Howard's Past Again Returns to Haunt the Tories
A party seriously intent on regaining office should have seriously considered the known track record of any individual chosen to ruthlessly oust an as yet untested but democratically elected leader. Not the Conservatives, however! Ignoring the obvious fact that Howard was probably the least popular minister of a generally detested cabinet in the final John Major administration, they nevertheless - disregarding the strongly put and oft repeated urgings of this blog, blindly thrust him to lead their party towards yet further ignominy.
How Labour must have relished the cold-blooded coup, as witnessed by congratulations for the Conservative's far-sightedness by the likes of Polly Toynbee and the brainwashed media minions of the BBC.
Yesterday bore witness to just how grave a misjudgement this truly was, for following a reported first rate crushing of Blair in the Commons on his superficiality over his immigration speech - Labour were able to let it be known that as one of Howard's last acts as Home Secretary he had planned to slash the number of immigration officers by 1200 posts.
The Tories were left looking completely absurd, claiming that protocol had been breached, but having now lost one of their main elements of attack against the government. How much more convincing would IDS now be able to appear!
This article from the New Zealand Herald provides the source and is linked from here, I quote:-
"In a breach of long-established protocols, Mr Blair took the unusual step of disclosing that when Labour came to power, they discovered that Mr Howard, as Home Secretary, had been planning to cut the number of immigration posts by 1,200."
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Backdoor Withdrawal?
An interesting analysis from a mainly eastern european perspective of the likely effects of Blair's Referendum somersault has been published by Radio Free Europe, linked here.
Co-incidentally it gives an interesting insight into the workings of the mind of the Conservative Party's Group Leader in Europe :-
Hans-Gert Poettering, the chairman of the conservative European People's Party group in the European Parliament, demanded on 20 April that a provision be added to the draft constitution stipulating that member states that vote against the constitution must leave the union.
Is this also Conservative Party policy yet I wonder? And, how long, must we wait before the Conservative Party falls into line with orders issued by Poettering? Two to three weeks, I would guess, if the Tory capitulation precedent set in the Eurostat censure motion signature matter is to be any guide!
An interesting analysis from a mainly eastern european perspective of the likely effects of Blair's Referendum somersault has been published by Radio Free Europe, linked here.
Co-incidentally it gives an interesting insight into the workings of the mind of the Conservative Party's Group Leader in Europe :-
Hans-Gert Poettering, the chairman of the conservative European People's Party group in the European Parliament, demanded on 20 April that a provision be added to the draft constitution stipulating that member states that vote against the constitution must leave the union.
Is this also Conservative Party policy yet I wonder? And, how long, must we wait before the Conservative Party falls into line with orders issued by Poettering? Two to three weeks, I would guess, if the Tory capitulation precedent set in the Eurostat censure motion signature matter is to be any guide!
And the Next Loser will Be......Malcolm Rifkind????
They are at it again, as blogged here during February the party that seemingly loves to lose, having ousted an honest man as leader for one of the least trusted politicians in recent history, (who cannot even raise his honesty perception levels in the opinion polls above those of Tony Blair who nearly every columnist in almost all the Sunday press seemed absolutely determined to now label a liar), is once again being tipped to be replaced by another ex-minister with the aura of a charlatan as for ever tainted by his years as a senior minister in the Major administration. Unbelievably, its that smooth talking, slippery-looking and word weaving Scot, recently announced as being soon to be transplanted to Kensington and Chelsea.
The theorist today is Michael Brown in 'The Independent' in an article titled The Tories in 2010: 'I'd put a fiver each way on Malcolm Rifkind' which is linked from here.
Not keen on this commentators selection....well consider his alternatives:-
It is possible, however, that the next Tory leader is not currently in Parliament. This is where my money goes - on Sir Malcolm. But if we are really into modern, fully paid-up whizz-kids, then watch out for Adam Afriyie, the black candidate for Windsor, Nicholas Boles, the gay candidate for Hove, Ed Vaizey, speech writer for Michael Howard, and Esther McVey, the daytime television presenter, who will be fast-tracked for promotion as soon as they are elected
They are at it again, as blogged here during February the party that seemingly loves to lose, having ousted an honest man as leader for one of the least trusted politicians in recent history, (who cannot even raise his honesty perception levels in the opinion polls above those of Tony Blair who nearly every columnist in almost all the Sunday press seemed absolutely determined to now label a liar), is once again being tipped to be replaced by another ex-minister with the aura of a charlatan as for ever tainted by his years as a senior minister in the Major administration. Unbelievably, its that smooth talking, slippery-looking and word weaving Scot, recently announced as being soon to be transplanted to Kensington and Chelsea.
The theorist today is Michael Brown in 'The Independent' in an article titled The Tories in 2010: 'I'd put a fiver each way on Malcolm Rifkind' which is linked from here.
Not keen on this commentators selection....well consider his alternatives:-
It is possible, however, that the next Tory leader is not currently in Parliament. This is where my money goes - on Sir Malcolm. But if we are really into modern, fully paid-up whizz-kids, then watch out for Adam Afriyie, the black candidate for Windsor, Nicholas Boles, the gay candidate for Hove, Ed Vaizey, speech writer for Michael Howard, and Esther McVey, the daytime television presenter, who will be fast-tracked for promotion as soon as they are elected
Monday, April 26, 2004
The 1975 Referendum
Debate is now certain to become dominated by aspects of the eventual referendum on the EU Constitution announced by Blair last week. Already we have encountered misconceptions and conflicting versions of what took place, and therefore reproduce below a brief summary with some relevant links which follow immediately afterwards. Those wishing to view, download or print (11 pages) the Pamphlet that was distributed to every household may do so from from here.
Quote
In 1975 a referendum was held in the United Kingdom, asking whether the electorate wished to remain part of what was then the Common Market. It is a common misconception that this referendum was on whether Britain should join - this is not the case, as Britain was already a member.
The referendum was a manifesto commitment of the Labour party under the leadership of Harold Wilson. The Labour party was elected to form Her Majesty's Government and duly held the referendum.
The main purpose of this site is to host an online version of the pamphlet distributed to every household by the Government in support of the Government's recommendation that people should vote in favour of staying in. The aim is to provide proof of what the British people were told about membership of the Common Market on the occasion they were last consulted. It demonstrates just how far the European Union has 'progressed' as a political project since then.
Please use this link to see the pamphlet text. Scans of the original document should be available soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question that was actually asked was:
DO YOU THINK THE UNITED KINGDOM SHOULD STAY IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (THE COMMON MARKET)?
The result was that 67.5 % of votes were in favour of staying in.
The House of Commons had voted (9 April 1975) on staying in on the new terms:
396 in favour (70.0%), 170 against (30.0%).
Earlier polls had asked:
"If you could vote tomorrow on whether we should stay in the Common Market or leave it, how would you vote?"
Average results: 33% stay, 41% leave, 26% don't know.
In Feb 1975 the question was altered to:
"If the Government negotiated new terms for Britain's membership of the Common Market and thought it was in Britain's interest to remain, how would you vote - to stay or to leave?"
Results: 53% to stay, 22% to leave, 25% don't know.
The above information is apparently available in:
"The 1975 Referendum" by David Butler and Uwe Kitzinger. ISBN 0-333 662990-3
Unquote
Links are from the first page of the pamphlet site click here to access.
Debate is now certain to become dominated by aspects of the eventual referendum on the EU Constitution announced by Blair last week. Already we have encountered misconceptions and conflicting versions of what took place, and therefore reproduce below a brief summary with some relevant links which follow immediately afterwards. Those wishing to view, download or print (11 pages) the Pamphlet that was distributed to every household may do so from from here.
Quote
In 1975 a referendum was held in the United Kingdom, asking whether the electorate wished to remain part of what was then the Common Market. It is a common misconception that this referendum was on whether Britain should join - this is not the case, as Britain was already a member.
The referendum was a manifesto commitment of the Labour party under the leadership of Harold Wilson. The Labour party was elected to form Her Majesty's Government and duly held the referendum.
The main purpose of this site is to host an online version of the pamphlet distributed to every household by the Government in support of the Government's recommendation that people should vote in favour of staying in. The aim is to provide proof of what the British people were told about membership of the Common Market on the occasion they were last consulted. It demonstrates just how far the European Union has 'progressed' as a political project since then.
Please use this link to see the pamphlet text. Scans of the original document should be available soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question that was actually asked was:
DO YOU THINK THE UNITED KINGDOM SHOULD STAY IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (THE COMMON MARKET)?
The result was that 67.5 % of votes were in favour of staying in.
The House of Commons had voted (9 April 1975) on staying in on the new terms:
396 in favour (70.0%), 170 against (30.0%).
Earlier polls had asked:
"If you could vote tomorrow on whether we should stay in the Common Market or leave it, how would you vote?"
Average results: 33% stay, 41% leave, 26% don't know.
In Feb 1975 the question was altered to:
"If the Government negotiated new terms for Britain's membership of the Common Market and thought it was in Britain's interest to remain, how would you vote - to stay or to leave?"
Results: 53% to stay, 22% to leave, 25% don't know.
The above information is apparently available in:
"The 1975 Referendum" by David Butler and Uwe Kitzinger. ISBN 0-333 662990-3
Unquote
Links are from the first page of the pamphlet site click here to access.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Why the Tories are Wrong!
The people of Britain are fed up with the EU even without a Constitution. Labour and the EU will force the issue to be "In or Out". Fighting the campaign against the constitution because that seems easier could thus backfire - it should be fought from the start on gut feelings -IT IS THAT BIG AN ISSUE!.
Less than a quarter of Britons think the EU is a good thing, the battle is there to be won, but it needs to be led by principled, straightforward people with clarity of thought and reasonable foresight. That seems to rule out the entire opposition front bench!
Countries work because all know they are in them together and therefore mostly strive for the common good and enrichment of all. In the EU everybody has been in it for what they can take out- for a good example of that just look at the present commission today: French and Spanish Commissioners already off for home politics, Patten and Kinnock returning enriched to comfortable posts while Romano Prodi the Commission President blatantly sacrifices EU diplomacy in his bid to be the next Italian PM.
Meantime national politicians scramble for advantage and sell out their country's sovereignty and democracy so that they may be next to take their turns at the trough. Today's press astoundingly reports that the Tories are even trying to get the NO campaign concentrating on a new Treaty for Britain's everlasting EU incorporation - and the sidelining of EU-withdrawalists. Power mad and greed driven, their motives are too clear for their arguments to ever be believed!
Do they think nobody has rumbled them yet? Where are the principled resignations from the supposed Eurosceptics?
How many Conservative MEP signatures actually remained on the motion of censure against the Commission - we will find out and the names, if any will be emblazoned in pride upon this blog.
The alternative of a list of shame would prove too long!
The people of Britain are fed up with the EU even without a Constitution. Labour and the EU will force the issue to be "In or Out". Fighting the campaign against the constitution because that seems easier could thus backfire - it should be fought from the start on gut feelings -IT IS THAT BIG AN ISSUE!.
Less than a quarter of Britons think the EU is a good thing, the battle is there to be won, but it needs to be led by principled, straightforward people with clarity of thought and reasonable foresight. That seems to rule out the entire opposition front bench!
Countries work because all know they are in them together and therefore mostly strive for the common good and enrichment of all. In the EU everybody has been in it for what they can take out- for a good example of that just look at the present commission today: French and Spanish Commissioners already off for home politics, Patten and Kinnock returning enriched to comfortable posts while Romano Prodi the Commission President blatantly sacrifices EU diplomacy in his bid to be the next Italian PM.
Meantime national politicians scramble for advantage and sell out their country's sovereignty and democracy so that they may be next to take their turns at the trough. Today's press astoundingly reports that the Tories are even trying to get the NO campaign concentrating on a new Treaty for Britain's everlasting EU incorporation - and the sidelining of EU-withdrawalists. Power mad and greed driven, their motives are too clear for their arguments to ever be believed!
Do they think nobody has rumbled them yet? Where are the principled resignations from the supposed Eurosceptics?
How many Conservative MEP signatures actually remained on the motion of censure against the Commission - we will find out and the names, if any will be emblazoned in pride upon this blog.
The alternative of a list of shame would prove too long!
Tory Embarassment as New Press Baron Supporters dubs Germans as Nazis
The Daily Telegraph seems to take some delight in spreading this story all over its front page. After hailing the backing of the Express papers yesterday, this was probably the last thing the party needs, especially given its recent obvious subservience to the German dominated ultra-federalist European Peoples Party within the European Parliament! The article may be read from here
The Daily Telegraph seems to take some delight in spreading this story all over its front page. After hailing the backing of the Express papers yesterday, this was probably the last thing the party needs, especially given its recent obvious subservience to the German dominated ultra-federalist European Peoples Party within the European Parliament! The article may be read from here
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Ancram in The Guardian
The Shadow Foreign Secretary apes his leader in claiming Conservative credit for forcing Blair's U-turn on an EU referendum. The article "If the British people vote no, Europe will thank them"is linked from here.
The essence of the Conservative Contradiction and Conundrum is neatly encapsulated in the final paragraph:-
Conservatives want Europe's member states to have room to breathe. If some countries want to integrate more closely then that is fine - as long as they do not force countries who do not want to to follow them. Our Europe policy is simple: live and let live, flourish and let flourish. That is a modern and mature approach - one that will allow Europe to succeed in the 21st century.
The countries driving the EU project forward and the open federalists who support them do not wish the EU to develop in that way. What they want is what is encapsulated in the Constitution document proposed by Giscard's Convention. The secretive conspirators who are the real forces behind this developing nightmare apparently want something even more federalist and less democratic than that awful concoction. The British Conservatives increasingly appear to be resuming their earlier role as the witless tools of one or both of these two, not necessarily distinct groups.
The Shadow Foreign Secretary apes his leader in claiming Conservative credit for forcing Blair's U-turn on an EU referendum. The article "If the British people vote no, Europe will thank them"is linked from here.
The essence of the Conservative Contradiction and Conundrum is neatly encapsulated in the final paragraph:-
Conservatives want Europe's member states to have room to breathe. If some countries want to integrate more closely then that is fine - as long as they do not force countries who do not want to to follow them. Our Europe policy is simple: live and let live, flourish and let flourish. That is a modern and mature approach - one that will allow Europe to succeed in the 21st century.
The countries driving the EU project forward and the open federalists who support them do not wish the EU to develop in that way. What they want is what is encapsulated in the Constitution document proposed by Giscard's Convention. The secretive conspirators who are the real forces behind this developing nightmare apparently want something even more federalist and less democratic than that awful concoction. The British Conservatives increasingly appear to be resuming their earlier role as the witless tools of one or both of these two, not necessarily distinct groups.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Howard/Blair Letter Exchange after PMQ
Unusually this link to The Times is available online, so we provide it herewith:-
Howard's pledge on European constitution
The question this exchange leaves unanswered for me, and about which no doubt Labour will return........is this - If the British rejected the Constitution with Howard as PM, what would he then do with regard to the existing EU Treaties? Blair's position is confused but clear - to me Michael Howard's is simply confused!
Unusually this link to The Times is available online, so we provide it herewith:-
Howard's pledge on European constitution
The question this exchange leaves unanswered for me, and about which no doubt Labour will return........is this - If the British rejected the Constitution with Howard as PM, what would he then do with regard to the existing EU Treaties? Blair's position is confused but clear - to me Michael Howard's is simply confused!
The Telegraph's Tease
The leading article in today's Daily Telegraph ends with this teasing statement:-
Mr Blair will now try to persuade us that in this referendum we are really being asked to decide whether we still want to "belong to Europe". That is a debate he is confident of winning, in the process shattering Tory unity. Mr Howard must not only expose this fraud, but also bring the debate back to where it belongs: the European constitution.
I must ask - "Just how," please explain " is such a feat to be achieved?"
No doubt it is what the editorial staff of the oft dubbed 'Torygraph' and the combined eurofederalist forces of the "Howard Conservatives" would wish was going to be the case - but it ain't going to happen.
I have read reports, articles and comments from Sydney to San Franciso to Shanghai to Stavanger and all are agreed the question will be Britain's continuation within the European Union. How could the argument be restricted to the Constitution, voters will know they will be unlikely to ever get another vote - this time it is the EU until it disintegrates or OUT.
The Conservatives, who already risk being dubbed - devious, duplicitous, disingenuous, double-dealing etc., etc. over their dealings on the EU question during the last half century, now risk making themselves look stupid and absurd to boot.
They cannot avoid splitting on this issue in my opinion. Not unless the so-called Tory euro-sceptics truly lack the courage of their stated beliefs, that is! They can split openly and voluntarily now at the opening of hostilities or they can wait for the strains to pull them apart.
As a voter who would like to have a free-market, low tax, pro-individualistic party to return to when Britain has finally regained its sovereignty I had rather hoped they would pick the former course, (which would offer better scope for an eventual party re-launch. The past twenty four hours, however, has not been encouraging!
The leading article in today's Daily Telegraph ends with this teasing statement:-
Mr Blair will now try to persuade us that in this referendum we are really being asked to decide whether we still want to "belong to Europe". That is a debate he is confident of winning, in the process shattering Tory unity. Mr Howard must not only expose this fraud, but also bring the debate back to where it belongs: the European constitution.
I must ask - "Just how," please explain " is such a feat to be achieved?"
No doubt it is what the editorial staff of the oft dubbed 'Torygraph' and the combined eurofederalist forces of the "Howard Conservatives" would wish was going to be the case - but it ain't going to happen.
I have read reports, articles and comments from Sydney to San Franciso to Shanghai to Stavanger and all are agreed the question will be Britain's continuation within the European Union. How could the argument be restricted to the Constitution, voters will know they will be unlikely to ever get another vote - this time it is the EU until it disintegrates or OUT.
The Conservatives, who already risk being dubbed - devious, duplicitous, disingenuous, double-dealing etc., etc. over their dealings on the EU question during the last half century, now risk making themselves look stupid and absurd to boot.
They cannot avoid splitting on this issue in my opinion. Not unless the so-called Tory euro-sceptics truly lack the courage of their stated beliefs, that is! They can split openly and voluntarily now at the opening of hostilities or they can wait for the strains to pull them apart.
As a voter who would like to have a free-market, low tax, pro-individualistic party to return to when Britain has finally regained its sovereignty I had rather hoped they would pick the former course, (which would offer better scope for an eventual party re-launch. The past twenty four hours, however, has not been encouraging!
Jens-Peter Bonde on the Censure
This link will take you to the item on the Censure Motion of the EU Commission in the Eurostat corruption affair. This is a quote:-
My group cannot approve EU's accounts for 2002, the year where the chief accountant, Marta Andreasen was suspended. The reputable accounting firm, Deloitte, has estimated the annual fraud for 1997 to be 7 billion euros. Since then there have been fewer cases, but the amounts involved have been larger. The numbers may even be much worse, but we cannot tell: no control authority has had a full overview.
The Court of Auditors cannot obtain all documents.
The mediator does not have the right to see all documents.
The budgetary control committee in the EU Parliament is only superficially informed.
Through 25 years I have, as member of the EU Parliament, asked for basic information on the use of EU funds. I have never had any serious answers on, for instance, the distribution of agricultural subsidies or on the number of working groups and their participants. There is only one language that the leading architects in the Commission will understand: if we refuse to approve the accounts Prodi and his colleagues will have the opportunity to rule their own house. Today they are prisoners of weak practices. Free them, reject the accounts and place the political responsibility.
The debate on the censure motion will take place tonight from 9:00 pm although the vote will be deferred until early May when the voting procedures will be unclear following enlargement.
Another seemingly unaccountable arrangement?
This link will take you to the item on the Censure Motion of the EU Commission in the Eurostat corruption affair. This is a quote:-
My group cannot approve EU's accounts for 2002, the year where the chief accountant, Marta Andreasen was suspended. The reputable accounting firm, Deloitte, has estimated the annual fraud for 1997 to be 7 billion euros. Since then there have been fewer cases, but the amounts involved have been larger. The numbers may even be much worse, but we cannot tell: no control authority has had a full overview.
The Court of Auditors cannot obtain all documents.
The mediator does not have the right to see all documents.
The budgetary control committee in the EU Parliament is only superficially informed.
Through 25 years I have, as member of the EU Parliament, asked for basic information on the use of EU funds. I have never had any serious answers on, for instance, the distribution of agricultural subsidies or on the number of working groups and their participants. There is only one language that the leading architects in the Commission will understand: if we refuse to approve the accounts Prodi and his colleagues will have the opportunity to rule their own house. Today they are prisoners of weak practices. Free them, reject the accounts and place the political responsibility.
The debate on the censure motion will take place tonight from 9:00 pm although the vote will be deferred until early May when the voting procedures will be unclear following enlargement.
Another seemingly unaccountable arrangement?
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Motion of Censure on Commission
Britain's Tories are about to be shamed as rarely before! The following is a Press Release from the European Parliament:-
Quote
Motion of censure
President Pat COX announced at midday that he had received a motion of censure against the Commission, signed by 65 MEPs. This meets the requirements of article 34 of the rules of procedure and the motion will be passed on to the Commission. In conformity with the rules, the President announced that the debate on this motion would be held at 9pm on Wednesday, with the vote to take place during the May sitting.
In a brief exchange of views, PES group leader Enrique BARÓN CRESPO (E) raised the question of the legal basis for this motion, given that Parliament will be voting in its newly enlarged make-up after 1st May. EPP-ED group leader Hans-Gert POETTERING (, D) indicated that despite his group's criticisms of the Commission over the Eurostat affair, the group was not supporting this motion of censure. Jens-Peter BONDE (EDD, DK), who had led calls for the censure motion, said the signatories of the motion were not seeking anyone's head on a plate: they simply wanted the Commission to take political responsibility for the Eurostat scandal, and this was the only way provided in the treaty for this to happen. For the Greens/EFA, Daniel COHN-BENDIT (F) also raised the issue of the number of signatures required and the necessary majority to adopt the motion given the impending enlargement of the EU. He called on those members of his group who had signed the motion to withdraw their signatures.
Mogens CAMRE (UEN, DK) raised a procedural point, asking why two signatures of his colleagues had not been validated, as he had personally been present when the individuals concerned had signed the document. President Cox explained that the verification required had not been received from the two individuals. While they were not presently on the list of validated signatories, there were in any case sufficient signatures for the motion to be debated and put to the vote.
The motion of censure is likely to be the first vote of Parliament's May sitting.
Unquote
It may be found on this link
Britain's Tories are about to be shamed as rarely before! The following is a Press Release from the European Parliament:-
Quote
Motion of censure
President Pat COX announced at midday that he had received a motion of censure against the Commission, signed by 65 MEPs. This meets the requirements of article 34 of the rules of procedure and the motion will be passed on to the Commission. In conformity with the rules, the President announced that the debate on this motion would be held at 9pm on Wednesday, with the vote to take place during the May sitting.
In a brief exchange of views, PES group leader Enrique BARÓN CRESPO (E) raised the question of the legal basis for this motion, given that Parliament will be voting in its newly enlarged make-up after 1st May. EPP-ED group leader Hans-Gert POETTERING (, D) indicated that despite his group's criticisms of the Commission over the Eurostat affair, the group was not supporting this motion of censure. Jens-Peter BONDE (EDD, DK), who had led calls for the censure motion, said the signatories of the motion were not seeking anyone's head on a plate: they simply wanted the Commission to take political responsibility for the Eurostat scandal, and this was the only way provided in the treaty for this to happen. For the Greens/EFA, Daniel COHN-BENDIT (F) also raised the issue of the number of signatures required and the necessary majority to adopt the motion given the impending enlargement of the EU. He called on those members of his group who had signed the motion to withdraw their signatures.
Mogens CAMRE (UEN, DK) raised a procedural point, asking why two signatures of his colleagues had not been validated, as he had personally been present when the individuals concerned had signed the document. President Cox explained that the verification required had not been received from the two individuals. While they were not presently on the list of validated signatories, there were in any case sufficient signatures for the motion to be debated and put to the vote.
The motion of censure is likely to be the first vote of Parliament's May sitting.
Unquote
It may be found on this link
Blair Wipes the floor with Howard on Referendum U-turn Statement
If ever there was an occasion when the Leader of the Conservative Opposition should have had the Prime Minister on the ropes, it must have been today as the Government faced its biggest ever climb down.
The tragedy of the Tories recent treachery could be seen in all its squalor and depth today, as Howard's response was savaged by Blair, particularly reminding the House of Howard's record on voting against a referendum on Maastricht among other carefully aimed barbs.
The first thing those against Britain's absorbtion into Europe now need to do is distance themselves from the Conservative Party or they will have their own campaign besmirched by their long history of treachery.
If ever there was an occasion when the Leader of the Conservative Opposition should have had the Prime Minister on the ropes, it must have been today as the Government faced its biggest ever climb down.
The tragedy of the Tories recent treachery could be seen in all its squalor and depth today, as Howard's response was savaged by Blair, particularly reminding the House of Howard's record on voting against a referendum on Maastricht among other carefully aimed barbs.
The first thing those against Britain's absorbtion into Europe now need to do is distance themselves from the Conservative Party or they will have their own campaign besmirched by their long history of treachery.
Barefaced Bullshit Begins
Writing in the Evening Standard last night, the leader of the opposition, who reports now circulating indicate required considerable persuasion from colleagues to endorse the idea of supporting a constitutional referendum at all, had the absolute gall to put his name to the following statement:-
"Politicians should never forget that they govern on behalf of the people. Individual parliaments, and the politicians elected to serve in them, do not own Britain's liberties. They are there to safeguard them. And they should not diminish those liberties without an explicit mandate from the British people."
Does Michael Howard not realise, that if the British people are not yet aware that that is exacrtly what he - as a long serving government minister - and the party which he leads have been doing for years.....then they soon will?!! And that all the facts are now almost certain to be revealed!
Does Michael Howard so quickly forget that even up to today he has chosen to remain in coalition with the European Peoples Party in the next European Parliament - a group that strongly supports the entire constitution.... which indeed believes it is insufficiently federalist?
Does Michael Howard believe that the people of Britain are completely stupid?
The answer to all those questions is YES, and if Howard believes that is good news for the Tories then he is not as clever as people assert. There is only one honourable course for Howard and that is resignation. There is probably no course for survival for the Conservatives and that seems justly deserved.
Let's face it, there is one group of politicians in Britain where more of such despicable dissemblers and thieves of democracy described in the paragraph written by Howard above and quoted in bold print, may be found more than anywhere else, and that is within the Conservative Party.
Writing in the Evening Standard last night, the leader of the opposition, who reports now circulating indicate required considerable persuasion from colleagues to endorse the idea of supporting a constitutional referendum at all, had the absolute gall to put his name to the following statement:-
"Politicians should never forget that they govern on behalf of the people. Individual parliaments, and the politicians elected to serve in them, do not own Britain's liberties. They are there to safeguard them. And they should not diminish those liberties without an explicit mandate from the British people."
Does Michael Howard not realise, that if the British people are not yet aware that that is exacrtly what he - as a long serving government minister - and the party which he leads have been doing for years.....then they soon will?!! And that all the facts are now almost certain to be revealed!
Does Michael Howard so quickly forget that even up to today he has chosen to remain in coalition with the European Peoples Party in the next European Parliament - a group that strongly supports the entire constitution.... which indeed believes it is insufficiently federalist?
Does Michael Howard believe that the people of Britain are completely stupid?
The answer to all those questions is YES, and if Howard believes that is good news for the Tories then he is not as clever as people assert. There is only one honourable course for Howard and that is resignation. There is probably no course for survival for the Conservatives and that seems justly deserved.
Let's face it, there is one group of politicians in Britain where more of such despicable dissemblers and thieves of democracy described in the paragraph written by Howard above and quoted in bold print, may be found more than anywhere else, and that is within the Conservative Party.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Howard Attacks Red Tape and Misses the Target
Just out from The Financial Times comes this report of an attack by the Leader of the Opposition on the fearful increase in regulations that serve to throttle the UK economy.
While the government of Tony Blair, singled out as the culprit is certainly partly to blame the real villain of the ever growing trend lies elsewhere and it is one supported by Howard's Conservative Party: namely the European Union.
The article may be read in full from here. It close with the following paragraph, symptomatic of the Conservatives confused viewpoint:-
Since Mr Howard became leader in the autumn, several big business figures who had abandoned the party under Iain Duncan Smith have returned to the fold.
Large corporations managed by the same type of bureaucratic individual that runs the entire EU project tend to favour the protection granted to their established market positions. It is the small business entrepreneur who truly provides the power to any economy that usually suffers from excess red tape.
Just out from The Financial Times comes this report of an attack by the Leader of the Opposition on the fearful increase in regulations that serve to throttle the UK economy.
While the government of Tony Blair, singled out as the culprit is certainly partly to blame the real villain of the ever growing trend lies elsewhere and it is one supported by Howard's Conservative Party: namely the European Union.
The article may be read in full from here. It close with the following paragraph, symptomatic of the Conservatives confused viewpoint:-
Since Mr Howard became leader in the autumn, several big business figures who had abandoned the party under Iain Duncan Smith have returned to the fold.
Large corporations managed by the same type of bureaucratic individual that runs the entire EU project tend to favour the protection granted to their established market positions. It is the small business entrepreneur who truly provides the power to any economy that usually suffers from excess red tape.
Conservative Corruption Condonement and Confusion finally gets some Coverage
A good two weeks later than when the story first broke the chaos in the ranks of the Conservative Party in Brussels finally gets a mention in the Christopher Booker column, which supposedly prides itself on being at the forefront of eu-sceptical news. The item is linked from here and concludes with this paragraph:-
But as a measure of the mess the Tories get into when they try to play weasel games over Europe, thus showing contempt for the views of most of their grass-roots membership, this shabby episode deserves more publicity than it has received.
Hear, hear....we have been doing our best on all our blogs and internet fora for the past couple of weeks....where was the Booker Column?
A good two weeks later than when the story first broke the chaos in the ranks of the Conservative Party in Brussels finally gets a mention in the Christopher Booker column, which supposedly prides itself on being at the forefront of eu-sceptical news. The item is linked from here and concludes with this paragraph:-
But as a measure of the mess the Tories get into when they try to play weasel games over Europe, thus showing contempt for the views of most of their grass-roots membership, this shabby episode deserves more publicity than it has received.
Hear, hear....we have been doing our best on all our blogs and internet fora for the past couple of weeks....where was the Booker Column?
Friday, April 16, 2004
Tories Tremble at the thought that TV Unknown could signal Howard's End
The lack of movement in the opinion polls must really be beginning to worry the Tory Top Brass.
A report about a new ITV popular show to select an independent unknown contestent to run in the next election has them all of a dither that the winner might decide to challenge their new, but very shop-soiled and care-worn looking leader. The article may be read in full from here, but these quotes give the flavour:-
Senior figures within the Conservative Party are understood to be deeply concerned that the winner would stand against their leader, Michael Howard, because his 5,907 majority in Folkestone and Hythe is significantly smaller to that of either Tony Blair or Charles Kennedy.
Their fears have been echoed by Sir Bernard Ingham, Lady Thatcher's former spokesman, who said it was not difficult to work out where the winner would stand "if they wanted maximum drama". He dismissed the show as "cheap entertainment" and "a disgrace" and called on the Electoral Commission to stop it going ahead.
Amazing what little faith the apparently conscienceless conservatives have in the new man they so ruthlessly replaced IDS with just a few months ago. One would have thought the acquired aura of power and all the attendant publicity would have been sufficient in itself to ensure that the new Number 1 would at least comfortably win in his own constituency; but all that was presumably before the polls reminded this bunch of nincompoops that any senior minister from the Major years was doomed to perpetual unpopularity with the broader electorate.
Maybe if they next pick Rifkind as leader, he will at least fend off any unknown TV challenger to retain his own seat. After all Kensington and Chelsea must surely be virtually impregnable?
The lack of movement in the opinion polls must really be beginning to worry the Tory Top Brass.
A report about a new ITV popular show to select an independent unknown contestent to run in the next election has them all of a dither that the winner might decide to challenge their new, but very shop-soiled and care-worn looking leader. The article may be read in full from here, but these quotes give the flavour:-
Senior figures within the Conservative Party are understood to be deeply concerned that the winner would stand against their leader, Michael Howard, because his 5,907 majority in Folkestone and Hythe is significantly smaller to that of either Tony Blair or Charles Kennedy.
Their fears have been echoed by Sir Bernard Ingham, Lady Thatcher's former spokesman, who said it was not difficult to work out where the winner would stand "if they wanted maximum drama". He dismissed the show as "cheap entertainment" and "a disgrace" and called on the Electoral Commission to stop it going ahead.
Amazing what little faith the apparently conscienceless conservatives have in the new man they so ruthlessly replaced IDS with just a few months ago. One would have thought the acquired aura of power and all the attendant publicity would have been sufficient in itself to ensure that the new Number 1 would at least comfortably win in his own constituency; but all that was presumably before the polls reminded this bunch of nincompoops that any senior minister from the Major years was doomed to perpetual unpopularity with the broader electorate.
Maybe if they next pick Rifkind as leader, he will at least fend off any unknown TV challenger to retain his own seat. After all Kensington and Chelsea must surely be virtually impregnable?
Federalist-linked Tories 'TABLE A FORMAL REQUEST' in Corruption Battle
EUobserver (linked here) today reports that :-
the UK Conservatives have secured the support of the 232-strong majority of the centre-right EPP-ED group to table a formal request for a debate over Eurostat during next week’s European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg.
Wow!! At last the fraudsters and siphoners of taxpayers' money will be running scared. The UK Conservatives have secured (mark you) the support of their EPP-ED Partners. What fearful battles did they wage to get such an enormous concession? None with their consciences, that's for sure.
There are numerous posts beneath this on this topic which relates to an original EUobserver item on 1st April also linked below. The key contentious item is the call for a censure motion against the Commission, which 11 Tories are reported to have broken the party whip to sign. Facts on that are hard to unearth signifying its critical importance to the loss of any anti-EU or anti-corruption credentials by the Tories if the true facts get out. The latest report states that 83 of the minimum 63 signatures needed for a censure motion remain. Watch this space for further news.
EUobserver (linked here) today reports that :-
the UK Conservatives have secured the support of the 232-strong majority of the centre-right EPP-ED group to table a formal request for a debate over Eurostat during next week’s European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg.
Wow!! At last the fraudsters and siphoners of taxpayers' money will be running scared. The UK Conservatives have secured (mark you) the support of their EPP-ED Partners. What fearful battles did they wage to get such an enormous concession? None with their consciences, that's for sure.
There are numerous posts beneath this on this topic which relates to an original EUobserver item on 1st April also linked below. The key contentious item is the call for a censure motion against the Commission, which 11 Tories are reported to have broken the party whip to sign. Facts on that are hard to unearth signifying its critical importance to the loss of any anti-EU or anti-corruption credentials by the Tories if the true facts get out. The latest report states that 83 of the minimum 63 signatures needed for a censure motion remain. Watch this space for further news.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Tories' Norris replaces Polly Toynbee as PC Standard-Bearer?
Polly Toynbee writing in The Guardian last week declared this as being no time for multi-culturalism! Trust the Tories not to have spotted the tide-turning. As Frank Maloney so revealingly highlights in his press release re-published below, the Tories - clearly now apparently believing in nothing - are left chasing fads and fancies, many of which have already passed.
Polly Toynbee wrote :- "We cannot afford to be apologetic about our cultural identity: not when we are under attack by fanatics who abhor our most deeply held values. The Union Jack belongs to us all.... (From The Week 10th April 2004)
Polly Toynbee writing in The Guardian last week declared this as being no time for multi-culturalism! Trust the Tories not to have spotted the tide-turning. As Frank Maloney so revealingly highlights in his press release re-published below, the Tories - clearly now apparently believing in nothing - are left chasing fads and fancies, many of which have already passed.
Polly Toynbee wrote :- "We cannot afford to be apologetic about our cultural identity: not when we are under attack by fanatics who abhor our most deeply held values. The Union Jack belongs to us all.... (From The Week 10th April 2004)
Frank Maloney Press Release
Norris Jumps On Politically Correct Bandwagon
Steve Norris has challenged London Elects the people that are running the London Mayoral, GLA and European Elections in London over their decision to publish the Mayoral Election addressses in English only. He says in a letter to the organisation that every Mayoral candidate would support him.
After reading this on Norris' own website Frank replied:
"I do not support Norris' comments. Has Norris forgotten that we actually live in Britain and that people in this country speak English? Putting the information in English only is not a snub to any community whatsoever. Anyone who chooses to work and live in this country in which you live will bring migrants into the community.
"Political correctness is ruining this country and we must avoid the situation where migrants remain independent and stay in their own little communities speaking their own languages and integrating with everyone else. Only last week Trevor Philips said that immigrants should accept the British way of life if they choose to live here.
Frank went on to say:
"Where does Norris intend to stop? Does he know how many lauguages there are in London? To have all the election addresses translated and printed into other languages would be a massive wast of time and money to the London taxpayer.
"London Elects have a tough enough job as it is managing three different elections with four different electoral systems using five different votes so they should be commended not criticised.
"Let's not forget no matter what colour, creed or religion if you live and work in London you are a poart of the London community, by speaking English it brings us all closer rather than remaining apart. This is called community spirit not political correctness."
Norris Jumps On Politically Correct Bandwagon
Steve Norris has challenged London Elects the people that are running the London Mayoral, GLA and European Elections in London over their decision to publish the Mayoral Election addressses in English only. He says in a letter to the organisation that every Mayoral candidate would support him.
After reading this on Norris' own website Frank replied:
"I do not support Norris' comments. Has Norris forgotten that we actually live in Britain and that people in this country speak English? Putting the information in English only is not a snub to any community whatsoever. Anyone who chooses to work and live in this country in which you live will bring migrants into the community.
"Political correctness is ruining this country and we must avoid the situation where migrants remain independent and stay in their own little communities speaking their own languages and integrating with everyone else. Only last week Trevor Philips said that immigrants should accept the British way of life if they choose to live here.
Frank went on to say:
"Where does Norris intend to stop? Does he know how many lauguages there are in London? To have all the election addresses translated and printed into other languages would be a massive wast of time and money to the London taxpayer.
"London Elects have a tough enough job as it is managing three different elections with four different electoral systems using five different votes so they should be commended not criticised.
"Let's not forget no matter what colour, creed or religion if you live and work in London you are a poart of the London community, by speaking English it brings us all closer rather than remaining apart. This is called community spirit not political correctness."
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Non-Resignations
I read this month's edition of The Sprout to mean that certain Tory MEP's had finally had the courage of their oft-stated anti-EU, anti-EPP, anti-Corporatist, pro- National Sovereignty principles to have at least resigned the European Parliamentary Conservative Party Whip, if not the EPP itself, when reading this passage in the magazine:-
The upshot is that 14 Tories have gone against direct instructions from their delegation leader (to remove their names from the motion), including Chris Heaton-Harris, who, at the time of going to press had resigned as Chief Whip. 'The Sprout' understands fellow sceptic MEPs Martin Callanan, Robert Goodwill, Theresa Villiers, Geoffrey Van Orden, Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan, have all joined Heaton-Harris.
What was previously an uneasy truce between the pro-European and Eurosceptic sides of the Tory delegation, now has degenerated to open war. What threatened to become a split after the election in June, when certain members had made it clear to 'The Sprout' that they would leave the umbrella group EPP, has now happened at the worst possible time, before the election,. As one staffer close to the disident members made it clear "One day after joining the EPP, we are ordered to stop criticising the European Commission - this is just what we feared!".
I contacted two of the Conservative MEPs involved for a comment on Good Friday and even up to this morning have yet to receive a response. Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I have been pushing my own MEP Daniel Hannan for an answer regarding the dreadful, corporatist, anti-NATO, anti-free-market, pro-common foreign policy EPP Manifesto, linked here, , since early February, also without reply.
Roger Helmer, the other MEP I queried, did make a statement last evening on the manifesto, which was circulated on an internet discussion forum to which I belong. Incredibly to me, he said this:-
"I have always opposed and campaigned against, our relationship with the EPP. But the terms of our relationship make quite explicit that we are not bound by, and do not subscribe to the EPP manifesto." What total lack of any moral principle is displayed in this statement?
Is Roger Helmer one of those who has let it be known to 'The Sprout' that they will not continue in the EPP after the elections? Is that an honest way to put himself and his party before the electorate?
'Campaigning against the EPP' as he puts it above, seems somewhat of an understatement when read alongside his speech to 'The Bruges Group', linked from here, on 3rd November 2001 which provided a multitude of reasons why the EPP relationship was dishonest. These quotes provide a flavour:-
There’s been a study done, by Dr Simon Hicks of the London School of Economics, who has analysed some 2000 recorded votes in the European parliament. And he’s analysed them by whether individual MEPs voted in a leftward, or a rightward direction, in political terms. And he has also analysed whether they were federalists, or anti-federalists. On the chart, federalists are at the top, and anti-federalists are at the bottom. If you look at the scatter chart you will see that the hard left are at about 9 o’clock on the left of the chart, and the cluster around 11 o’clock (a tightly packed blob) are the European socialists ... very federalist and a bit left of centre. Around 12 o’clock, we have a slightly smaller blob, which is the European Liberals, and they are very federalist and very centrist. Slightly to the right, and only slightly there, is that big thing that looks a bit like a puppy. That is, at 1 o’clock, the European Peoples’ Party – also federalist, extremely federalist – up there close to the socialists and the liberals, and very slightly right of centre, but only very slightly. But then, at the bottom right hand corner, within a curvy line, is another little blob and, guess what? That turns out to be the Conservatives, and the Conservatives are distinctly less federalist, thank heavens, and also somewhat to the right.
Now, what is very interesting about this is that all the other major groups in the European parliament, and particularly the socialists and the liberals, form their own individual, coherent blocks on this chart, voting together. The only group which splits into two clear and distinct sub groups, is actually this EPP group; and surprise, surprise, it splits into Conservative, and quite separately, the rest of the EPP. So here we have an independent, academic study showing that the Conservatives are miles apart from the EPP. And, if I might suggest, you write a letter to your Conservative MP if you have one, and if you don’t to Ian Duncan Smith, and point out to him that it’s about time the Conservatives left this federalist, and not very centre-right, group. It would be a good thing.
So, in conclusion, I would like to say that I think the next thing on the agenda, in my view, is for the Tories in Europe to set ourselves up as a separate and anti-integrationist voice in the European parliament. But, for Britain, the task is perhaps a little more difficult; and that is to get a government in Westminster which is going to go back to Brussels, and say: “enough is enough, we would like to have our country back”.
Read that speech and compare it with his statement from Mr Helmer's March 2004 Straight Talking NewsLetter, linked here, where he says this:-
But it is now time to put aside what is, at the end of the day, essentially an internal parliamentary matter, and to focus on the bigger picture -- which is to ensure a Conservative victory in June in the euro-elections!
So from a major matter of principle to a minor parliamentary matter. This is the Conservative Party's Lead Candidate in the East Midlands on June 10th. His Number Two: Chris Heaton-Harris. Apparently both non-resigners!
What hope is there for Britain? The only thing of any importance, apparently. is his own and his party's re-election! No matter if to get there they are prepared to prove that they truly believe in nothing!
I read this month's edition of The Sprout to mean that certain Tory MEP's had finally had the courage of their oft-stated anti-EU, anti-EPP, anti-Corporatist, pro- National Sovereignty principles to have at least resigned the European Parliamentary Conservative Party Whip, if not the EPP itself, when reading this passage in the magazine:-
The upshot is that 14 Tories have gone against direct instructions from their delegation leader (to remove their names from the motion), including Chris Heaton-Harris, who, at the time of going to press had resigned as Chief Whip. 'The Sprout' understands fellow sceptic MEPs Martin Callanan, Robert Goodwill, Theresa Villiers, Geoffrey Van Orden, Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan, have all joined Heaton-Harris.
What was previously an uneasy truce between the pro-European and Eurosceptic sides of the Tory delegation, now has degenerated to open war. What threatened to become a split after the election in June, when certain members had made it clear to 'The Sprout' that they would leave the umbrella group EPP, has now happened at the worst possible time, before the election,. As one staffer close to the disident members made it clear "One day after joining the EPP, we are ordered to stop criticising the European Commission - this is just what we feared!".
I contacted two of the Conservative MEPs involved for a comment on Good Friday and even up to this morning have yet to receive a response. Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I have been pushing my own MEP Daniel Hannan for an answer regarding the dreadful, corporatist, anti-NATO, anti-free-market, pro-common foreign policy EPP Manifesto, linked here, , since early February, also without reply.
Roger Helmer, the other MEP I queried, did make a statement last evening on the manifesto, which was circulated on an internet discussion forum to which I belong. Incredibly to me, he said this:-
"I have always opposed and campaigned against, our relationship with the EPP. But the terms of our relationship make quite explicit that we are not bound by, and do not subscribe to the EPP manifesto." What total lack of any moral principle is displayed in this statement?
Is Roger Helmer one of those who has let it be known to 'The Sprout' that they will not continue in the EPP after the elections? Is that an honest way to put himself and his party before the electorate?
'Campaigning against the EPP' as he puts it above, seems somewhat of an understatement when read alongside his speech to 'The Bruges Group', linked from here, on 3rd November 2001 which provided a multitude of reasons why the EPP relationship was dishonest. These quotes provide a flavour:-
There’s been a study done, by Dr Simon Hicks of the London School of Economics, who has analysed some 2000 recorded votes in the European parliament. And he’s analysed them by whether individual MEPs voted in a leftward, or a rightward direction, in political terms. And he has also analysed whether they were federalists, or anti-federalists. On the chart, federalists are at the top, and anti-federalists are at the bottom. If you look at the scatter chart you will see that the hard left are at about 9 o’clock on the left of the chart, and the cluster around 11 o’clock (a tightly packed blob) are the European socialists ... very federalist and a bit left of centre. Around 12 o’clock, we have a slightly smaller blob, which is the European Liberals, and they are very federalist and very centrist. Slightly to the right, and only slightly there, is that big thing that looks a bit like a puppy. That is, at 1 o’clock, the European Peoples’ Party – also federalist, extremely federalist – up there close to the socialists and the liberals, and very slightly right of centre, but only very slightly. But then, at the bottom right hand corner, within a curvy line, is another little blob and, guess what? That turns out to be the Conservatives, and the Conservatives are distinctly less federalist, thank heavens, and also somewhat to the right.
Now, what is very interesting about this is that all the other major groups in the European parliament, and particularly the socialists and the liberals, form their own individual, coherent blocks on this chart, voting together. The only group which splits into two clear and distinct sub groups, is actually this EPP group; and surprise, surprise, it splits into Conservative, and quite separately, the rest of the EPP. So here we have an independent, academic study showing that the Conservatives are miles apart from the EPP. And, if I might suggest, you write a letter to your Conservative MP if you have one, and if you don’t to Ian Duncan Smith, and point out to him that it’s about time the Conservatives left this federalist, and not very centre-right, group. It would be a good thing.
So, in conclusion, I would like to say that I think the next thing on the agenda, in my view, is for the Tories in Europe to set ourselves up as a separate and anti-integrationist voice in the European parliament. But, for Britain, the task is perhaps a little more difficult; and that is to get a government in Westminster which is going to go back to Brussels, and say: “enough is enough, we would like to have our country back”.
Read that speech and compare it with his statement from Mr Helmer's March 2004 Straight Talking NewsLetter, linked here, where he says this:-
But it is now time to put aside what is, at the end of the day, essentially an internal parliamentary matter, and to focus on the bigger picture -- which is to ensure a Conservative victory in June in the euro-elections!
So from a major matter of principle to a minor parliamentary matter. This is the Conservative Party's Lead Candidate in the East Midlands on June 10th. His Number Two: Chris Heaton-Harris. Apparently both non-resigners!
What hope is there for Britain? The only thing of any importance, apparently. is his own and his party's re-election! No matter if to get there they are prepared to prove that they truly believe in nothing!
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Howard's Hypocrisy
On 28th January, 2004 the following was written by Tory MEP and Chief Whip Chris Heaton-Harris and remains on the web site of the Conservative Party to this very day:-
There is a complete lack of political responsibility within the Commission which brings the name of all European Institutions into disrepute. Commissioners Kinnock, Solbes, and Schreyer all have a case to answer about their failure to protect taxpayers' money."
The full article clearly covers the matter of the disgraceful fraud at 'Eurostat' as made plain from this further quote from the same MEP on the Torie's web page:-
"The 2001 accounts were only signed off because Parliament had been denied access to important information relating to the Eurostat affair. Despite assertions to the contrary, there are still strong grounds that Members of the Commission may have had access to the alarming information contained in the audit reports on Eurostat."
The item is linked from here.
HOW CAN THIS BE RECONCILED WITH THE WIDELY CIRCULATING REPORTS THAT THE TORIES WERE ORDERED TO WITHDRAW THEIR SIGNATURES FROM A CENSURE MOTION ON THE EUROSTAT FRAUD?
We quote from EUobserver's report on this matter dated 1st April linked here, as elaborated upon in 'The Sprout' and yesterday's Sunday Telegraph which items are quoted in full in postings on this blog which follow this.
I e-mailed two of the MEPs named in one of those articles, but have yet to receive a reply. We continue to follow the story of the apparent premature break-up of the EPP-ED group and the exact status of the eleven rebel Conservative MEPs who signed the censure motion and will update the information on this blog as soon as possible.
My congratulatory e-mail included the following:-
Quote
Dear ....,
Having read April's 'The Sprout' and urged you towards such drastic action I can but offer you my heartiest congratulations on your resignation in protest over the EPP links.
I would be delighted to put out any statement you may wish to make on any of my various blogs Teetering Tories (where I have reproduced the Sprout column) or 'Ironies' and/or UKIP Uncovered.
I stand ready to do anything further, as I might be able, to give British voters a chance to cast a non-racist, genuinely anti-EU vote on 10th June.
.....
Unquote
On 28th January, 2004 the following was written by Tory MEP and Chief Whip Chris Heaton-Harris and remains on the web site of the Conservative Party to this very day:-
There is a complete lack of political responsibility within the Commission which brings the name of all European Institutions into disrepute. Commissioners Kinnock, Solbes, and Schreyer all have a case to answer about their failure to protect taxpayers' money."
The full article clearly covers the matter of the disgraceful fraud at 'Eurostat' as made plain from this further quote from the same MEP on the Torie's web page:-
"The 2001 accounts were only signed off because Parliament had been denied access to important information relating to the Eurostat affair. Despite assertions to the contrary, there are still strong grounds that Members of the Commission may have had access to the alarming information contained in the audit reports on Eurostat."
The item is linked from here.
HOW CAN THIS BE RECONCILED WITH THE WIDELY CIRCULATING REPORTS THAT THE TORIES WERE ORDERED TO WITHDRAW THEIR SIGNATURES FROM A CENSURE MOTION ON THE EUROSTAT FRAUD?
We quote from EUobserver's report on this matter dated 1st April linked here, as elaborated upon in 'The Sprout' and yesterday's Sunday Telegraph which items are quoted in full in postings on this blog which follow this.
I e-mailed two of the MEPs named in one of those articles, but have yet to receive a reply. We continue to follow the story of the apparent premature break-up of the EPP-ED group and the exact status of the eleven rebel Conservative MEPs who signed the censure motion and will update the information on this blog as soon as possible.
My congratulatory e-mail included the following:-
Quote
Dear ....,
Having read April's 'The Sprout' and urged you towards such drastic action I can but offer you my heartiest congratulations on your resignation in protest over the EPP links.
I would be delighted to put out any statement you may wish to make on any of my various blogs Teetering Tories (where I have reproduced the Sprout column) or 'Ironies' and/or UKIP Uncovered.
I stand ready to do anything further, as I might be able, to give British voters a chance to cast a non-racist, genuinely anti-EU vote on 10th June.
.....
Unquote
Monday, April 12, 2004
The Conservatives ARE Concerned about the EU!
Shame on those of you who have been saying that they are not! Click here to read about one pressing campaign: Save our Supplements!. Time for new blood in the leadership perhaps!
Shame on those of you who have been saying that they are not! Click here to read about one pressing campaign: Save our Supplements!. Time for new blood in the leadership perhaps!
THE QUESTION OF EU WITHDRAWAL
The letter from the Chairman of the real Liberal Party, posted in full last evening immediately beneath this posting, indicates that serious discussion of the 'Withdrawal Option' has been underway within that party. The implications for the UK Independence Party have, of course, been commented upon frequently in the blog, Ukip Uncovered, not least earlier today in light of the letter below.
Michael Portillo writing yesterday in the Sunday Times also discussed this topic at length and opened his article as follows:-
April 11, 2004
Comment: Michael Portillo: Just say no: the armageddon vote that could save Europe
I support British membership of the European Union, but if Tony Blair dishonestly offers us a referendum not on its new constitution but on being in or out of Europe, I shall vote for out.
Later Portillo continues to the essence of the withdrawalist case: Blair belongs to the fatalistic tendency that has dominated British policy towards Europe since the 1950s. He evidently believes that whenever our European partners propose a new treaty, Britain has no alternative but to accede.
Believing that 'no' is not an option leaves us powerless and looking foolish. Of course our European partners do not take us seriously.
Now it is a very, very long time since I entertained any notion that Michael Portillo might be the politician best suited to end Britain's EU nightmare, so I must admit to having been somewhat amazed at reading these views up to that point. The deviousness and inability to contemplate adhesion to a stated political position that seems to be the hallmark of the present Conservative Party, then quickly reappeared and reconfirmed all my old suspicions as I came to this most extraordinary passage:-
If Blair is foolish enough to offer withdrawal from Europe as a referendum option, the British people might be bloody-minded enough to go for it. All through the campaign he would tell them that such a decision would be irrevocable and disastrous. They might fall for that, but I doubt it. The real result would be short-term chaos, but not catastrophe. There would be
nobody in government and almost nobody in opposition willing to carry out the people's instruction to pull out. So it wouldn't happen.
"Sod the Referendum outcome, and the electorate!" is clearly Portillo's view. Such a reaction by the politicians IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. If it appeared to be going to be the case, then new political leaders would need to be found, willing and able to put into effect the democratically registered aims of the people of this country.
Michael Portillo has in this article exposed the contempt that those at the top of the Conservative Party hold for any democratic process, and the methodology by which they seek to construct party policy - proposing one set of policies while clearly planning another!
The eleven conservative MEP rebels whose defiance of EPP/Conservative Party instructions has allowed a debate on the dreadful mishandling and now apparent cover-up of the Eurostat corruption case, involving as it does the senior British Commission Vice-President and already once suspended EU Commissioner, Neil Kinnock, seems to be only an isolated but refreshing departure from this Tory contempt for the electorate. As we proceed towards the European Parliamentary debate on 21st April the distance which the present day Conservative Party under the leadership of Michael Howard has travelled in apparently condoning corruption will become increasingly clear.
Michael Portillo's article in yesterday's newspaper will further illustrate how far from any sense of duty towards the known electoral wishes of the British people, one-time ministers in John Major's administration truly seem to have travelled. The British electorate should not entrust such men with the reins of power again!
The letter from the Chairman of the real Liberal Party, posted in full last evening immediately beneath this posting, indicates that serious discussion of the 'Withdrawal Option' has been underway within that party. The implications for the UK Independence Party have, of course, been commented upon frequently in the blog, Ukip Uncovered, not least earlier today in light of the letter below.
Michael Portillo writing yesterday in the Sunday Times also discussed this topic at length and opened his article as follows:-
April 11, 2004
Comment: Michael Portillo: Just say no: the armageddon vote that could save Europe
I support British membership of the European Union, but if Tony Blair dishonestly offers us a referendum not on its new constitution but on being in or out of Europe, I shall vote for out.
Later Portillo continues to the essence of the withdrawalist case: Blair belongs to the fatalistic tendency that has dominated British policy towards Europe since the 1950s. He evidently believes that whenever our European partners propose a new treaty, Britain has no alternative but to accede.
Believing that 'no' is not an option leaves us powerless and looking foolish. Of course our European partners do not take us seriously.
Now it is a very, very long time since I entertained any notion that Michael Portillo might be the politician best suited to end Britain's EU nightmare, so I must admit to having been somewhat amazed at reading these views up to that point. The deviousness and inability to contemplate adhesion to a stated political position that seems to be the hallmark of the present Conservative Party, then quickly reappeared and reconfirmed all my old suspicions as I came to this most extraordinary passage:-
If Blair is foolish enough to offer withdrawal from Europe as a referendum option, the British people might be bloody-minded enough to go for it. All through the campaign he would tell them that such a decision would be irrevocable and disastrous. They might fall for that, but I doubt it. The real result would be short-term chaos, but not catastrophe. There would be
nobody in government and almost nobody in opposition willing to carry out the people's instruction to pull out. So it wouldn't happen.
"Sod the Referendum outcome, and the electorate!" is clearly Portillo's view. Such a reaction by the politicians IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. If it appeared to be going to be the case, then new political leaders would need to be found, willing and able to put into effect the democratically registered aims of the people of this country.
Michael Portillo has in this article exposed the contempt that those at the top of the Conservative Party hold for any democratic process, and the methodology by which they seek to construct party policy - proposing one set of policies while clearly planning another!
The eleven conservative MEP rebels whose defiance of EPP/Conservative Party instructions has allowed a debate on the dreadful mishandling and now apparent cover-up of the Eurostat corruption case, involving as it does the senior British Commission Vice-President and already once suspended EU Commissioner, Neil Kinnock, seems to be only an isolated but refreshing departure from this Tory contempt for the electorate. As we proceed towards the European Parliamentary debate on 21st April the distance which the present day Conservative Party under the leadership of Michael Howard has travelled in apparently condoning corruption will become increasingly clear.
Michael Portillo's article in yesterday's newspaper will further illustrate how far from any sense of duty towards the known electoral wishes of the British people, one-time ministers in John Major's administration truly seem to have travelled. The British electorate should not entrust such men with the reins of power again!
Sunday, April 11, 2004
A Real Anti-EU Communication
Cllr Steve Radford
Chairman of The Liberal Party
41 Sutton Street
Tuebrook
Liverpool
L13 7EG
0151 259 5935
Dear Friends,
As the CIB holds its AGM in the coming week, on behalf of The Liberal Party, may I send an open message of support and thanks.
Whilst The Liberal Party calls for a Commonwealth of Europe and fundamental reform of the current EU, Liberal Party members have genuine differences how this may be best achieved.
Many of us believe, the threat of withdrawal from the EU, would be the only way to bring about real change.
To the CIB we wish to express our thanks for providing an all party and non-partisan platform for people who are critical of the EU.
The CIB Magazine Liberty News has been welcoming to contributors from across the political spectrum.
Here in the West Derby and Tuebrook Constituency, we have now delivered a second round of 15,000 copies of Liberty News. This maximises the public debate, which is critical of the EU, reaching people of all and no political affiliation.
I make no apology in commenting, with extra financial support we would extend this project further afield and reach a broader audience, not just in Liverpool.
To the Officers of CIB may I express my personal thanks for their co-operation and best wishes for future campaigning.
Cllr Steve Radford
Chairman of The Liberal Party
Cllr Steve Radford
Chairman of The Liberal Party
41 Sutton Street
Tuebrook
Liverpool
L13 7EG
0151 259 5935
Dear Friends,
As the CIB holds its AGM in the coming week, on behalf of The Liberal Party, may I send an open message of support and thanks.
Whilst The Liberal Party calls for a Commonwealth of Europe and fundamental reform of the current EU, Liberal Party members have genuine differences how this may be best achieved.
Many of us believe, the threat of withdrawal from the EU, would be the only way to bring about real change.
To the CIB we wish to express our thanks for providing an all party and non-partisan platform for people who are critical of the EU.
The CIB Magazine Liberty News has been welcoming to contributors from across the political spectrum.
Here in the West Derby and Tuebrook Constituency, we have now delivered a second round of 15,000 copies of Liberty News. This maximises the public debate, which is critical of the EU, reaching people of all and no political affiliation.
I make no apology in commenting, with extra financial support we would extend this project further afield and reach a broader audience, not just in Liverpool.
To the Officers of CIB may I express my personal thanks for their co-operation and best wishes for future campaigning.
Cllr Steve Radford
Chairman of The Liberal Party
The EPP Dilemma for the Tories
The present difficulties over the continuation of the Conservatives within the EPP are nothing new, as can be seen from this CPS paper by Gawain Towler written in 2001. Who would have guessed that Michael Howard would get it so disastrously wrong:
Quote
BLOC TORY: A NEW PARTY FOR EUROPE?
A crucial decision facing the next Conservative Party Leader
An important decision will face the next leader of the Conservative Party: should the Party's MEPs continue to be members of the EPP/ED? Or should they form a new Party Group in Europe, one which could maximise their influence and better represent its views on the destiny of Europe? The deadline for this crucial decision is December 2001.
Power in the European Parliament is wielded by the political Groups, composed of different national parties of supposedly similar views. For the last ten years the Conservative Party has been part of the European Peoples Party (EPP). This alliance must end, argues Gawain Towler, a senior Parliamentary advisor.
The EPP is an avowedly federalist party, committed to the political unification of the continent. As Jacques Santer has said:
"We Christian Democrats in the European People's Party want the European Community to become the United States of Europe."
The current President of the Parliament, Nicole Fontaine MEP, is an EPP member and was the Group's nominee for the post. She subscribes to the democratic socialist consensus that wishes to see the concentration of economic decision-making in Brussels. She has attacked:
"untrammelled capitalism… [the] ruthless exploitation of the disparities between the social and fiscal legislation of the Member States and remorseless pursuit of profit at the expense of working men and women."
The EPP has consistently supported proposals for tax harmonisation, social and workplace regulations, and the creation of an EU constitution. These are not natural themes for either Ken Clarke or Iain Duncan Smith.
The Conservative Party is presently a make-weight in the EPP - the Party's numerical weight is added to that of the EPP in the dividing up of Parliamentary spoils but its actual views are ignored in the formation of EPP policy.
The secondary role played by Conservative MEPs is illustrated by the order of speakers in the debate on the new Belgian Presidency: the Conservative representative spoke 22nd - after the communist leader, the Flemish fascist leader, and the representative of Jorg Haider's Freedom Party.
Towler calculates the likely composition of a new Group. It would be the third largest Group in the Parliament and Conservative MEPs would be its undisputed leaders. Most importantly of all, eurosceptic voters across Europe would have the chance to elect politicians who could represent their views in Brussels. If the aspirations of anti-federalists are to be given expression, the Conservative Party must abandon its alliance with the EPP - and act now.
Unquote
The original paper may be read from this link.
It is daily becoming clearer why those cheering the loudest when Howard ousted IDS seemed to be Polly Toynbee in The Guardian and the entire team on the Radio 4 'Today' programme.
The present difficulties over the continuation of the Conservatives within the EPP are nothing new, as can be seen from this CPS paper by Gawain Towler written in 2001. Who would have guessed that Michael Howard would get it so disastrously wrong:
Quote
BLOC TORY: A NEW PARTY FOR EUROPE?
A crucial decision facing the next Conservative Party Leader
An important decision will face the next leader of the Conservative Party: should the Party's MEPs continue to be members of the EPP/ED? Or should they form a new Party Group in Europe, one which could maximise their influence and better represent its views on the destiny of Europe? The deadline for this crucial decision is December 2001.
Power in the European Parliament is wielded by the political Groups, composed of different national parties of supposedly similar views. For the last ten years the Conservative Party has been part of the European Peoples Party (EPP). This alliance must end, argues Gawain Towler, a senior Parliamentary advisor.
The EPP is an avowedly federalist party, committed to the political unification of the continent. As Jacques Santer has said:
"We Christian Democrats in the European People's Party want the European Community to become the United States of Europe."
The current President of the Parliament, Nicole Fontaine MEP, is an EPP member and was the Group's nominee for the post. She subscribes to the democratic socialist consensus that wishes to see the concentration of economic decision-making in Brussels. She has attacked:
"untrammelled capitalism… [the] ruthless exploitation of the disparities between the social and fiscal legislation of the Member States and remorseless pursuit of profit at the expense of working men and women."
The EPP has consistently supported proposals for tax harmonisation, social and workplace regulations, and the creation of an EU constitution. These are not natural themes for either Ken Clarke or Iain Duncan Smith.
The Conservative Party is presently a make-weight in the EPP - the Party's numerical weight is added to that of the EPP in the dividing up of Parliamentary spoils but its actual views are ignored in the formation of EPP policy.
The secondary role played by Conservative MEPs is illustrated by the order of speakers in the debate on the new Belgian Presidency: the Conservative representative spoke 22nd - after the communist leader, the Flemish fascist leader, and the representative of Jorg Haider's Freedom Party.
Towler calculates the likely composition of a new Group. It would be the third largest Group in the Parliament and Conservative MEPs would be its undisputed leaders. Most importantly of all, eurosceptic voters across Europe would have the chance to elect politicians who could represent their views in Brussels. If the aspirations of anti-federalists are to be given expression, the Conservative Party must abandon its alliance with the EPP - and act now.
Unquote
The original paper may be read from this link.
It is daily becoming clearer why those cheering the loudest when Howard ousted IDS seemed to be Polly Toynbee in The Guardian and the entire team on the Radio 4 'Today' programme.
Tory Revolt gets Sunday Telegraph Passing Reference
MEPs defy Howard
Eleven Tory members of the European Parliament defied Michael Howard's orders by backing a motion of censure against the European Commission seeking an emergency debate on fraud and corruption allegations. The unprecedented debate will be held on April 21 after 66 MEPs supported the move.
Such is the passing reference to the event that is likely to be the forerunner to the end of the hopes of any success for the Tories in the coming European Parliamentary elections set for 10th June. Howard's disastrous decision to remain with the ultra-EU Federalist European Peoples Party after the elections, which resulted in the clear attempt to condone corruption, should drive any Conservatives with the smallest amount of remaining integrity clean out of the party.
Nick Cohen gives the likely beneficiaries, the United Kingdom Independence Party, extensive coverage in another Sunday Broadsheet, The Observer. His column titled 'Accentuating the negative ' has an underlying tone of criticism but steers well clear of what could be described as a full frontal attack and the party is portrayed as having much potential impact in the upcoming European Parliamentary elections.
The Observer article is linked from here.
MEPs defy Howard
Eleven Tory members of the European Parliament defied Michael Howard's orders by backing a motion of censure against the European Commission seeking an emergency debate on fraud and corruption allegations. The unprecedented debate will be held on April 21 after 66 MEPs supported the move.
Such is the passing reference to the event that is likely to be the forerunner to the end of the hopes of any success for the Tories in the coming European Parliamentary elections set for 10th June. Howard's disastrous decision to remain with the ultra-EU Federalist European Peoples Party after the elections, which resulted in the clear attempt to condone corruption, should drive any Conservatives with the smallest amount of remaining integrity clean out of the party.
Nick Cohen gives the likely beneficiaries, the United Kingdom Independence Party, extensive coverage in another Sunday Broadsheet, The Observer. His column titled 'Accentuating the negative ' has an underlying tone of criticism but steers well clear of what could be described as a full frontal attack and the party is portrayed as having much potential impact in the upcoming European Parliamentary elections.
The Observer article is linked from here.
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Open Tory Revolt to be Reported in Tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph!
Finally it appears that there are a few Tories left with integrity, and that some will ACTUALLY declare themselves in tomorrow's Sunday Press. The following was circulating on the internet this afternoon:-
Probably Page 2 of The Sunday Telegraph
Will prove of interest to individuals with integrity in The Tory Party!!
Probable Headline is:
Tory Party in Open Revolt!
You will enjoy.
Perhaps now that Tories have broken ranks and are in open defiance of their leaders and refusing to take the EPP Whip we might manage to get Howard to address the elephant in the room which is still being hidden behind the legs of the Tory dinosaurs!
The ONLY realistic hope for the Tories of EVER being elected again as a Government in Britain is if they promise to represent the best interests of Britain and the peoples of Britain and lead the country out of the supra-national EUropean soviet.
Then they will win with a landslide!
This move to honesty by what seems at the moment to be 11 Tory MEPs will leave Jonathan Evans marginalized as leader and the main protagonist of the betrayal of Britain in the Tory 'camp' in the EPP
Finally it appears that there are a few Tories left with integrity, and that some will ACTUALLY declare themselves in tomorrow's Sunday Press. The following was circulating on the internet this afternoon:-
Probably Page 2 of The Sunday Telegraph
Will prove of interest to individuals with integrity in The Tory Party!!
Probable Headline is:
Tory Party in Open Revolt!
You will enjoy.
Perhaps now that Tories have broken ranks and are in open defiance of their leaders and refusing to take the EPP Whip we might manage to get Howard to address the elephant in the room which is still being hidden behind the legs of the Tory dinosaurs!
The ONLY realistic hope for the Tories of EVER being elected again as a Government in Britain is if they promise to represent the best interests of Britain and the peoples of Britain and lead the country out of the supra-national EUropean soviet.
Then they will win with a landslide!
This move to honesty by what seems at the moment to be 11 Tory MEPs will leave Jonathan Evans marginalized as leader and the main protagonist of the betrayal of Britain in the Tory 'camp' in the EPP
Howard's Conservatives Condone EU Commission's Corruption Cover-up
The Eurostat Corruption affair is a typically nasty example of EU dirty-dealings involving out of control expense accounts, official blind-eyes, Commissioner denials of knowledge later disproven etc.etc. A good account for those interested is available from this link: Eurostat: Solbes accused of 'not acting sooner'
The problems for the Conservative Party arose on April Fools Day when 63 MEP signatures were required to bring the matter before the entire European Parliament for a vote on a motion of censure. The EUoberver report written that day was commented upon on this blog and is now also linked from here and titled 'Centre-Right agree to keep Eurosceptics in their ranks'. The description of the resulting Conservative attempts to accede to the Commission's Corruption which has never been denied by the party were described thus:-
Behave or else
The awkwardness of this EPP-ED (European Democrat) relationship was clearly demonstrated on the issue of whether to censure the European Commission for its behaviour concerning the eurostat frauds.
While most of the Tories yesterday evening were prepared to sign up to the motion - by this morning some 15 had withdrawn their signatures.
This followed a showdown with Mr Pöttering who, according to an insider, issued an ultimatum.
Afterwards, Jonathan Evans, the leaders of the Tories in the European Parliament, sent a letter to the group saying that he was withdrawing his signature from the motion. Some 15 others then followed suit.
As I stated in the concluding paragraphs of my posting here of 1st April on this subject :-
The message is clear, to be a Tory MEP in Howard's Conservatives - Corruption may not be censured! By staying within the EPP, neither eurosceptism nor even eurorealism is apparently even acceptable.
H.C. could stand for Howard's Conservatives, but perhaps a better sense would be Heseltine Clarke!.
The report posted yesterday in The Sprout magazine April edition (see posting immediately beneath this) makes clear that at least on 1st April, there were still seven Tory MEPs with some remaining consciences regarding ther oft stated party policy of opposing Brussels corruption. Whether this remains the case, or whether the lack of press coverage of their reported rebellion in the interim indicates they have been silenced and their revolt squashed, presently remains to be seen.
What too, are we to make of the attitudes and plans of the seven, apparently anti-corruption, Conservative eurosceptic MEPs? They had apparently explained to The Sprout that once safely re-elected and their comfortable perks and salaries having been secured for a further five years on the basis of official Conservative Party pro-EPP party list backing, they would subsequently withdraw their support for the EPP. Whatever were they planning to say to their voters on the EPP subject during the campaign?
In all events it is grim news for the Conservatives. Now the true nature of the party under Michael Howard can really be revealed to the entire national voting public ahead of polling day on 10th June.
Such is the Conservative Party as run by Michael Howard. They clearly do not deserve a single MEP in June. Those sitting MEPs who did not sign the Eurostat petition are happy to condone institutionalised corruption, those who signed and then withdrew their signature have to be spineless sycophants while those who maintained their signatures and possibly initially resigned the party whip (these exact events remain to be clarified) were apparently originally planning to dupe their own electorate in a pretence of accepting the EPP group membership in order to retain party sponsorship in the polls.
The Eurostat Corruption affair is a typically nasty example of EU dirty-dealings involving out of control expense accounts, official blind-eyes, Commissioner denials of knowledge later disproven etc.etc. A good account for those interested is available from this link: Eurostat: Solbes accused of 'not acting sooner'
The problems for the Conservative Party arose on April Fools Day when 63 MEP signatures were required to bring the matter before the entire European Parliament for a vote on a motion of censure. The EUoberver report written that day was commented upon on this blog and is now also linked from here and titled 'Centre-Right agree to keep Eurosceptics in their ranks'. The description of the resulting Conservative attempts to accede to the Commission's Corruption which has never been denied by the party were described thus:-
Behave or else
The awkwardness of this EPP-ED (European Democrat) relationship was clearly demonstrated on the issue of whether to censure the European Commission for its behaviour concerning the eurostat frauds.
While most of the Tories yesterday evening were prepared to sign up to the motion - by this morning some 15 had withdrawn their signatures.
This followed a showdown with Mr Pöttering who, according to an insider, issued an ultimatum.
Afterwards, Jonathan Evans, the leaders of the Tories in the European Parliament, sent a letter to the group saying that he was withdrawing his signature from the motion. Some 15 others then followed suit.
As I stated in the concluding paragraphs of my posting here of 1st April on this subject :-
The message is clear, to be a Tory MEP in Howard's Conservatives - Corruption may not be censured! By staying within the EPP, neither eurosceptism nor even eurorealism is apparently even acceptable.
H.C. could stand for Howard's Conservatives, but perhaps a better sense would be Heseltine Clarke!.
The report posted yesterday in The Sprout magazine April edition (see posting immediately beneath this) makes clear that at least on 1st April, there were still seven Tory MEPs with some remaining consciences regarding ther oft stated party policy of opposing Brussels corruption. Whether this remains the case, or whether the lack of press coverage of their reported rebellion in the interim indicates they have been silenced and their revolt squashed, presently remains to be seen.
What too, are we to make of the attitudes and plans of the seven, apparently anti-corruption, Conservative eurosceptic MEPs? They had apparently explained to The Sprout that once safely re-elected and their comfortable perks and salaries having been secured for a further five years on the basis of official Conservative Party pro-EPP party list backing, they would subsequently withdraw their support for the EPP. Whatever were they planning to say to their voters on the EPP subject during the campaign?
In all events it is grim news for the Conservatives. Now the true nature of the party under Michael Howard can really be revealed to the entire national voting public ahead of polling day on 10th June.
Such is the Conservative Party as run by Michael Howard. They clearly do not deserve a single MEP in June. Those sitting MEPs who did not sign the Eurostat petition are happy to condone institutionalised corruption, those who signed and then withdrew their signature have to be spineless sycophants while those who maintained their signatures and possibly initially resigned the party whip (these exact events remain to be clarified) were apparently originally planning to dupe their own electorate in a pretence of accepting the EPP group membership in order to retain party sponsorship in the polls.
Friday, April 09, 2004
The Sprout Report on the Tory Resignations.
We reproduce below the full piece on the reported resignations of the Conservative MEPs. Once again we recommend a subscription to this monthly Brussels satirical magazine available from managersubs 'at' theSproutnet or from this link The Sprout. This month's edition is to be particularly commended for its courageous exposure of the harrowing paedophile scandal which seems to have links throughout Belgium and to the highest levels of its society.
Quote
Tory Euro MPs in disarray over Eurostat, boss resigns
A split between UK conservative MEPs, (pro-European and their eurosceptic counterparts), which was planned to take place after the June election, is now likely to happen - threatening to undermine their current UK campaign.
In the early hours of April 1st, an email was sent to Conservative MEPs. The dispatch, which most must have thought was an April fool's joke in particularly bad taste, was from Jonathan Evans, leader of the Group. Strangely, the mail was also addressed to Dana Scallon the independent, reprobate Irish MEP who seems to be taking instructions from the Tories.
Evans required that the entire delegation take their names from a parliamentary motion which called for a censure vote the EU Commission on its appalling handling of the Eurostat fraud affair. Many Tories have been intimately involved in prosecuting this case. For a motion to be accepted, 63 signatures are necessary (out of a total of 626 MEPs). The loss of the Tory names would cause the motion to fall.
It seems that Evans and the Tories had just accepted the secondary role in the EPP/ED group that had been allotted to them, after being summoned to the leader of the EPP group, Hans-Gert Poettering. At that meeting, which 'The Sprout' understands was very heated, Poettering made it clear that the Tories' names had to be removed. The upshot is that 14 Tories have gone against direct instructions from their delegation leader (to remove their names from the motion), including Chris Heaton-Harris, who, at the time of going to press had resigned as Chief Whip. 'The Sprout' understands fellow sceptic MEPs Martin Callanan, Robert Goodwill, Theresa Villiers, Geoffrey Van Orden, Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan, have all joined Heaton-Harris.
What was previously an uneasy truce between the pro-European and Eurosceptic sides of the Tory delegation, now has degenerated to open war. What threatened to become a split after the election in June, when certain members had made it clear to 'The Sprout' that they would leave the umbrella group EPP, has now happened at the worst possible time, before the election,. As one staffer close to the disident members made it clear "One day after joining the EPP, we are ordered to stop criticising the European Commission - this is just what we feared!". Meanwhile there were celebrations involving chilled champagne in the offices of UKIP as they watched the implosion Tory party unity.
We reproduce below the full piece on the reported resignations of the Conservative MEPs. Once again we recommend a subscription to this monthly Brussels satirical magazine available from managersubs 'at' theSproutnet or from this link The Sprout. This month's edition is to be particularly commended for its courageous exposure of the harrowing paedophile scandal which seems to have links throughout Belgium and to the highest levels of its society.
Quote
Tory Euro MPs in disarray over Eurostat, boss resigns
A split between UK conservative MEPs, (pro-European and their eurosceptic counterparts), which was planned to take place after the June election, is now likely to happen - threatening to undermine their current UK campaign.
In the early hours of April 1st, an email was sent to Conservative MEPs. The dispatch, which most must have thought was an April fool's joke in particularly bad taste, was from Jonathan Evans, leader of the Group. Strangely, the mail was also addressed to Dana Scallon the independent, reprobate Irish MEP who seems to be taking instructions from the Tories.
Evans required that the entire delegation take their names from a parliamentary motion which called for a censure vote the EU Commission on its appalling handling of the Eurostat fraud affair. Many Tories have been intimately involved in prosecuting this case. For a motion to be accepted, 63 signatures are necessary (out of a total of 626 MEPs). The loss of the Tory names would cause the motion to fall.
It seems that Evans and the Tories had just accepted the secondary role in the EPP/ED group that had been allotted to them, after being summoned to the leader of the EPP group, Hans-Gert Poettering. At that meeting, which 'The Sprout' understands was very heated, Poettering made it clear that the Tories' names had to be removed. The upshot is that 14 Tories have gone against direct instructions from their delegation leader (to remove their names from the motion), including Chris Heaton-Harris, who, at the time of going to press had resigned as Chief Whip. 'The Sprout' understands fellow sceptic MEPs Martin Callanan, Robert Goodwill, Theresa Villiers, Geoffrey Van Orden, Roger Helmer and Dan Hannan, have all joined Heaton-Harris.
What was previously an uneasy truce between the pro-European and Eurosceptic sides of the Tory delegation, now has degenerated to open war. What threatened to become a split after the election in June, when certain members had made it clear to 'The Sprout' that they would leave the umbrella group EPP, has now happened at the worst possible time, before the election,. As one staffer close to the disident members made it clear "One day after joining the EPP, we are ordered to stop criticising the European Commission - this is just what we feared!". Meanwhile there were celebrations involving chilled champagne in the offices of UKIP as they watched the implosion Tory party unity.
Reported Tory Resignations
We are trying to obtain further details on the reported resignations of the 'magnificent' seven eurosceptic conservative MEPs, see the posting immediately beneath this and will publish further information as it becomes known.
Meantime this carefully considered declaration of reasons as to why the present Conservative Party leadership is not to be trusted over the EU has been circulated on an internet discussion group overnight. We are presently leaving it anonymous as we have no permission to reproduce it here, however it is from an exceptionally well known and respected eurosceptic former party member and MP whose opinion still carries considerable weight.
Quote
The Conservative Party cannot be trusted on the European Union
1. There have been no apologies for past crimes and deceits.
2. Michael Howard's Berlin speech committed Britain to continued full membership.
3. The things he wants - repatriation of CFP/CAP are unobtainable within the EU structure
4. Howard signed a letter from the so-called "Marine Stewardship Group" which appeared in Sunday Times (29 Feb) supporting the cutback of British fishing fleet. Chairman of this group is the EUrophiles Europhile, John Gummer.
5. The scientific and plain factual basis of this statement was contradicted in "Fishing News" which reports record catches ofg cod and other fish such as haddock in the North Sea.
6. Howard's reversal of the efforts under IDS to form a more EUsceptic group with Conservatives from Eastern Europe.
7. His refusal to cut the knot with the odious EPP
It all adds up to serious "form" in a very short time, however much we might wish otherwise. One of their best tricks has been to convice the gullible over the years has been the confidential "You can trust me, I'm sceptic too" But the scepticism never stopped them from voting through next treaty, did it?
Unquote
We are trying to obtain further details on the reported resignations of the 'magnificent' seven eurosceptic conservative MEPs, see the posting immediately beneath this and will publish further information as it becomes known.
Meantime this carefully considered declaration of reasons as to why the present Conservative Party leadership is not to be trusted over the EU has been circulated on an internet discussion group overnight. We are presently leaving it anonymous as we have no permission to reproduce it here, however it is from an exceptionally well known and respected eurosceptic former party member and MP whose opinion still carries considerable weight.
Quote
The Conservative Party cannot be trusted on the European Union
1. There have been no apologies for past crimes and deceits.
2. Michael Howard's Berlin speech committed Britain to continued full membership.
3. The things he wants - repatriation of CFP/CAP are unobtainable within the EU structure
4. Howard signed a letter from the so-called "Marine Stewardship Group" which appeared in Sunday Times (29 Feb) supporting the cutback of British fishing fleet. Chairman of this group is the EUrophiles Europhile, John Gummer.
5. The scientific and plain factual basis of this statement was contradicted in "Fishing News" which reports record catches ofg cod and other fish such as haddock in the North Sea.
6. Howard's reversal of the efforts under IDS to form a more EUsceptic group with Conservatives from Eastern Europe.
7. His refusal to cut the knot with the odious EPP
It all adds up to serious "form" in a very short time, however much we might wish otherwise. One of their best tricks has been to convice the gullible over the years has been the confidential "You can trust me, I'm sceptic too" But the scepticism never stopped them from voting through next treaty, did it?
Unquote
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Conservative Ructions over the European Peoples Party
The April edition of the Brussels based The Sprout magazine reports a split involving Conservative eurosceptic MEPs in Brussels. Among those reported to have given up the party whip in protest at the party's plans to continue with the appallingly eurofederalist EPP party (see many earlier posts on tghis blog) are Daniel Hannan, Roger Helmer and five others. Well done indeed perhaps a eurosceptic, non-racist campaign can now be launched for the June 10 elections!
The April edition of the Brussels based The Sprout magazine reports a split involving Conservative eurosceptic MEPs in Brussels. Among those reported to have given up the party whip in protest at the party's plans to continue with the appallingly eurofederalist EPP party (see many earlier posts on tghis blog) are Daniel Hannan, Roger Helmer and five others. Well done indeed perhaps a eurosceptic, non-racist campaign can now be launched for the June 10 elections!
The Entente Cordiale
We have made a commentary on the Entente Cordiale and the implications that might be drawn for the EU on its one hundredth anniversary of today on our sister blog Ironies, linked here, titled: 100 YEARS AGO TODAY, WE CONDEMNED THE CONTINENT TO WAR which could be of interest to regular readers of this blog.
We have made a commentary on the Entente Cordiale and the implications that might be drawn for the EU on its one hundredth anniversary of today on our sister blog Ironies, linked here, titled: 100 YEARS AGO TODAY, WE CONDEMNED THE CONTINENT TO WAR which could be of interest to regular readers of this blog.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
More Conservative Obfuscation
This link announces, amid fanfare, that conservative leader Michael Howard has launched a petition for a referendum on the EU Constitution.
The following was a posting on this blog from 27th October last year:-
" We suggest those wishing to retain a Eurosceptic at the head of the Conservative Party should quickly and instantaneously show their support for IDS by signing the Petition for a Referendum on the EU Constitution at Conservative Central Office, where the numbers signing-up will be immediately seen.
This can be completed in a moment by clicking on this link 'Support IDS by signing the Conservative Petition from here'."
As may be determined by checking the link from my original posting, the petition form today is exactly the same as that provided last Autumn, which I was among the first to sign.
How can Howard now claim to be launching this petition? Why does he seemingly go out of his way to confuse first his true intentions on the referendum by use of the words 'to seek' to renegotiate and now the truth itself?
This link announces, amid fanfare, that conservative leader Michael Howard has launched a petition for a referendum on the EU Constitution.
The following was a posting on this blog from 27th October last year:-
" We suggest those wishing to retain a Eurosceptic at the head of the Conservative Party should quickly and instantaneously show their support for IDS by signing the Petition for a Referendum on the EU Constitution at Conservative Central Office, where the numbers signing-up will be immediately seen.
This can be completed in a moment by clicking on this link 'Support IDS by signing the Conservative Petition from here'."
As may be determined by checking the link from my original posting, the petition form today is exactly the same as that provided last Autumn, which I was among the first to sign.
How can Howard now claim to be launching this petition? Why does he seemingly go out of his way to confuse first his true intentions on the referendum by use of the words 'to seek' to renegotiate and now the truth itself?
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Conservatives Set for Constitutional Con!
As trailered, the Leader of the Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, who just last week, persuaded his party members not to sign a motion condemning the EU Commission for its digraceful handling of the Eurostat scandal, and has overseen the negotiations that will keep his party's MEPs within the ultra-federalist European Peoples Party grouping, (which is committed to European Defence separate from Nato amongst other federalist horrors) has now had the gall to pretend that a vote for the Conservatives on 10th June will somehow prevent the Constitution being applied to Britain.
The Scotsman reports on his speech to the Welsh Conservative Conference, linked here. We quote :-
June’s European elections may be the only chance voters will have to demand a referendum on the European constitution, a senior Tory said today.......
“This will be the last test of national opinion before the General Election. It is the only opportunity for people to send a message to Tony Blair.
“And it will be, probably, the only opportunity people get to say that they want a say before Tony Blair signs Britain up to a European constitution.”
Conservative policy on the constitution was “simple and clear“, Mr Evans said
Conservative policy, like all their past policies on Europe, is far from simple and clear. It is only clearly designed to confuses and deceive. The Conservatives HAVE NOT committed to holding a referendum if the constitution is enacted by Blair and they are then elected, nor are they committed to re-nogotiate. The trickster Howard having solely committed to SEEK to re-negotiate the constitution, itself entirely meaningless.
By calling for the Euro elections to be a referendum on the constitution they seek to gain the extra seats and huge financial resources that come from their MEPs to bind Britain ever more closely within the EU. As for the past almost half-century, they play on peoples' doubts about the EU purely to gain votes which when in power they use to consolidate that organisation's grip on this nation, presumably for their own lust for non-democratic power and love for obscene and unearnt perks of office.
It is the present political parties who have sold their country down the river and the EU elections on 10th June provide a perfect opportunity to snub them all. After all the EU Parliament serves no useful function, who cares if it lacks, Tories in the EPP, Labour in the Socialists, Lib-Dems with the Liberals or UKIP with the EDD and the Greens within the Greens, they are all there with their snouts in the trough to get the maximum cash and perks they can so that they may continue to undermine the only still slightly, remotely democratic, National institution namely the Westminster Parliament.
As trailered, the Leader of the Conservative MEPs in the European Parliament, who just last week, persuaded his party members not to sign a motion condemning the EU Commission for its digraceful handling of the Eurostat scandal, and has overseen the negotiations that will keep his party's MEPs within the ultra-federalist European Peoples Party grouping, (which is committed to European Defence separate from Nato amongst other federalist horrors) has now had the gall to pretend that a vote for the Conservatives on 10th June will somehow prevent the Constitution being applied to Britain.
The Scotsman reports on his speech to the Welsh Conservative Conference, linked here. We quote :-
June’s European elections may be the only chance voters will have to demand a referendum on the European constitution, a senior Tory said today.......
“This will be the last test of national opinion before the General Election. It is the only opportunity for people to send a message to Tony Blair.
“And it will be, probably, the only opportunity people get to say that they want a say before Tony Blair signs Britain up to a European constitution.”
Conservative policy on the constitution was “simple and clear“, Mr Evans said
Conservative policy, like all their past policies on Europe, is far from simple and clear. It is only clearly designed to confuses and deceive. The Conservatives HAVE NOT committed to holding a referendum if the constitution is enacted by Blair and they are then elected, nor are they committed to re-nogotiate. The trickster Howard having solely committed to SEEK to re-negotiate the constitution, itself entirely meaningless.
By calling for the Euro elections to be a referendum on the constitution they seek to gain the extra seats and huge financial resources that come from their MEPs to bind Britain ever more closely within the EU. As for the past almost half-century, they play on peoples' doubts about the EU purely to gain votes which when in power they use to consolidate that organisation's grip on this nation, presumably for their own lust for non-democratic power and love for obscene and unearnt perks of office.
It is the present political parties who have sold their country down the river and the EU elections on 10th June provide a perfect opportunity to snub them all. After all the EU Parliament serves no useful function, who cares if it lacks, Tories in the EPP, Labour in the Socialists, Lib-Dems with the Liberals or UKIP with the EDD and the Greens within the Greens, they are all there with their snouts in the trough to get the maximum cash and perks they can so that they may continue to undermine the only still slightly, remotely democratic, National institution namely the Westminster Parliament.
Jonathan Evans MEP Leader of the European Tories
As reported in our post immediately below, this typical Tory seems devoted to turning a blind eye to EU Corruption. He prefers to describe himself as follows:-
Jonathan Evans MEP - Conservative (Wales) - Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament; Former Tory Member of Parliament; Member of Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee; Substitute member of Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, CFSP Committee.
Today he will be addressing the Welsh Conservative Conference, we will be interested to hear how he will try to justify the assertion that :-
'June’s European elections could become a referendum on a proposed European constitution'
The above statement was ascribed to Mr Evans in this morning's The Scotsman' linked here.
As reported in our post immediately below, this typical Tory seems devoted to turning a blind eye to EU Corruption. He prefers to describe himself as follows:-
Jonathan Evans MEP - Conservative (Wales) - Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament; Former Tory Member of Parliament; Member of Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee; Substitute member of Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, CFSP Committee.
Today he will be addressing the Welsh Conservative Conference, we will be interested to hear how he will try to justify the assertion that :-
'June’s European elections could become a referendum on a proposed European constitution'
The above statement was ascribed to Mr Evans in this morning's The Scotsman' linked here.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Conservative Cynicism Culminates in Cancellation of Corruption Censure
EUobserver reports that following the sordid wheeler-dealing that keeps the Tories within the extreme Euro-federalist EPP-ED political grouping in the next parliament an immediate withdrawal of Conservative MEP's signature to a motion condemning one small item of many Brussels corruption scandals took place. The whole episode is described in this link but the following quote more than gives the flavour:
The awkwardness of this EPP-ED (European Democrat) relationship was clearly demonstrated on the issue of whether to censure the European Commission for its behaviour concerning the eurostat frauds.
While most of the Tories yesterday evening were prepared to sign up to the motion - by this morning some 15 had withdrawn their signatures.
This followed a showdown with Mr Pöttering who, according to an insider, issued an ultimatum.
Afterwards, Jonathan Evans, the leaders of the Tories in the European Parliament, sent a letter to the group saying that he was withdrawing his signature from the motion. Some 15 others then followed suit.
The message is clear, to be a Tory MEP in Howard's Conservatives - Corruption may not be censured! By staying within the EPP, neither eurosceptism nor even eurorealism is apparently even acceptable.
H.C. could stand for Howard's Conservatives, but perhaps a better sense would be Heseltine Clarke! Reaf about the censure motion the Conservative MEPs were not permitted to sign from here.
EUobserver reports that following the sordid wheeler-dealing that keeps the Tories within the extreme Euro-federalist EPP-ED political grouping in the next parliament an immediate withdrawal of Conservative MEP's signature to a motion condemning one small item of many Brussels corruption scandals took place. The whole episode is described in this link but the following quote more than gives the flavour:
The awkwardness of this EPP-ED (European Democrat) relationship was clearly demonstrated on the issue of whether to censure the European Commission for its behaviour concerning the eurostat frauds.
While most of the Tories yesterday evening were prepared to sign up to the motion - by this morning some 15 had withdrawn their signatures.
This followed a showdown with Mr Pöttering who, according to an insider, issued an ultimatum.
Afterwards, Jonathan Evans, the leaders of the Tories in the European Parliament, sent a letter to the group saying that he was withdrawing his signature from the motion. Some 15 others then followed suit.
The message is clear, to be a Tory MEP in Howard's Conservatives - Corruption may not be censured! By staying within the EPP, neither eurosceptism nor even eurorealism is apparently even acceptable.
H.C. could stand for Howard's Conservatives, but perhaps a better sense would be Heseltine Clarke! Reaf about the censure motion the Conservative MEPs were not permitted to sign from here.
Tories to Trick Voters by Pretending Euro Elections are on Constitution
The Guardian carries a report on the latest Tory attempt to trick British voters that a vote for them is a vote against the EU. The article linked here is titled 'Tories turn up heat on EU constitution ', we quote:
"It will be a referendum on a referendum," Dr Fox said. "It will be a major chance for voters to have their say on the future of Britain's relations with Europe."
Which is, of course, absolute nonsense. Only yesterday did that party, the main facilitator of Britain within the EU for the past half-century, reconfirm their continuation within the EPP group in the next Parliament. Every Conservative MEP elected in June will be another British politician committed to continuing within the EU, come what may!
Shameless, Barefaced Lying!
The Guardian carries a report on the latest Tory attempt to trick British voters that a vote for them is a vote against the EU. The article linked here is titled 'Tories turn up heat on EU constitution ', we quote:
"It will be a referendum on a referendum," Dr Fox said. "It will be a major chance for voters to have their say on the future of Britain's relations with Europe."
Which is, of course, absolute nonsense. Only yesterday did that party, the main facilitator of Britain within the EU for the past half-century, reconfirm their continuation within the EPP group in the next Parliament. Every Conservative MEP elected in June will be another British politician committed to continuing within the EU, come what may!
Shameless, Barefaced Lying!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
