilk is fully signed up to selling the UK out.

In their distracted state what most people did not realise or did not care was that these windbags were working unchecked to award themselves the power to carry out their plans. The salami tactics of seizing power slice by slice did not register with many, but they have brought us to this defining moment in our history – a moment when the UK completes the surrender of itself to the bureaucracy.

Those who saw it coming shouted from the rooftops but were told to stop ‘banging on’ about Europe by the very man who will move the first piece on the board to make the dream a reality by signing a ‘cooperation’ agreement with the French that signals the end of British military independence. Perhaps this was what Cameron had in mind when he spoke of ‘letting sunshine win the day’.

There is a word that fits Cameron perfectly. Collaborateur.


Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Supports