Archive for Federal Europe

Lords approve EU Constitution

The House of Lords have approved the ratification of the EU not-a-constitution.

The Illiberal Eurocrats supported Liebour in pushing through the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty even though it cannot legally be brought into force and in defiance of their manifesto promise to support a referendum.

Fucking traitors.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

Federal Europe says “Fuck EU” to voters

Federal Europe is in a bit of a quandary at the moment.  That pesky Irish constitution won’t let them impose their constitution on an unwilling populace so what can they do?

Well, the Romanian social-democrat group gives us a clue in the European Weekly:

The referendum in Ireland has demonstrated that direct democracy (by way of referendum) cannot ensure the progress of the European process.

The security, liberty and prosperity of hundreds of millions of European citizens ask for complex leadership actions, which cannot be appreciated by heterogeneous populations, from the point of view of the information level and the education one.

European integration is a process that must be conducted politically by the elected representatives of the European citizens.

Translation from eurobabble into English:

The paddy’s have stitched us up, we need to stop them from asking silly questions.

To try and get the European integration project past the plebs we’ve have to make it as complicated and as hard as possible to understand so you’ve got to be a fucking PhD to get past the first page of stuff like the Lisbon Treaty and lets face it, most of them are thick as pig shit.

What we need to do is stop asking people to give us permission to do this stuff and leave it to us politicians.

God, how I despise those eurofederalist traitor scumbags.

Technorati Technorati Tags: ,

(Hollow) Victory for Democracy

The Irish have rejected the EU not-a-constitution by 53.4% to 46.6%.

merkel.pngMost constituencies rejected the not-a-constitution but there were some very close calls – one constituency had a majority “No” vote of only 132.

This will be a blow to Federal Europe because now they have to throw sufficient cash and thinly veiled threats at the Irish so they’ll vote “Yes” in the next referendum and because they’re going to have to try and figure out a way of justifying ignoring the “No” votes of three of the most pro-EU states without coming across as illiberal, undemocratic facists.

Überpropagandameister Merkel (pictured right) will be working overtime to try and spin something positive out of the third rejection of the EU Constitution whilst the French Secretary of State for European Affairs simply stated that the Lisbon Treaty will “overcome” a No vote from Ireland.

Emperor Barrosso says that member states should continue to ratify the EU not-a-constitution regardless of the fact that Ireland’s “No” vote is supposed to mean that it’s dead in the water whilst other eurofederalists are running round like headless chickens trying to think of ways they can implement it without Ireland’s consent or make it more palatable to the Irish for another referendum.

The old EU constitution has been rejected twice and the new EU constitution has been rejected once. The French and Dutch didn’t reject the way in which the contents of the EU constitution would be brought in, they rejected its contents. The Irish, too, have rejected the contents of the EU constitution in its new “not a constitution because it’s got a different name and delivers its payload different way” guise. The only real difference between the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty is the way in which it delivers its payload – the EU Constitution would have replaced existing treaties with one new one and the Lisbon Treaty does exactly the same things the EU Constitution would have done but by amending existing treaties instead of replacing them. The payload is the same, the method of delivery is different.

It is wrong – very wrong – for Federal Europe to continue to press for the EU not-a-constitution to be ratified and it is equally wrong for the British government to claim that a referendum is no longer needed here because they’ve changed the way the EU constitution implements the changes contained within it.

The Irish Times has had excellent coverage of the proceedings all day, well worth a read.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , , ,

“Yes” vote rallies but still looks like a “No”

The Irish Times is reporting that the “Yes” vote has rallied, particularly in Dublin where early indications showed consistent a 60/40 “No” but the result is still looking likely to be a “No”.

The “Yes” camp has already conceded defeat in Mayo and Galway West.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

EU not-a-constitution referendum results – early indication is “NO”

Early indications from yesterday’s Irish referendum on the EU not-a-constitution are that the result will be “No”.

The result looks to be very close but overall there is a trend toward a “No” vote, particularly in Dublin where all constituencies have so far returned a consistent 60-40 “No” vote.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

Can the Lords vote on the Lisbon Treaty?

The judges hearing Stuart Wheeler’s judicial review into Liebour’s refusal to hold a referendum on the EU not-a-constitution have reserved judgement, promising to make their judgement “as soon as possible”.

They haven’t ruled that not holding a referendum is illegal but they also haven’t ruled that not holding one is legal.  It is very unlikely that the courts will rule in Stuart Wheeler’s favour because that opens up a whole can of worms.  But have they cleverly handed him a lifeline – a stronger case on which to challenge the ratification of the EU not-a-constitution?

By reserving judgement, surely the matter is still sub judice and both the Common and Lords banned from voting on it?  Could the judges be handing Stuart Wheeler the ammunition he needs if the Lords vote in favour of the EU not-a-constitution without a referendum tomorrow?  A legal challenge on the basis that the matter was sub judice when the Lords voted on it could drag on for a long time, maybe even past the deadline for ratification?

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

European Constitution Judicial Review

Stuart Wheeler’s judicial review of the British government’s refusal to give us the referendum on the EU not-a-constitution that it promised started today.

Wheeler’s QC provided evidence that the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty are basically the same thing in all but name, including evidence from Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the eurofederalist who first came up with the EU Constitution.

No Mandate Brown’s QC claims that Wheeler is only bringing the case for the “inappropriate purpose” of getting a judgment critical of the British government.

The House of Lords, which has still been debating the EU not-a-constitution despite it being sub judice, is due to vote on giving away our sovereignty on Wednesday, the same day the Commons will vote on whether to institute the illegal and unconstitutional internment of “terrorist” suspects for a month and a half.  That’ll be convenient for our new masters on the continent because Common Law is incompatible with the Napoleonic Code used in the rest of Federal Europe.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

Camoron – lying eurofederalist traitor

David Camoron has admitted that the Conswervative promise of a restrospective referendum on the EU not-a-constitution would be useless.

He said that once it had been ratified and brought into force in every country, it would be “almost impossible” to have a referendum on the not-a-constitution. He said …

We may have to say, well look, we’re not happy with this situation, here are some of the powers we’d like to have back.

But we can’t give you that referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because it’s already been put in place across the rest of Europe.

No, what we may have to say is “Well look, we’re not happy with the situation so we’re leaving. We understand that under your constitution you think we need to have your permission to leave but it’s our decision and we’re leaving right now”. But of course, he won’t say that because Camoron is a eurofederalist.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

Liebour MEP hypocrisy

Last week the Liebour MP and Speaker of the House, Michael Martin, suggested that MPs should be given a £23k annual grant towards second home expenses so they don’t suffer the embarassment of the taxpayer finding out what they’ve spent our taxes on.

Today, a Liebour MEP said that MEPs should publish a full breakdown of their expenses after the leader of the Conswervative MEPs, who was given special responsibility for making sure their expenses were whiter than white, admitted accidently authorising about three quarters of a million pounds worth of “expenses” paid to a family-owned company with its head office in his house.  This is, of course, ever so slightly against the rules even in an organisation as institutionally corrupt and bereft of any form of morality as the EU.

But how hypocritical can Liebour be?  They believe in transparency when a Conswervative MEP (Giles Chichester) owns up to defrauding the taxpayer but when their own MPs are caught with their snouts in the trough they want to change the rules to make it easier for them to get their hands on – and hide – dubious expenses paid by the taxpayer.  I mean, why should the taxpayer be paying Gordon Brown’s Sky TV subscription when we’re already paying him a salary of £187k?  Why should we be paying tens of thousands of pounds for a mock Tudor fronting for their taxpayer-funded second home?

The answer is that we shouldn’t and whenever taxpayers money is spent, every last penny should be accounted for and available for public scrutiny.  I agree with Richard Corbett MEP on this but I would politely remind him that the biggest bunch of crooks in Westminster are Liebour MPs and people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , , ,

EU Cost/Benefit Analysis petition

The petition I started calling on the British government to commission a cost/benefit analysis on membership of Federal Europe now has 703 signatures.

It has until the 24th of July before it closes so a thousand signatures at least would be nice.  If you haven’t already signed the petition, please do so now and then pass it on to your contacts.  Whether you’re a eurofederalist, eurosceptic or undecided, commissioning an independent cost/benefit analysis is the right thing to do otherwise we’ll never know the true cost of membership.

Technorati Technorati Tags: ,

Eurofederalist regionalist professor defends AWM

The Birmingham Post is claiming that a Tory plan to strip Regional Development Agencies of some of their powers will damage the economy of the West Midlands and centralise decision making.

This is absolute nonsense. Removing the regional quangocracy will empower local communities, increase democratic accountability in the decision-making process and could provide a vital boost to the local economy at a time when the global economy is taking a nosedive.

Not convinced?

Planning and transport are important areas of policy – the West Midlands has a population the size of Scotland (about 5 million) and the policy that determines when and where a road will be built, the buses and trains run and houses and factories are built is in the hands of an unelected quango with a Birmingham-centric view. Birmingham may be the largest city in the West Midlands but it’s not the only place to live or do business. There are about a million people living in Birmingham – that leaves another 4 million “West Midlanders” treated as an afterthought by the quango that’s supposed to represent their interests.

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland planning and transport has its own ministry with dedicated, qualified staff and elected ministers answerable to the electorate for the actions of their department. In the West Midlands we have unelected quangos unanswerable to the 4 million or so voters in the West Midlands.

It is wrong to assume that abolishing regional quangos will result in centralisation – there is no reason why the powers given to regional quangos shouldn’t be given back to the local authorities that they were taken from in the first place.

The Birmingham Post cites the collapse of MG Rover as an example of the value of the Regional Development Agency, Advantage West Midlands. “Whilst the MG Rover collapse was a very substantial shock to the West Midlands economy, the impact would have been much greater if the firm had collapsed in 2000? says David Bailey, the author of the Birmingham Post article. True, the collapse of MG Rover had a major impact on the West Midlands conurbation. It had an impact all over the country but the main impact was felt in Longbridge and the urban core of the West Midlands. The effect of the collapse of MG Rover was probably no worse in Worcester or Oswestry or Stafford than it was in Edinburgh or London or Cardiff.

There is no doubt that the collapse of MG Rover required a response on a grander scale than the local authority covering Longbridge but is the Birmingham Post really suggesting that it is beyond the wit of our elected local councils, who themselves manage multi-million pound budgets and provide hundreds of services under close scrutiny of the electorate, to work with each other to cope with the fallout from the collapse of MG Rover or any other “big issue”?

Whilst Advantage West Midlands was diverting all its energies into buying the Longbridge site and providing advice to businesses in Longbridge and the surrounding area, other parts of the West Midlands were losing out. Making certain polices and functions the sole responsibility of Advantage West Midlands is rather like putting all your eggs in one basket. Local authorities either aren’t allowed – or don’t have the resources – to provide the services Advantage West Midlands would have provided if they weren’t concentrating on MG Rover.

Just like a local solution to a problem isn’t always appropriate, a regional answer isn’t always right either – especially in a euroregion so economically and demographically diverse as to contain England’s second city and most rural county. This is why regional quangos like Advantage West Midlands need to be wound up and loose alliances formed on an issue by issue basis by local authorities and other interested parties. This way decision making remains in the hands of democratically accountable local councils but a “joined up” response to bigger issues is still perfectly workable when it’s needed. And more importantly, from the point of view of the local economy, businesses can be reassured that they won’t be subject to the whim of an unelected, undemocratic quango based in Birmingham.

Perhaps Professor David Bailey’s profile at the Birmingham University website might shed some light on his defence of the indefensible:


Industrial policy, economic development policy, policy towards transnational corporations and FDI, transition in Central and Eastern Europe, European integration and enlargement particularly with reference to EU Structural Funding and Regional Policy, structural change in the Japanese economy, economic freedom, the automotive industry.


David is Professor of Economic Policy and International Business and Head of the Industrial and Labour Economics (ILE) Group at the Birmingham Business School. He is also an attached member of staff of the University’s European Research Institute and co-chairs the University’s Europe Group.

Outside of Birmingham, David is Chair of the Regional Studies Association and is a member of the ESRC Virtual College. He is also an Academician of the Social Sciences, a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

Of course, you’d have to be one of life’s cynics to think that his defence of Advantage West Midlands is influenced at all by the funding Advantage West Midlands provides to his department or his support for European integration and regionalisation.

Bye Bye Jaguar

Federal Europe is currently working on plans to fine car manufacturers for every vehicle they produce that exceeds the finger in the air figure of 130g/km of Carbon Dioxide emissions.  The fine is expected to be £68 per gramme.

Of course, with this being the EU, the regulations are ridiculously ill conceived and designed to benefit only the largest continental producers.  The limit of 130g/km is an average across their entire product range so a large manufacturer just needs a couple of token low carbon matchbox cars to bring its average down, even if they produce a 4 litre V8 monster.

The example I’ve been given by Mike Nattrass MEP (good luck in Crewe & Nantwich, Mike) shows just how ridiculous the new regulations are.  Jaguar and Land Rover have been sold by Ford to Tata.  Across Ford’s entire product range they have managed to stay below the 130g/km limit – even when they produce cars like the 4.6l, 300bhp V8 Mustang or the 5.4l, 550bhp V8 Ford GT.  Tata, however, don’t have a range of toy cars like Ford to bring down their average so they will have to pay fines on every Jaguar or Land Rover they produce.  A 2l diesel X-Type Jag will attract a fine of £1,292 per car whilst a V8 Range Rover will attract a whopping £16,728 fine per vehicle.

So what will happen to Jaguar and Land Rover?  They simply won’t sell anything with a tax like that on top of the price of the car so they’ll just shift production outside of Federal Europe, jobs will be lost and a piece of history will come to an end.

The British government must be worried at the loss of jobs and the inevitable loss of Land Rover and Jaguar from these shores?  Liebour MP, Richard Burden, asked the Treasury and got the following garbled and essentially meaningless message:

I am happy to assure him that the Government are aware of the points that he makes and are keeping a close eye on the progress of discussions about the development of EU regulations in Europe

Wow!  They’re “keeping a close eye on the progress of discussions”.  Here’s a suggestion – have some discussions of your own.  Perhaps something along the lines of “this is a stupid fucking tax and there’s no way you’re destroying our economy with your punitive and utterly pointless eco taxes so fuck off back under your rock you clueless facists”.  Or words to that effect.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , ,

Scottish government subsidises fishermen

The Scottish government intends to do more to help Scottish fishermen cope with rising prices and unfair advantages of Spanish and French fishermen who receive state aid.

Rising fuel prices, crippling EU regulations and reduced quotas are damaging commercial fishing so the Scottish government is giving up to £400,000 towards the annual costs of maintaining lifeboats on fishing boat and £300,000 towards the cost of warranties on satellite equipment which fishermen are required to have under EU rules.
The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation aren’t satisfied though and want the Scottish government to go further and provide state aid like the French and Spanish government’s do.
Meanwhile, the British government is offering nothing towards the cost of maintaining lifeboats and nothing towards the warranties on satellite equipment for English fishermen.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , ,

Don’t mention the war constitution

Stuart Wheeler has been granted a judicial review at the High Court on the British government’s refusal to hold the referendum they promised on the EU not-a-constitution.

In all honesty it is highly unlikely that he’ll be successful but the important thing is that it now makes the matter of the Lisbon Treaty sub judice which means that, with the exception of what is necessary to debate legislation, it cannot be discussed in either the Commons or the Lords. The judicial review is listed for the 9th and 10th of June and the Lords are due to vote on the 11th of June – if they cannot discuss the EU not-a-constitution, how can they vote on it?

Technorati Technorati Tags:

EU Constitution re-introduces death penalty

I’ve just been emailed this link by a UKIPper and told to read the last two paragraphs.

If you can’t be bothered to read it yourself, basically a footnote in the EU not-a-constitution says that we accept the European Union Charter and a footnote in that charter says that the death penalty is abolished “except in the case of war, riots, upheaval”.

The EU not-a-Constitution reintroduces the death penalty and not only in times of war, but for riots or upheaval.  That gives governments a pretty free hand to use the death penalty – strikes, protests, vote of no confidence in the ruling party.

Technorati Technorati Tags: ,

Treasonous Lords Committee plays down EU Constitution

The Lords Constitution Committee has said that the EU not-a-constitution does not have any constitutional implications for UK citizenship.

They cite the clauses specifically setting out the right of a member state to withdraw as “evidence” that parliamentary sovereignty remains intact.  Bullshit.  As it stands now, we have the right to withdraw whenever and however we want.  When the EU not-a-constitution comes into force we will be allowed to withdraw only by following the rules set out in the Lisbon Treaty and the legality of any withdrawal will be determined by European Courts.  This is NOT confirming parliamentary sovereignty.  Losing the right to decide whether to be in or out of the EU on our own terms is the right of a sovereign parliament, having to ask the EU for permission to leave on its terms means that parliament is inferior to the EU.

Does anyone know how many of the Lords on the Constitution Committee have worked for the EU in the past and are therefore at risk of losing their EU pensions if they fail to promote the EU?

Technorati Technorati Tags: ,

Shropshire Star: MPs ought to pay for EU treaty treachery

The following letter appeared (very belatedly) in the Shropshire Star last night:

MPs ought to pay for EU treaty treachery

MPs vote not to give us a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty by 311 to 248, this is despite all three main parties promising a referendum.

Labour and the Lib Dems both claim that the EU Reform Treaty and EU constitution are different enough not to warrant a referendum – this is an outright lie.

The EU Reform Treaty produces the same end result as the constitution except references to the flag and anthem of the EU are moved to an appendix which is voluntary.

The constitution replaced existing treaties, the EU Reform Treaty amends them. The payload is the same, it is the method of delivery that is different.

A private referendum by iwar.png showed that 88 per cent of the electorate wants a referendum on the treaty. David Wright and all the other (mostly Labour) MPs who voted against a referendum did so in the full knowledge they were going against the wishes of their constitutents.

I will do everything I can to ensure that David Wright loses his seat at the next election for his treachery.

Stuart Parr

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

MEP heckled for criticising hypocrisy

West Midlands UKIP MEP, Mike Natrass, was heckled in the European Parliament for suggesting that MEPs should use the integrated tram system that stops outside the parliament building instead of turning up in 50 chauffeur-driven limo’s.

He made his comments during a “debate” on Sustainable European Transport Policy when they were talking about EU taxes on fossil fuels and road pricing as a means of stopping people using their cars.

Madam President,

The UK should make its own laws so I reject this proposal. But I don’t dispute that more efficient cars are a good idea or that working from home cuts down pollution.

What concerns me about this report are words like “pricing policy” and “tax on fossil fuels.” because no current serious alternatives exist and these taxes are very inflationary.

The future must be about encouraging innovation and technology, not about tricking people who have no alternative, into paying more tax.

Most public transport systems are good for the commuter but don’t fit the needs of the businessman who must drive to work in order to use the car to visit clients later.

But Madam President, The City of Strasbourg provides a first class tram system with a tram stop outside this very building. So why aren’t MEPs here in Strasbourg leading by example?

They don’t visit clients they just come here to misrule Europe.

Yet almost all of them use Chauffer driven Limousines and ignore the trams.

If MEPs complied with their own words then perhaps the public would listen? In simple English Madam President this house is guilty of gross hypocrisy.

Now what were MEPs saying about a sustainable transport system please because, like the no smoking rule in the parliament dining rooms, MEPs ignore it.

One rule no rules for them, one rule thousands of rules for us.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

EU Referendum amendment rejected

The Conswervative amendment to the EU Reform Treaty calling for a referendum has been rejected by 311 to 248.

That means that the House of Commons contains 311 traitors and enemies of the state who must be hounded from their jobs at the next opportunity.

The EU Reform Treaty, despite assertions by the treacherous Liebour and Illiberal Dubmasscrat parties, is almost identical to the EU Constitution. The EU Reform Treaty produces exactly the same end result as the EU Constitution – with one or two exceptions – but implements it in a different way. The EU Reform Treaty removes references to the EU anthem and flag and adds something else in its place and then puts the bits removed into an appendix which is optional. The EU Constitution replaced all existing treaties whilst the EU Reform Treaty simply amends existing treaties (effectively replacing them almost in their entirety) to produce the same end result.

The EU Reform Treaty is, quite simply, the EU Constitution in a different package. We know it, our traitor MPs know it. Most of us want a referendum – 88% according to the private referendum held the other day – and our traitor MPs have voted against the will of their constituents. They are traitors and they must be punished.

Technorati Technorati Tags: ,

Referendum debate tomorrow

If your MP bothers to turn up, there will be a debate tomorrow on a Conswervative amendment to the EU Reform Treaty to provide for a referendum.

Liebour is arguing that the EU Reform Treaty is significantly different to the EU Constitution so their promise to hold a referendum doesn’t stand. Everyone else – including the leaders of every other EU member state – says that it’s basically the same thing repackaged. One thing is for sure – the end result is almost identical to the Constitution, it’s the payload that’s different.

It’s too late now to pressure your Liebour or Illiberal Dumbasscrat MP into doing the right thing but if they vote against a referendum then you must make them pay for their treachery.

You might want to sign the petition calling for a cost/benefit analysis of membership of the EU.

Technorati Technorati Tags: