BRITS AT THEIR BEST: Threats to Freedom - SOS - June 2007 British Declaration of Independence, British Constitution, Democracy Movement, EU, Immigration, Global Vision Iris Binstead, SOS 2007

Editor Iris Binstead has compiled another report of EU aggression against individual liberties and the efforts of British citizens to restore their freedoms and sovereignty.

According to BDI, whose patrons include Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Professor Antony Flew, Frederick Forsyth CBE, Rodney Atkinson and a number of other influential people, each of the UK’s three leading political parties have told their prospective parliamentary candidates that any candidate who signs the British Declaration of Independence pledge will automatically be de-selected.

The British Declaration of Independence is having this impact because it is worded to have real constitutional power. It is a signed document that irrevocably commits candidates to voting for the Declaration Bill when it is presented in Parliament.

Significantly BDI is also collecting voter pledges from citizens to vote only for those candidates who, regardless of party, commit irrevocably to asserting British Sovereignty. BDI shows candidates how many votes are available for their candidacy if they sign the Declaration.

The BDI is a cross party coalition whose members will not reveal their identities until they are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that a credible parliamentary majority for a vote to assert our national sovereignty has been secured. Their commitment is irrevocable and all signatories have pledged to resign their seats rather than break it.

The BDI derives its power to re-assert the sovereignty of our nation from the number of pledged votes it obtains. The aim is to collect at least three thousand in each constituency. Only when prospective MPs realise how many votes they will gain by committing irrevocably to voting for a BDI Bill in Parliament – and perhaps how many they will lose if they do not – will the necessary Parliamentary majority be secured for that legislation.

Up until now, the BDI was only promoted in the immediate run-up to a general election. Now, in a new strategy, it is lobbying MPs throughout the life of the present Parliament. Although it is hard work, the gains are reported to be steady. Signatories are being obtained across the political divide with the result that there are now more BDI signatories in Parliament (where the real power lies) than UKIP has MEPs in Brussels. The decision as to when they will declare themselves is up to the individual MPs involved.

You can find a BDI pledge form at the BDI site here. Please download and print the form and sign it, and if you value the sovereignty of our nation, get as many of your friends and family as possible to sign it also. Send completed forms to The British Declaration of Independence, 93-95 Gloucester Place, London W1U 6JQ. E-mail: [email protected] if you would like to help in your constituency.

The Daily Mail, 21.4.07, reported a leaked letter from Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, to leaders of the European States, which suggested that only ‘presentational changes’ should be made to the constitutional document which the French and Dutch voters rejected in 2005. In the same report, Neil O’Brien, director of the campaign group Open Europe, said: “This leak shows that we are going to have exactly the same proposals pushed through under a different name, with a few ‘presentational changes’. It’s incredibly cynical, but the voters are not stupid and will not be fooled. Brown would be mad to go along with Blair’s plan to take away our right to a vote.” Mr Blair has made it clear that the British people will not be given a referendum on the new ‘scaled down’ version of the constitution. In this connection, Shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, (Daily Telegraph, 13.6.07) commented: “The Prime Minister’s job is to stand up for Britain in Europe”.

This did not happen. According to the Daily Telegraph, 13.6.07, Mr Barroso urged Mr Blair to ignore British public opinion at the June 21 summit, and ignore it he did.

According to the Daily Telegraph, 28.4.07, the Prime Minister flew to Poland to persuade EU leaders to back a plan for an ‘amending treaty’ to make the enlarged EU work more effectively, but was accused of attempting to introduce a European constitution by the back door. William Hague, the Conservative shadow Foreign Secretary, said: “Any treaty that transfers power from Britain to Brussels should be subject to a referendum.” According to this report, opposition MPs believe the treaty will herald a fundamental transfer of power to Brussels, including a permanent EU president, permanent foreign secretary and a vast extension of majority voting in areas such as justice and home affairs, and also give the EU the right to sign treaties.

A leader column in the Daily Telegraph, 18.5.07, stated that Germany, which holds the EU presidency, was among the member states most keen to revive as much as possible of the constitution. Angela Merkel wanted to incorporate in the new treaty the Charter of Fundamental Rights and to endow the Union with a legal personality. EU Observer, 25.5.07 reports that, according to Jose Manuel Barroso, the EU Commission President, intergovernmental negotiations on the final terms of the treaty could start as early as July because he sees a growing consensus among EU Commissioners for a ‘simplified ‘treaty.

That the Charter of Fundamental Rights is still alive and well and on course to be included in the new treaty would appear to be confirmed by a report in the Mail on Sunday, 22.4.07, that shows a photograph of a building in a Vienna side street, No 3 Rahlgasse. This houses the newly created European Union Agency to implement the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which contains rules for everything, from the right to life to data and consumer protection, from the right to asylum to the rights of the child. There is even a right to good administration. This report would appear to suggest that it is not EU citizens who will get new rights if this Charter becomes law, but the EU officials and judges who will have the power to interpret it. Article 52 of the Charter states that the European Union can limit people’s fundamental rights in the name of the ‘objectives of general interest recognised by the Union’. If the new treaty is ratified, British people, who already have all the rights they need under the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, etc, will find that their rights and dear liberties have been lost for ever.

Article 308, formerly No 235 of the Treaty of Rome, was re-numbered on 10th November 1997. It was originally created as a catch-all article which could be used to justify laws not justified elsewhere in the Treaty, provided they served the purposes of the ‘Common Market’. This article is now being used to smuggle in by the back door items which have nothing to do with the Common Market. Thanks to the persistence of Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the UKIP peer, the Government has finally admitted that it has been used 45 times since 2004, including the setting up of the Agency for the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Lord Blackwell recently asked the Government to justify the misuse of Article 308 and was sent a letter dated 2004 by the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, explaining that this Article was no longer considered to serve only the Common Market but could now be used to justify anything that would assist in achieving ‘one of the objectives of the Community’ (Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 29.4.07).

A TNS poll for Open Europe carried out at the end of March in all 27 EU states found that 75% of Europeans want a referendum on any new treaty that gives more power to the EU. In the UK the vote was 83%. If referenda were held majorities in 16 countries, including Germany, would vote ‘no’. In the UK 75% of the population would vote ‘no’. The poll revealed that, across the EU as a whole, 28% thought the EU should have more powers, 23% that the EU should keep the powers it already has but should not be given any more but 41% thought the EU should have less powers and that more decisions should be made at national level. In the UK the equivalent figures were 11%, 27% and 58%.

An ICM poll of 1006 people over the age of 18, commissioned for the Centre for Policy Studies and carried out about the same time as the TNS poll, found that 69% of people in the UK would like to vote on the proposal that there should be a looser arrangement with the EU. They wished to opt out of political and economic policies but maintain free trade and co-operation on common policies. Given three options: 27% would vote to stay in and have greater integration with the EU; 36% would prefer a looser arrangement and 29% wished to leave altogether. A Financial Times poll in March found that 41% of people in the UK thought life would be better if our country left the EU and only 25% felt it would be worse.

The Labour Party manifesto at the last General Election promised a referendum on an EU constitution. In view of the above, Prime Minister Gordon Brown will lose all credibility and respect if he fails to allow a referendum on a treaty giving away ANY further powers whatsoever to the EU. There could no longer be any pretence that the UK is a democracy or an independent country. William Rees-Mogg, writing in The Times, 23.4.07, said that, at the 2005 general election, Labour and the Liberal Democrats were both in favour of a Constitutional Treaty and the Conservatives against it. All three parties committed themselves to holding a referendum. (May I point out that the Liberal Democrats are not the same as the Liberal Party, which I understand is opposed to EU membership. Ed)

A Reuters’ report on a recent Eurobarometer finding on the attitudes of young ‘Europeans’ was headlined: ‘Young Europeans see EU as waste of time’. The report stated that many of these people are unhappy with the European Union and believe it will soon cease to exist. Forty per cent of young adults thought the EU meant excessive bureaucracy and a waste of time and money. The report concluded that 13% believed that in 10 years’ time the EU would no longer exist, while 40% said it would have more social problems such as unemployment and strikes. Respondents to the Eurobarometer questionnaire in the EU’s 12 new member states appeared more positive about its future than those from the other 15. (Richard North, 4.6.07)

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, 29.4.07, Ruth Lea, Director of Global Vision, said the organisation had been set up to represent the British people’s moderate views. She said the UK should negotiate a looser relationship with the EU based on trade and cooperation while opting out of political and economic union.

Ruth Lea felt that membership of the EU’s political and economic union was now holding Britain back. Excessive EU regulations were damaging business competitiveness. Its protectionist policies were restricting trade, and Britain’s increasing net budget contributions could be far better used in reducing taxes or improving public services.

In an article in the Sunday Telegraph, 4.2.07, David Cameron, the Conservative Party Leader, said that, after half a century, there were new realities and priorities and, whilst welcoming EU enlargement, he regretted that it was still committed to ‘ever closer union’. However, he believed it could change. He said that that was why last year he, the Czech Prime Minister and the Civic Democrats Party announced the Movement for European Reform and started a year-long, pan-European Reform Commission to confront the EU’s flaws to enable it successfully to cope with the challenges of the 21st century. Mr Cameron believed that, with reform, Europe could be a force for good.

We know almost nothing about Gordon Brown’s views about the EU and, in an attempt to get a clue, I read the pamphlet written by Ed Balls for the Centre for European Reform, which, significantly, was sponsored by the multi-nationals Goldman Sachs and the Royal Bank of Scotland. Mr Balls believes that there are many reasons to co-operate with the EU – e.g., financial, terrorism, climate change, etc – with various provisos for reform or greater flexibility. There appeared to be absolutely nothing in this pamphlet to explain why we should continue to be governed by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels rather than our own elected members of Parliament.

All political parties should welcome Lord Pearson’s bill, which had its unopposed second reading in the House of Lords on Friday, 8th June. Lord Pearson’s bill calls for a Committee of Inquiry into withdrawal from the European Union, the Committee to be set up by and report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The inquiry would look at the implications for the economy, national security and defence, the British Constitution and the costs and other public expenditure as a result of membership of the European Union.

The three main parties say they are in favour of the UK’s continuing membership of the EU and should welcome the opportunity to prove that it is beneficial for our country by holding an enquiry into the implications of withdrawal. If MPs do not support the bill it can only be assumed that they are worried about being proved wrong in their belief that our membership of the EU is beneficial for Britain. (The assumption would then be that EU membership is only beneficial to politicians . It is worth noting that all Lord Pearson’s previous requests for the Government to undertake a cost/benefit analysis of our membership of the EU have been refused. Ed)

As members of the European Union we cannot control immigration. The British people have always been welcoming to others coming to this country and generally are not racist. But many feel that enough is enough. This is only a small country and, whereas some immigration may well have benefited the economy, we just cannot absorb the very large numbers we are presently being expected to accept. We have reached the stage where only net immigration should be allowed which, while we are members of the EU, is unlikely to happen. It has been well reported that the Government hasn’t the faintest idea how many people have come to Britain. All the new arrivals have to be housed, places at our crowded schools found for their children and our already over-stretched NHS has to cope with more and more patients.

Margaret Hodge, Minister of State for Industry and the Regions under Blair, recently stated that some of her Barking constituents resented the fact that immigrants were frequently given priority for housing over people who lived and worked in the area, and paid taxes. Many fear that this will become an ever-increasing problem and if immigration remains uncontrolled could lead to civil unrest. To add insult to injury, according to the Daily Mail, 29.5.07, despite Mr Blair’s insistence last year that foreign criminals would start being deported, the EU is stopping over 3,000 criminals from other EU countries being sent home.

EU Directive 2003/9/EC rightly requires minimum standards of reception for asylum seekers providing a dignified standard of living. The directive states that member states are free to introduce more generous provisions than the minimum requirements set out by the directive. I normally attribute reports if possible but, for obvious reasons, I will only say that the following came from an impeccable source. The Secret Tenancy Agreement – a secret 26-page document - the Revised Tenancy Agreement April 2001 – was produced by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, acting through the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Its very existence is supposed to be secret. The Landlord’s attention is drawn to the Official Secrets Acts. The landlord shall ensure that no press release or other public statement concerning Confidential Information without prior written approval of the Directorate and the Tenant Company as to its content and the manner and extent of its publication. This is what the Home Office does not wish us to see:

The Property shall have a full and safe central heating system. Paraffin or bottled gas fed heating systems shall not be used.
Point 10 – All electrical appliances in the Property shall be either new or, if second hand, shall be supplied complete with a twelve month guarantee.
Pages 15 and 16 – A long list of items for all rooms – everything from chip pans to teaspoons, an easy chair for each bed space to a Boots first aid kit.
Net and drawable curtains are required
Free 20” colour television with licence paid which shall be renewed at each annual anniversary of the Start Date throughout the term of the tenancy.
Where children are present cot and high chairs, sterilisation equipment, child safety gates, childproof devices on all windows, appropriate play areas inside and outside the property
Section (g) – to have exterior windows of the property cleaned every 12 weeks
Section 1 (b) – The Tenant Company (funded by the taxpayer) agrees to pick up the ‘phone bill for every single property provided by the Landlord to asylum seekers.

According to the Daily Mail, 13,2.07, a new study by the London School of Economics has found that immigration is costing council tax payers as much as £200 million a year and at least £100 million in London alone. Costs range from £800 for each child in school to £1,000 each for teaching migrants basic English.

It is obvious that scientists disagree on the causes of global warming. In general, those working for the United Nations, EU, and member states maintain that CO2 emissions play a large part in this, while those working in the private sector believe it is due to the heat of the sun or sun spots.

Whoever is right, climate change not only provides the EU with a useful tool to frighten the populations of its member states into using less energy by the imposition of ever more environmental taxes, but with an excuse to promote the idea that only the EU, with its 27 member states, can stand up to the world’s three worst global polluters – China, India and America – and bring them into line, while taxing us. Ten years ago, not long after scientists were predicting a new ice age, an EU document “Environmental Taxes and Charges in the Single Market” (Com (97)) stated: “This communication is a ‘first step’ in the (EU) Commission’s treatment of the use of environmental taxes by the Member States. . . ”

An article by Peter Foster, which appeared in the Daily Telegraph, 13.6.06, reported that India would not curb its greenhouse gas emissions as long as the West treated it as a “second class global citizen”. Mr Pradipto Ghosh, a member of the committee which advises the Indian Prime Minister on climate change, said that India would not subscribe to any long-term solution which was not based on per capita emissions. When a meeting to start negotiations on a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, takes place in Bali in December, delegates will be faced with a divide between developing and developed nations. The article also stated that at present the average American citizen accounted for more than 15 times, and the average Briton seven times, the carbon emissions of the average Indian. India’s emissions were predicted to surpass those of the US in 30 years’ time.

An article by Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, which appeared in The Times, 14.2.07, stated that, while sea ice had diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it had grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. According to the Daily Telegraph, 6.1.07, Sir John Houghton, former chairman of the Meteorological Office and of the UN’s scientific panel on climate change, said that sheep and cows bred to be less ‘windy’ could have a crucial part in fighting global warming. He said he had observed trials in New Zealand of genetically modified sheep designed to reduce the amount of methane they produce – from both ends. Sir John told the Oxford Farming Conference that methane from flatulent livestock represented 20/30% of global warming. One report on BBC Radio 4, Today, 4.6.07, even suggested that we are all going to be encouraged to become vegans so that it will no longer be necessary to breed animals for food.

It is suggested that readers who did not see the programme on Channel 4 a couple of months ago entitled ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ should obtain a copy of the DVD. They can then make up their own minds as to which group of scientists is right.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked the government to stop sending out these packs and, when his request was refused, suggested that they should contain a DVD of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, which would then make the packs legal under the 1996 Education Act. This was also refused. Their act contravenes the 1996 Education Act Article 407 (1), which states:

The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils while they are
(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or
(b) taking part in extra-curricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school, they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.

British schoolchildren aged 10 and upwards have been invited to take part in a competition to design a poster celebrating ‘the importance of European Integration’ and the part played by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in protecting the ‘rights of children’. The competition was sponsored by the Department of Education and Skills and the European Commission. The Charter is part of the original draft Constitution, and does not yet have legal force. As pointed out by the Democracy Movement, this is also in breach of the 1996 Education Act (Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 26.3.06).

According to The Times, 3.5.07, the European Commission, which plans to recruit 1,000 more bureaucrats from the 12 accession countries, has set aside £98 million for the education of children of staff and diplomats at the 13 ’European schools’ in seven countries.

During a meeting of the European Parliament’s Culture and Education Committee, Annette Schavan, the German Minister for Education, demanded that school curricula should be based on an EU framework. Tom Wise, UKIP MEP, described this as a disgraceful attempt to brainwash the most vulnerable in society which was tantamount to political child abuse. (UKIP Press Release, 30.1.07)

According to the Daily Mail, 8.3.07, MPs on the Labour-dominated Education and Skills Committee have declared that compulsory citizenship lessons must not endorse British history or values but instead concentrate on universal themes, such as abortion and homosexuality.

British university qualifications are under threat from the European Commission, which is endeavouring to take control of higher education. The House of Commons Education and Skills select committee has reported that the one-year masters’ degree and the four-year integrated BSc and MA degrees are at risk if the Commission’s proposals go ahead. (Daily Mail, 30.4.07)

In a speech to the European Parliament (May 2007), UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said “The reduction of household refuse collections from once a week to once every two weeks is the direct result of an EU Directive (93/31/EC) on control of landfill waste. Weekly household refuse collections were established in law in 1875 to stamp out diseases such as cholera and other epidemics that killed many thousands of people. Only the EU could take Britain back to where it was before 1875, and require us to pay for the privilege.”

In his Sunday Telegraph column 29.4.07, Christopher Booker said that ITV’s programme ‘West Eye View’, 27.2.07, showed 630 tons of food waste which had been composted at a cost of £50 being tipped into a giant rubbish dump. His column on 29.4.07 explained that the Landfill Directive was always going to hit the UK much harder than other countries as traditionally we have buried our waste in the ground and used much of it for land reclamation. Under the directive each country is set a target for reducing landfill with hefty fines for failing to meet it. By 2010 these fines will be £150 per ton. To encourage councils to meet their targets, Gordon Brown imposed a landfill tax that will be increased over the next two years to £32 per ton, an increase of 33%.

The National Audit Office estimates that within 10 years we will be paying fines to Brussels in excess of £1 billion as well as the billions in Landfill Tax. Mr Booker stated that much of what is being collected for recycling to reduce our dependence on landfill is either being shipped to the Far East or being quietly put into tips in Britain.

Regional assemblies work to an EU agenda via the Brussels-based Committee of the Regions; two members of each assembly sit on that Committee. Speaking to the South West Regional Assembly on16.3.07, Graham Booth, UKIP MEP, stated that two years ago the first triennial pension valuation of the Secretariat staff of the Regional organisations revealed a liability of £1 million, which he was told was secured by ‘ring fencing’ their reserves of £1 million. Mr Booth then discovered that the reserves referred to belonged to the South West Provincial Employers’ Association (SWPEO). He had been informed in 2001 that the three bodies involved – SWPEO, SWRA and the Local Government Authority (LGA) – had been merged and that it was legitimate to use the reserves in this way. But this was not true.

On making enquiries to the Certification Office and the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, Mr Booth discovered that no merger had taken place and it appeared that the SWRA liability was not covered (Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph 20.5.07). This raises the question whether, as the SWRA appears to be insolvent, district and county councils that support it with council taxpayers’ money may be guilty of malfeasance, which is a criminal offence.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writing in the Daily Telegraph, 8.6.07 stated that according to fresh figures from the Treasury that reflect the UK’s rising affluence and the cost of subsidies to Eastern Europe,our payments to the EU will double to £6.4 billion within four years. The Democracy Movement has pointed out that our National Health Service is under-funded by £1.3 billion necessitating ward closures and staff cuts. The House of Commons will shortly be asked to approve the extra payments of £2.5 billion each year to the EU that were pledged by Mr Blair. In view of the fact that the EU auditors have failed to certify the EU accounts for 12 consecutive years, MP’s should back Britain’s public services and not throw more money at the European Union. An excellent postcard can be found here. If you agree that this money should be used for the NHS and not sent to the European Union, please print the card and send it to your MP.

Harry Beckhough, who is in his nineties, is the longest serving member of the Tory party. An educator and dedicated anti-EU campaigner, he has made his book ‘Germany’s Four Reichs’ freely available to all to download, print out for distribution or read on line. Depending on your server it can usually be accessed here and will appear on your desktop as a pdf file.

Use of dual measurements – metric and Imperial – were due to be phased out by the end of 2009, and replaced with metric. Thanks largely to the efforts of Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Campaign, working with US businesses and the British Weights and Measures Association, the EU’s Industry Commisioner Gunther Verheugen quietly announced at a meeting on 2nd May that ‘dual marking’ of goods will continue indefinitely. The Metric Martyrs are now calling for a Royal Pardon for Steve Thoburn to quash his criminal conviction for selling bananas by the pound. Steve died shortly after being convicted. Please support the drive for Steve’s Royal Pardon by signing the petition on line at metricmartyrs.co.uk. The campaign is now on to keep the crown on pint glasses instead of the ‘CE’ which the EU now requires.

According to Open Europe, 12.6.07, EU Home Office Ministers have agreed to allow police forces across Europe to access the databases of other members states which include DNA and fingerprints. The UK’s database is very considerably larger than those of other countries and contains DNA of over a million innocent people who have been arrested but not charged with an offence. Many other countries destroy such details and Britain has been criticised for not doing so. This measure was rushed through by Germany and many critics have questioned whether there will be sufficient security safeguards. It is an extension of the Prüm Treaty signed in 2005 by Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg. France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain.

When the smoking ban comes into force in on 1st July an army of council officials will be empowered to levy on-the-spot fines of £80 on anyone dropping a cigarette stub in the street – this when shoplifters and burglars are being allowed to go free (Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 3.6.07). According to the Daily Mail 8.2.07, as many as 3,500 schools are requiring pupils to have biometric identity checks before they can register in the mornings, buy meals or borrow books from the library. Under current laws, schools do not have to get parental consent before taking children’s fingerprints, but they should be notified. Labour would like to fingerprint all 11-year-olds in preparation for biometric passports and identity cards, but critics have said that this could herald the end of presumption of innocence. (Daily Telegraph, 5.3.07)

A report in the Daily Telegraph, 18.6.07, states that, under new measures unveiled by the Government, schools can take fingerprints of pupils as young as five. For the first time guidance will be issued by ministers to headteachers telling them that they have the right to collect biometric data for security reasons. According to the (Daily Mail, 2.6.06) teachers are boycotting a survey of 40 questions from Ofsted which include asking ten-year-olds how often they get drunk and whether their mothers have paid jobs.

SOS

SAVE OUR SOVEREIGNTY
5 Battery Park, Polruan-by-Fowey, Cornwall PL23 1PT
Tel: 01726 870850
Contributions to SOS are welcome.
e-mail: [email protected]