COULD THE ECB DESTROY THE EURO?

One of the regular Daily Telegraph columnists, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who writes in the business pages, has recently reported on the problems facing the European Union’s artificial currency, the euro, due to the actions of the European Central Bank (ECB).

Under normal circumstances currencies come about after the formation of a single nation, not when a number of diverse and disparate nations decide to commit fiscal suicide and create a single currency for all.

Writing in the Telegraph on Monday 13th July 2009, Mr Evans-Pritchard predicts: “Without a radical change of strategy, the ECB risks pushing the weakest states into a debt-compound spiral that can only end in bond crises and/or the disintegration of Europe's monetary union – whichever comes first.”

He points out the warning from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which is predicting the eurozone to contract by 4.8 per cent this year. This, he warns, could result in deep damage next year as “Europe remains mired in slump even as the world recovers.”

It seems that Spanish public debt could rise from 36 per cent in 2007 to 90 per cent of GDP by 2011. He warns that “anything above 100 per cent is courting fate” He goes on to report that even German finances are falling apart.

Despite the economic problems being global Ambrose Evans-Pritchard warned that the ECB is “compounding the effect” by not joining the other nations such as the USA, Japan, the UK, Switzerland and Canada in quantitative easing. He also mentions Tim Congdon’s warnings that the eurozone money figures are “horrifying” and that the “senior people in the ECB (and the Fed) have little organised understanding of debt-deflationary processes initiated in late 2008.”

He concludes that Britain’s problems have been created by the Government which the people will soon be able to sack, but asks: “How can Europe’s voters sack the ECB?” Sadly they can’t unless they can convince their governments that the whole EU project is a bad idea and leave. Sadly, all of Europe’s politicians, including our own, listen to each other rather than those who elect them.

SPOOKING UKIP

Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

Quentin Letts writing in the Daily Mail reported on a question posed in the House of Lords by the UK Independence Party Peer, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

The UKIP Peer put down a Parliamentary question asking the Government if ‘the Security Service has been or is active inside or towards the United Kingdom Independence Party or any of its members’. Quentin Letts said the question asked was: “Were the spooks or police collaborating with European Investigators in relation to UKIP?”

Astonishingly, rather than an outright denial, or a confirmation, all that came back from Lord West who is a Home Office Minister was, ‘no comment’.

He then said that MI5 is prohibited from ‘doing anything in furtherance of the interests of a political party’. As Quentin Letts pointed out, it was “not quite an answer to Lord Pearson’s question”.

Mr Letts theory is: “The Government states that European Union membership is in the national interest, UKIP disagrees. Might not MI5, applying logic, therefore say it should put a tail on UKIP’s wilder elements?” Considering that a large number of UKIP members are of more mature years and the members of ‘Young Independence’, which is the under thirties sector of the party are mostly young people either studying or have degrees, it takes some imagination to consider that UKIP has any wilder elements – unless this UKIP supporting blog is considered wild?

This leaves the question, are those of us who are generally interested in protecting British interests, being monitored by MI5 which in turn is acting on behalf of those in Government who are acting against our interests by surrendering our sovereignty because in reality they are protecting their own interests

HELPING GLENN

The reason there has not been much activity on this blog was due to trolling off to Norwich to help the UKIP Parliamentary by-election candidate, Glenn Tingle's campaign.  

A number of campaigners from the Midlands descended on North Norwich and helped shove leaflets through letter boxes and speak to the locals.  Generally the feedback is good although, as with all elections, you come across some negative vibes - fortunately these were few and far between.

The biggest obstacle when campaigning for UKIP is getting past the years of brainwashing that the EU and Government has been putting out - some people (fortunately not many) actually believe the years of hype and spin that that we can't afford to leave the EU and if we did the nation would crumble, even cease to exist - despite the fact that this is what will happen if we remain in the EU.

One group of people I came across sitting outside their homes on this particular sunny day in North Norwich were typical of what we have to get past if we are to succeed in our campaign to save the UK from EU domination.  I had leafleted a number of houses and then spoke to the three people enjoying the sunshine.  The near neighbour sitting with them, when I said I was with UKIP that she had already voted by post and it hadn't been for UKIP, her friends said they never bother to vote but then began moaning about immigration.  I responded that as the EU has open borders and that everyone living in any EU member nation has as much right to live and work here as anyone born here.  They couldn't believe or take in that we could do nothing about this as long as we stay in the EU, or that the EU is taking over policy on asylum and immigration.

Despite telling them the facts they still can't believe that we as a nation are becoming increasingly powerless to govern ourselves on these and many other issues.  The neighbour then chipped in how we need the EU for our jobs and trade.  I had to explain that this was far fro the case and EU membership was not only costing us £40 million a day in membership fees, through its mad bureaucracy, directives and regulations it was costing us jobs and that the figures given for trade with the EU were a sham.  In reality when you take into account the real total of our exports to the EU we are being asked to surrender 100% of our sovereignty for around 10% of trade, which is far from a good deal.

After I put her right about why our post offices are closing due to EU postal directives, the very serious threat now facing the City of London due to the EU's proposed rules on regulating the markets and a few other facts, the response I got was: "I don't want to talk about it anymore."  The problems is that not talking about it has got us into the mess we are in - hence the reason I have driven almost 400 miles there and back to help Glenn Tingle.

BNP NOT ON THE BLOC

When the European Parliamentary election results came in on the night of Sunday 7th June, the extreme left wing BNP, which up till then had been talked up by the BBC and other press and media, despite getting their leader Nick Griffin and one other elected, actually had a pretty bad night.

After all the hype of how well they were going to do their vote was just not there, not even in many of their strongholds such as Stoke-on-Trent where UKIP achieved the highest vote overall. Despite the jubilation amongst their members that they managed to get their first two MEPs elected, in fact the election was really a disappointment for them.

Now they have had another disappointment in the European Parliament as well. To have access to funding and for their MEPs to get on the various committees, they have to be part of a multi-nation grouping with a minimum of 25 MEPs. It has been reported that they can’t form a group and no other grouping will accept them, which means they will now have to sit in the “unattached” group in the European Parliament.

Because of this they will not be able to be on any committees, they will not have access to additional EP funds of up to £1 million a year, nor will they be allowed to have a party office or administrative staff. All they will get is their basic allowances and travel costs.

It seems they tried to negotiate with others who are normally considered to be of like minds in the Parliament, such as the French National Front, the Belgian Vlaams Belang, Hungary’s Jobbik party and Ataka from Bulgaria, but irony of ironies – and I love this bit – these other parties were worried that the BNP’s reputation would lead to isolation. BNP are definitely not on the bloc.

THE LORDS AND THE LISBON TREATY

An extract from the Lords.

EU: Lisbon Treaty

1 July 2009 : Column 218Question

Asked By Lord Howell of Guildford

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the government of the Republic of Ireland on a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

The Minister for Europe (Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead): My Lords, the June European Council discussed and agreed the guarantees that the Irish Government wanted in order to address the concerns of the Irish people about the Lisbon treaty. The European Council conclusions say that the decision,

“gives legal guarantee that certain matters of concern to the Irish people will be unaffected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon”.

Those guarantees do not change the Lisbon treaty; the European Council conclusions are very clear on them. The Lisbon treaty, as debated and decided by our Parliament, will not be changed and, on the basis of these guarantees, Ireland will proceed to have a second referendum in October.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Again, I greet her and warmly welcome her to her role as Minister for Europe after her excellent maiden speech last night. I should like to ask her about the guarantees. She says that they are legal, but in fact they have no legal force at the moment. They would have to be incorporated into some future treaty if they are not to be incorporated into the Lisbon treaty. Can she explain how that process is going to work? Which treaty will they be put into and when will this occur? That information would help us a great deal.

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, what we have in the guarantees will become binding in international law when the guarantees are translated into a protocol at the time of the next accession, which presumably will be when Croatia or Iceland comes in. Before that protocol can be ratified by the UK, Parliament must pass a Bill. As I said, Parliament will rightly have the final say.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to her new role and ask her a simple question. Does she agree that the role of the United Kingdom in relation to an Irish second referendum is to keep its nose right out of it and let the Irish people make their decision?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful question and of course I can only agree. The point is that we have not pushed or pressed or bullied the Irish into this referendum, as some have suggested. They decided that it was a process that they wished to go through. They consulted and are consulting and, as I said, a referendum is to be held in October.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us when this Parliament will have an opportunity to debate and vote on the arrangements being made for the Republic of Ireland, which clearly have an effect on this kingdom?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, of course Parliament will have the opportunity to debate all the issues and the guarantees that I mentioned earlier. There is nothing in the guarantees that was not debated and discussed by Parliament. The guarantees that we have on taxation, on the rights of defence, in particular, and on the right to life were the key concerns and were discussed by Parliament and by others who have ratified the treaty.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I endorse the warm welcome for the Minister in this, her first Question Time, and wish her well for the future. Is not this absolutely and totally a matter for the Irish people, unlike last time when there was huge outside interference from British and other Eurosceptics? Does she agree with me and an article in the Irish Times of 17 June that last time none of the consequences of rejecting the treaty was properly debated,

“but they have been dramatically brought home to voters since then ... there has been a substantial shift ... to the Yes side since last autumn”?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his important intervention. The European Union has listened carefully to the Irish people and has respected the position of the Governments and the parliaments of the countries that have ratified, too. That is an important point to make.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I give a warm croeso to my noble friend, who seems totally at home in your Lordships’ House already. Will she confirm that there was in no way some sinister manoeuvre on the part of the European Union, but that this was a specific request by a sovereign Government—the Government of the Republic of Ireland—to which the Council of Ministers responded positively?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. We were giving the Irish Government what they wanted, which was to address the concerns that people had about the Lisbon treaty. It is another important step towards bringing the treaty into force.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her new position and, indeed, commiserate with it, but will she tell your Lordships, and through your Lordships’ House the Irish people, what happens if there is not another accession treaty for Croatia, Iceland or any other country? What then is the position of what she calls the binding guarantees if they cannot be turned into protocols? Would she also be good enough to answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, who asked whether your Lordships’ House and the other place would be able not only to debate these binding arrangements and/or protocols, or whatever they come to be called, but to vote on them?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, it will remain as I said: the binding guarantees will be in place until such time as they are transferred and become part of the protocol. That is likely to be in the reasonably near future and the Irish are agreed that they are comfortable with it.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept from these Benches, too, our congratulations on her first appearance at Question Time? Does she not agree that it is slightly baffling that such a fuss is being made about this matter when—I think that I am right in saying this, but perhaps she will confirm it—the obligations that this House endorsed in the Lisbon treaty are not being changed by one iota? Also, as every one of the guarantees and clarifications given to the Irish are either neutral for us or beneficial to us by entrenching subsidiarity and by making it clear that the European Union does not have the right to alter company taxation, is it not a little odd that there is not more cheerfulness around?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord and thank him for his comments. What he says is true: there is nothing at all contained in the guarantees that we have not seen. As I understand it, noble Lords debated and discussed these issues for 25 days in Parliament, so they will be much more aware than I am of the detail that was gone into. I am surprised that some Members are not aware that everything in the guarantees has been agreed by the Parliament of this country.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, if and when the Irish people accept these new arrangements, does my noble friend agree that the logical advice for the Conservative Party to take, not to mention UKIP, is that often given by Denis Healey: when you are in a hole, stop digging?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Again, I can only reiterate that there are issues that have been resolved by the summit undertaken by the Council of Ministers, at which our own Prime Minister was present, and all these matters were discussed and resolved on the basis of ensuring that the Irish Government felt that the concerns of the people of that country could be addressed. Nothing in the treaty will change and nothing in the guarantees will change the treaty as your Lordships agreed it.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness to this House and congratulate her on her ministerial appointment. I never thought, when I first met her in 1970, that at any time I would be addressing her as “the noble Baroness the Minister”, but I am proud to be able to do so. To get back to the question—Noble Lords: Hear, hear! Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would it not have been better if the Commission and the Council had accepted the Irish no and renegotiated the Lisbon treaty so that the guarantees that are now being given to the Irish could have been given to all of us?

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My Lords, I did not expect to be addressing the noble Lord as a “noble Lord”, either. I reiterate that no one in the other member states of the European Union undertook any bullying or cajoling of the Irish on this matter. It was decided that it was in the interests of Ireland to try to pursue the concerns that the Irish have about their position in the EU and that is exactly what they have done. Other member states have facilitated that in whichever way they can, but again I say that it is the business of the Irish; it is their concern, not that of anyone here. I am certainly not saying that it is our business to tell them what they think is good for them.

COOKING THE GOLDEN EGG GOOSE

The longer we as a nation stay in the European Union the more imperative it becomes that we leave. Almost every day the news throws something up from the EU which highlights yet another EU related threat to our well being as a nation and another EU devised curbing of our right to govern ourselves.

On the front of the business pages of today’s Daily Telegraph (8th July 2009) is a headline which screams out: “EU reforms to take away UK voting powers”. This article written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard relates to the EU’s meddling in the way it is “considering a voting structure for its new apparatus of financial regulation that would make it almost impossible for Britain to block measures, even if they pose a major threat to the City of London.” As Amrose points out.

He reports that the EU has set up three supra-national bodies with full-time staff to oversee banking, insurance and securities. The powers the EU will invest in them will be binding and will thus limit the UK’s own Financial Services Authority to simple “day-to-day” management.

The normal way things are usually done is by qualified majority voting (QMV) which gives each EU member country a weighting dependent on size, but according to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard the EU is “mulling a simple majority system, making it harder for the UK to mount a "blocking minority" with like-minded allies.” This would give the small nations equal voting rights as the larger nations such as Britain, France or Germany.

In the same edition Damian Reece commented on this and said that the “EU dog will not only bark but will take a bite out of the City”.

The City of London as a major trading centre has been under threat from various EU measures for a long time. It has been pointed out that if the square mile was a country in its own right it would rank quite highly, anything that threatens it as a trading centre threatens the whole wealth of the UK and the well being of every British subject. The irony is, out of the 27 EU member nations, only three of those nations are net contributors. They are Germany, Britain and Holland – if the EU through its insane addiction to bureaucracy and regulation destroys the City of London it in turn will impoverish the UK. That in turn will reverse Britain’s position of a net contributor to a dependent nation status. This is like cooking and eating the goose that lays the golden eggs. But who has ever considered the EU, its acolytes and drive it forward to show sanity or any form of rationality.

Like all parasites it will destroy its host and when that happens it destroys itself. As long as we stay in the EU, I the words of Private Fraser in ‘Dad’s Army’: “We’re doomed, all doomed.”

THE LAW ON TREATIES

Someone I know within the anti-EU campaign has been studying the Vienna Convention on Treaties in relation to the convoluted and extremely confusing document, which is the Lisbon Treaty, and has written to the UN leader about it.

In a two page letter to Ban Ki-Moon one section of the letter pointed out: “Having looked at the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I took particular note of Article 31, and in particular section 1, General rule of interpretation, Article32, Supplementary means of interpretation, Article 40 Amending Treaties, Article 49, Fraud and others up to Article 62. These articles are in this Treaty for a purpose. Long lasting Treaties should be honestly written and clear so that all involved can understand the true meaning of them for these are meant to be long lasting and binding, therefore great trouble should be taken in the drawing up of the Treaties-the previous now abandoned EU Constitution took longer than two years. All should understand fully in complete truthfulness and in complete understanding so that in the ratification and the people that they apply to can understand them fully.”

Many people in this country see the abandonment of our sovereignty and the handing over of governance to the EU to be illegal as it is treason – which there can be no denial. The trouble is trying to get any authority to take this seriously as those who hold the power to do so are the ones committing the crime of treason – it’s like asking a thieving policeman to arrest himself.

However, if you read the above section of the Vienna Convention and apply it to the Lisbon Treaty which was deliberately drawn up so that no one can understand it, the EU has actually committed a crime under international law as laid down by the UN.

It seems that Ban Ki-Moon nor anyone else from the UN bothered to responded to my friend, the letter writer, but what if Bank Ki-Moon found a sudden flood of letters quoting the above passage? would the UN be obliged to take the EU to task over the confusing wording of the Lisbon Treaty?

Just in case you are inspired to do a bit of letter writing, here is his address: His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General, United Nations, New York, USA.

THE TRUTH ABOUT COMPULSORY ID CARDS

The press and media have been taking Alan Johnson's recent statements about ID cards no longer being compulsory are being premature. Here is an extract from No2ID's latest newsletter. This anti-ID card campaigning group give a more sobering view. Read on.

The ID scheme has NOT been shelved, cancelled, or even significantly changed.

Once more government spin has triumphed and much of the media has got it wrong. The new Home Secretary Alan Johnson has not made any significant changes to the scheme. Compulsion by stealth is still the order of the day, just as it always was. Someone joining the ID scheme 'voluntarily' will still be placing control of their identity in the hands of the IPS for life.

The Home Office line remains the same. No compulsion (as the Home Office defines it) was going to be applied until almost everyone had 'volunteered' and then it was only a matter of rounding up a minority of resisters and marginalised people.

The Home Office's idea of "voluntary" is not the same as yours and mine. Since 2004 the scheme was (and it still is) to proceed by "designating" one-by-one under the Identity Cards Act 2006 other documents issued by official bodies -- in the first place passports.

Once a document has been designated, you won't be able to apply for one without also applying to be entered, for life, on the national identity register. If you don't agree to be registered it won't be that you are refused (say) a passport; you'd have voluntarily decided not to apply. There's no compulsion to have a passport. It is useful for travelling. But you aren't compelled to travel.

Or (say) to drive. Or to work as a security guard. Or with children. Or in healthcare. To get parole from prison. To practice as a lawyer. ... Any official licence, registration certificate or permit can be designated, and -- in the home office's skewed logic -- handing control of your identity to the Home Office's Identity and Passport Service will still be entirely voluntary.

That they were due for a confrontation with the airside worker's unions over designating new passes at Manchester and City Airports is an illustration of just how voluntary "voluntary" really is. But the fact they have now ducked that fight for political convenience suggests saying no does work - if you say it loudly enough.

It is still not too late for MPs to derail the scheme by repudiating the regulations due to be debated next week and detailed in the last newsletter. Only one of those statutory instruments has been dropped. If you have not done so already, please contact your MP HERE.

(NO2ID's lobbying guide, written for us by the former assistant of a very distinguished retired minister, is brusque but absolutely to the point). See Here.

Peers will also have a vote on this; so if you happen to know one (or be one), then it would be a good idea to alert friends in the Lords now that the matter is soon to come up.

Visit the No2ID web-site.

ONE LAW FOR ALL

The reasons there have been no postings on this site for a few days is down to a visit to foreign climes, I have ventured across the border into North Wales as my old Mom, who lives in a village in Snowdonia, was in need of an eye operation at her nearest hospital which is around thirty miles from where she lives – but that’s another tale.

Being in Wales, as I often have to be to see my mother and do a few jobs for her, I have become aware of how there are now one set of rules for us English and another for the Welsh since devolution – it’s the same too for the Scottish. A typical example was this simple visit to the hospital, something that gets more frequent as your parents age. A couple of weeks ago we had to get Fred, my father-in-law to his nearest hospital one Sunday morning after a bit of a scare. Fortunately he was ok, but after several hours parking at the Good Hope hospital in Sutton Coldfield my fiscal resources looked less healthy than that of Fred after paying my parking bill. Not so at Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital in Bangor – parking there is free as it is in all hospitals in Wales – free prescriptions too.

These little injustices, such as special privileges for those living in some parts of the British Isles, whilst others such as the English are discriminated against yet still expected to foot the bill for the special concessions in Scotland and Wales, set me thinking even more about injustice after reading a news item in the Daily Mail on the 27th June 2009.

This injustice, as do so many these days, comes courtesy of the EU, as the Daily Mail reported. It would seem our superior masters in the European Union want to force our British judges to, as the DM put it, “bow to Sharia law”. This would be for some divorce cases heard in Britain including family disputes such as the dispensing of wills. Sharia law always discriminates against female members of the family, rather than sharing equally between any brothers women beneficiaries are awarded less whilst brothers are treated equally. Under British law this would not happen – all would be treated as equals.

However, the EU in its wisdom, wants those facing family courts to be able to request the court to hear the case using the law of whichever country the couple have the closest links to. Courts would be forced to adopt the legal systems of all twenty seven member nations and even further afield, such as Sharia law.

To my mind this is sheer madness, I was always raised to accept there was one law of this land meted out equally to all who faced it no mater who you are, where you are from or what your religious views were. That, to me, was clear, simple and fair. These days fairness no longer matters. As the debate about the rights, or not to wear burqa’s rage, which is an insignificant argument as anyone should have the freedom to dress as they please as long as they are not bullied into it, the whole framework of our once blind justice is being dismantled whilst few seem to notice. The daft thing is, should the burqua debate end in court – what system of law will ponder the issue and will justice be given impartially? There should be one law for all which treats us equally – that law should be our common British law whoever you are as long as you live in Britain.

STATING THE BLEEDIN’ OBVIOUS

There’s an old joke about the Russian, American and British navies being on joint exercises and three of their captains begin boasting about the courage and nerve of their crew. The Russian captain, to prove his point called one of his men and said: ‘Ivan, I want you to jump off the highest point of this ship into those freezing waters below and swim once around the ship.’ Ivan completes this task and returns to his captain to ask if there are any further orders. ‘How about that for nerve’ says the Russian.

Not to be outdone the American calls one of his crew and says: ‘Elmer, I want you to jump off the highest point of this ship into those freezing waters below and swim twice around the ship.’ Like the Russian before him Elmer completes his task and half drowned and freezing returns to his captain and asks if there are any further orders. Filled with real pride the American captain says: ‘Well guys, how about that for real nerve?’

This leaves the British captain with a point to prove, so he calls one of his men and says: ‘I say Jenkins, be a good chap old man and jump off the highest point of this ship into those freezing waters below and swim three times around the ship. There’s a good fellow.’ Jenkins looks over the side into the freezing waters and twenty foot waves and replied: ‘Bugger off – do it yourself’ and storms off. ‘Now how about that for real nerve’, said the British captain.

You ask what’s this ancient joke has got to do with the EU? Nerve, bloody nerve, that’s what. The sheer nerve of the EU and its rotten Lisbon (constitution) Treaty and the recent reaction to the Irish EU Commissioner, Charlie McCreevy’s blatant nerve over this. The Irish Commissioner has shown nothing but a crass attitude to the democratic will of not only his fellow Irishmen, who are being forced to vote on the Lisbon Treaty again, but to all the people of the 27 member nations.

He stated the bleedin’ obvious when talking about the possible date for the next Irish referendum on the treaty, which is expected to be the 2nd October 2009. He said that had all the nations within the EU been given a referendum on the treaty 95 per cent of those nations would have voted ‘No’, also. He added that all the political leaders in the various EU countries know quite well that their electorates would have turned Lisbon down – so if the EU leaders know this why are they still pushing forward with, what we all know will be the eventual outcome, a new country called ‘Europe’.

The EU talks a lot about democracy and the rights of the people whilst at the same time ignoring those things. If the EU really cared so much about democracy and our rights then why has it done everything within its power to deny us a democratic choice over this treaty that no one wants. Why does the EU not consider our right to tell it to stuff its revolting treaty where the sun don’t shine? The answer, it only cares for its own aims and ends, talk about democracy is just that, talk. Now that is bleedin’ obvious.