Conservatives Reject British Declaration of Independence

From the BDI website:-

Conservative Party officially rejects

British Constitution and British Parliament

We talked to the Policy Unit at Conservative Central Office. CCO said that:

1. The Conservative Party rejects the British Declaration of Independence principally because of paragraph 2 - the right of the British Parliament to "initiate, pass and repeal laws applied to the British people". That is unacceptable to the Tory Party. (In other words the Party rejects a Parliament and Democracy itself not only for Britain but for the whole of the European Union as well. "The Tory Party is committed to the treaties signed since 1972 which contradict paragraph 2 of the BDI".
2. The Tory Party would NOT withdraw "from areas where the EU Court has jurisdiction over the United Kingdom". It would request re-negotiation of specified areas –e.g. employment, immigration, international aid and fishing.
3. The policy he was stating had been decided by Michael Howard and the Shadow Cabinet. We asked if candidates had been told NOT to sign the BDI. He replied the policy was that candidates should not sign statements which are inconsistent with Conservative policy. We stated that the BDI was entirely consistent with "in Europe but not ruled by Europe", a sovereign independent Britain in the European Union. They said they disagreed with the BDI because it meant "withdrawal from Europe". But the BDI does not concern itself with Europe it concerns itself entirely with British Democracy.
4. Therefore the Conservative Party confirms that membership of the European Union has destroyed British Democracy and that the British Parliament was replaced in 1972 by a British Assembly. The British Conservative Party confirmed that this always was and remains their intention.
5. The Conservative Party rejects the British Constitution. They also reject the European Constitution. Therefore they believe in NO Constitution – which means unfettered control by the politicians.

Therefore the Tory Party refutes the British constitution, rejects the terms of the Oath of Allegiance, denies Britain a Parliament, rejects the 1966 UN Convention of the Self determination of peoples (a treaty which the British Government signed) and thereby disqualifies Britain as a sovereign nation from membership of the UN.

This confirms Michael Howard’s stance that, on being elected, he will request permission (of what he recognises as a superior power, the European Union) to govern in the United Kingdom and even then in only certain areas.

The Conservative Party has been forced to produce a new "form of words" designed to fool their candidates and the British people. The BDI, by demanding they sign up to their previous "form of words" (i.e. "In Europe but not ruled by Europe"), has forced them to refute those words.

The BDI is concerned solely with the sovereignty of the British people and the status of their Parliament as a forum in which their laws are made. Our concern is the British Constitution, not the European Union – or any other Union!

This has all come as a great shock to many Conservative candidates and voters. Those candidates who have signed the BDI regardless of party pressure deserve our unstinting support. We need to do everything we can to strengthen them in the party and encourage allies to join them.

Tell others about the BDI and the Petition. (You can sign up others if they have no computer and you have their post code and permission!)

The BDI is powerful - use it.

Howard's Election Manifesto on the EU

The following are the relevant extracts from the manifesto launched today (my added highlights are the red, bold and italic items):-

We will save warships Mr Blair would scrap. A Conservative Government will support European co-operation on defence but we strongly believe that such co-operation should take place within the framework of NATO.
(Item on Iraq removed)

Conservatives support the cause of reform in Europe and we will co-operate with all those who wish to see the EU evolve in a more flexible, liberal and decentralised direction. We oppose the EU Constitution and would give the British people the chance to reject its provisions in a referendum within six months of the General Election. We also oppose giving up the valuable freedom which control of our own currency gives us. We will not join the Euro.

In a reformed Europe, the restrictive employment laws of the Social Chapter will have to give way to more flexible working. We will ensure that Britain once again leads the fight for a deregulated Europe by negotiating the restoration of our opt-out from the Social Chapter.

The common policies on agriculture and fisheries are unsustainable, damaging to free trade and conservation, and waste huge sums of money. The CAP needs further and deeper reform. And, because fisheries would be better administered at the national level, we will negotiate to restore national and local control over British fishing grounds. We are determined to ensure national control in this area.

We will also build on the success of enlargement, making Europe more diverse by working to bring in more nations, including Turkey.

We value Britain’s membership of the European Union, but our horizons extend much further. A key element of British foreign policy under a Conservative Government will be fighting world
poverty. We will support further action on debt relief and will work to meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on overseas aid by 2013. We believe that British aid programmes are among the best in the world, so we will negotiate to increase British national control over our international aid spending.

Guardian Letter on the BDI

The following appeared in yesterday's newspaper, linked from here:

Election principles

Tuesday April 5, 2005
The Guardian

At this election the only thing that matters is whether the parliament to which we elect MPs has the power to govern in our interests (Election countdown, April 4). The British parliament no longer makes our laws. This happened without the knowledge or permission of the British people. The British Declaration of Independence makes sure that in future only our MPs make our laws and that we can sack our law-makers if we don't like those laws - in other words that we live in a democracy.

By signing the declaration, parliamentary candidates acknowledge the authority of the British people and commit to exercising British self-government when they get to parliament. People pressure them to do so by signing our petition (www.bdicampaign.org). We then tell the candidates how many votes they gain by signing. We urge the electorate to vote for a candidate who has signed the declaration. Without self-government there is no point in voting at all.

Rodney Atkinson
Frederick Forsyth
Leolin Price QC
Lynn Riley
Alfred Sherman
David Stoddart
The British Declaration of Independence

Tory Eurosceptic Candidate Sacked

The author of the book "The Principality and Power of Europe" - Adrian Hilton has been removed by Conservative Central Office as candidate for Slough. A report in today's Daily Telegraph may be read from this link.

I have heard Mr Hilton when he addressed an anti-EU rally in Bath in the Autumn of 2003 and he made an impressive case for his views on the main dangers he believes the EU now poses. To remove him as a Conservative candidate by Central Office seems harsh indeed.

Adrian Hilton's book is published by Dorchester House Publications, Box 67, Rickmansworth, Herts and has an ISBN number 0-9518386-2-8

Tyrannical Tories

The Conservative Party having condemned the country to a 'Popperian Tyranny' with its policies of the past four decades, has now moved to eradicate democracy from within its own organisation.

Such is the full thrust of an article in this morning's Daily Telegraph, linked here, which more surprisingly reports that some of the party's supine membership (that happily allowed their previous democratically elected leader IDS to be replaced in a palace putsch) are actually making small noises of protest, needless to say no such objections are being heard from the party's big guns either past or present!

None of our sitting politicians deserve re-election unless they have signed the British Declaration of Independence, click here for more information, as only by leaving the European Union can accountable democracy be regained and the only certain way to speedily achieve that is by the electorate seizing on the BDI opportunity in the coming election!

Dr Sean Gabb on the Tories

I recommend this latest article titled Tax, Public Spending and Everything Else: The Sorry Truth about The Conservative Hidden Agenda which may be read from this link.

Undemocratic Tories

The unsuitability of the Conservative Party for parliamentary governance is once again being demonstrated in the ATTEMPT TO PREVENT a local constituency from deciding on its own candidate. The Mail article linked here almost says it all (especially when considering the source).

Note the involvement once again of Oliver Letwin in the affair, and recall that individual's extraordinary role in blowing the Tory's chances in the 2001 election.

To compound matters, now the nation has two certain losers leading its main opposition party in what should be a certain general election victory over this disgraced government and its duplicitous leader. Instead few doubt that New Labour will emerge victorious once again!

How can that be possible?

The British Declaration of Independence

The Home Page for the above may be found from this link. The following quotes from the site give an indication of the aims and how to promote them to regain Britain's sovereignty.

25 March 2005

HOW TO USE THE BDI

WHAT TO DO AT ELECTION MEETINGS

The only thing that matters is what your candidates, by their actions, say about themselves. ONLY The British Declaration of Independence forces candidates to reveal what they really stand for:

• Democratic Sovereignty or Dictatorship?
• A Parliament or a Talking Shop?
• Working for us or just taking the money?
• Legislating or Lobbying?

Tell Candidates at every opportunity that you will know exactly what they stand for because they will have signed the BDI – or refused to sign the BDI.

If a candidate has signed then protest parties should not oppose them and you should vote for him/her regardless of their party.

If a candidate has refused to sign then you must not vote for him/her and must find the best way to use your vote to defeat that candidate, regardless of party.

SOUNDBITES FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS

"What the British people demand is their own Parliament which exclusively makes and repeals their laws and the right to sack their law makers. Its called Democracy."

"There are 170 sovereign nations in the world and we want to be one of them. If Declarations of Independence are alright for the Americans and the Iraqis then why not for Britons?"

"You are asking for our vote to go to our Parliament to make our laws. But if you will not commit to passing a Bill which says that our laws are made by our Parliament then why should we elect you?"

"Your party has voted for the legislation which has allowed others whom we cannot elect or dismiss to make our laws. If you don't sign this Declaration I will vote for one of the many smaller parties not yet in Parliament who WILL assert our sovereignty."

"If you are listed on the British Declaration of Independence website as having refused to sign I will not vote for you"

The Next Betrayal

Last evening in Dorchester I witnessed the next stage in the thirty-five year process of the destruction of Britain's sovereignty and democracy by the nation's own political rulers.

The event was a debate on the EU Constitution organised by the Bruges Group and the Democracy Movement, two organisations supposedly and reputedly dedicated to the fight against the erosions of our statehood by the EU. Those attending last night's procedures would be well justified to now have doubts on both those counts.

The main speaker was Oliver Letwin MP for West Dorset, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and only recently resigned from the London Merchant Bank whose history and family connections could themselves be considered an almost perfect template for the secretive, elitist and corporatist European Union itself. In support was the President of the 'real' Liberal Party Councillor Steve Radford and Marc Glendenning of the Democracy Movement, which organisation's regional press spokesman chaired the meeting.

The essence of the arguments presented was that the referendum on the EU Constitution expected for May 2006 should be fought solely on the drawbacks of that document and under no circumstances should debate be allowed to stray onto the question of the country's continued membership of the EU. This, it was repeatedly suggested, would be to play into the hands of the euro federalists and Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and New Labour in particular.

Oliver Letwin set out three factors to be considered in the coming debate. First by stressing what was in the document, second by describing why it was a threat (he cited the 'new?' primacy of EU Law) and thirdly why the referendum represented an opportunity. On the latter point the thrust of his argument was that if the British people voted NO a mandate would then exist for a complete re-negotiation of the terms of British membership.

Such an argument completely ignores the obvious fact that if the NO campaign focuses solely on those elements, the assertion that a mandate for EU withdrawal has been given by the British electorate becomes entirely false - for that debate will have been prevented by the very politicians and political movements pretending to be opposed to the sovereign and democratic encroachments of the EU most already entirely legal, already experienced and clearly foreseen and envisioned under the existing treaties.

This fact became impossible to bring out, as by ignoring my repeatedly upraised arm, the chairman of the meeting managed to restrict the subsequent debate (with the honourable exception of two astute ladies, the best of whom had crossed the border from Devon to make a telling point on patriotism) to safe and largely irrelevant questioning from those who appeared to have been known to him.

Little mention was made of the more immediate general election contest expected by many for May 2005; rather we were urged to get campaigning for the hardly burning matter of a possible referendum in May 2006. The nonsense of the platform's case became clear when one moment we were regaled with the horrors of the recent Peter Tilleck and Marta Andreasen cases, while the next we were cautioned to refrain from the use of terms such as 'totalitarian' or 'police state'. Democracy through the Westminster Parliament might not ever have existed for this panel of speakers; perhaps a subconscious admission of the soon to be completed reality that indeed it soon will not.

With EU opponents such as these supposedly fighting the EU, no wonder Britain is now so almost entirely ensnared. The next general election, perhaps only two months away, will clearly be the last chance to fight off the EU. Small Euro-sceptic parties should now be combining to fight the big three large and united euro-committed political establishment of Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats.

Rather than that, however, I fear what appears to be on the cards in the coming General Election contest is Euro-sceptic candidates fighting one another and not the devious, untruthful, non-democratic, globalist, corporatist and therefore effectively corrupted candidates from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who have together delivered their country and their countrymen into the hands and clearly non-existent mercies of others.

Oliver Letwin won his seat at the last election with a small majority on a platform that demanded a renegotiation of the EU Nice Treaty. From his words last night he now seems quite content with that document and all its federalist and anti-democratic provisions. No doubt if he were to be re-elected (even if the EU Constitution is resoundingly turned down in Britain's referendum and a watered down version is then accepted as would be the inevitable next step under either Labour or the Conservatives), he would then declare himself content with that outcome. It is by this kind of gradualism that we have now reached today's situation where we cannot select our own real government in the coming general election.

Only by consigning Oliver Letwin and his likes to electoral defeat can we ever hope to regain our country!

Finally Something to Vote For!

10 STEPS TO FREEDOM
The British Declaration of Independence

· 1. The election tool called The British Declaration of Independence will succeed because it is based on three powerful elements: A Declaration which is worded to have real constitutional power; a signed document which irrevocably commits candidates to voting for the Declaration Bill when they get to Parliament; a voter petition which makes clear to candidates how many votes are available to them if they sign the Declaration.

· 2. The British Parliament has delegated law-making to foreign powers - without the clear knowledge or specific permission of the sovereign British people.

· 3. This happened when a cross party coalition of MPs, misinformed and under duress, passed an Act of Parliament. This situation will only be reversed and British sovereign power confirmed through another Act of Parliament - almost certainly passed by another cross party coalition of MPs.

· 4. The people have the power to elect that coalition of MPs - by voting ONLY for those candidates who, regardless of party, commit irrevocably to asserting British Sovereignty.

· 5. By signing The British Declaration of Independence MPs commit, before being elected - and on pain of resignation - to passing an Act of Parliament which will do just that.

· 6. The difficulty for voters in the past has been identifying those individual candidates. Many candidates have trumpeted sovereignty before an election and have voted against it when in Parliament. The BDI clearly identifies those who make a real constitutional commitment by signing - and it exposes those who refuse to sign.

· 7. The BDI INTERNET PETITION calls on all voters to register their desire to vote for BDI candidates. We will collect and consolidate the number of petitioners (voters) in total and in each constituency.

· 8. The Candidates (and press) will be regularly informed of the results of the Petition. Candidates will see the votes they can gain by signing the BDI itself - or the votes they will lose if they refuse to sign. 5 days before the election the voters will be told which candidates in their constituencies have signed.

· 9. When a majority of BDI candiates are elected the British Declaration of Independence Bill will then be presented in Parliament and will be passed.

· 10. The electoral power of the voter, the democratic independence of MPs and the Sovereignty of the British people will thereby be confirmed. Government by consent of the British people will be established in perpetuity by a vote confirming the Declaration of Independence Act at the beginning of every Parliament.


Make Sure the candidate receiving your vote in the General Election - REGARDLESS OF PARTY has signed up to the British Declaration of Independence!

British Declaration of Independence

Those familiar with the South Molton Declaration (see this link) from the last General Election will be pleased to know that a new, even stronger statement has now been prepared and will be available for signature by candidates at the coming election.

A well funded web site is under preparation we understand and should be up and running very soon. Electors will have the opportunity of entering their post code and immediately obtaining a list of candidates prepared to sign up to and VOTE for the restoration of Britain's sovereignty and parliamentary democracy.

LAST EVENING WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S CENTRAL OFFICE HAD ADVISED ITS CANDIDATE'S THAT THE PARTY HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO ITS CANDIDATES SIGNING UP TO THE DECLARATION.

EVEN CONSERVATIVE VOTERS WILL NOW BE EASILY ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHICH PROSPECTIVE MP'S CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY THOSE RIGHTLY DISTRUSTFUL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION!

Tories Trounced Again

UKIP beat the Conservatives into fourth place in a Hartlepool by-election according to the results announced yesterday. The Scotsman report may be read from here.

New Party to be Launched Tomorrow

VERITAS …the Straight Talking Party

MEDIA ADVICE: Tuesday 1 February 2005, 11am

Robert Kilroy-Silk to front launch of VERITAS - Wednesday, 2 February, Institute of Civil Engineers, One Great George Street, Westminster, 10.30am prompt

Robert Kilroy-Silk will tomorrow (Wednesday), at 10.30am, announce the formation of a new political Party, the straight talking Party, VERITAS.

An attractive, central venue has been chosen at the Institute of Civil Engineers, with plenty of room for guests from TV, radio and press:

1 Great George Street, Westminster, LONDON SW1P 3AA Tel: 0207 665 2323.

Michael Howard to concentrate on Immigration

The Observer carries a report on a coming shift in emphasis from the Conservative leader. Read it from here.

David Davies for UKIP to fight Shadow Home Secretary Davis

The Yorkshire Post carries this story of the Darlington UKIP member (for how much longer we wonder) who plans to take on the top Tory David Davis who is defending a tiny majority of 1903 votes under a distrusted leader of a terminally ill party. The article is linked from here.

ITV Vote Winner Hylton-Potts to challenge Howard

The article is in The Scotsman, linked here, is this the final straw for Michael, or will he seek a safer seat, surely not Wantage ... but Esher and Walton 0n Thames perhaps, the Scot in the wings already has Kensington and Chelsea which looks like the last really safe Tory seat in the land! LOL

EU Fan Tory MP Quits for Labour

Citing the top story, linked here, from the Sunday Telegraph's online edition, also the subject of Matthew d'Ancona's regular column, the paper highlights these interesting aspects:-

Mr Jackson, whose wife Dr Caroline Jackson is a Conservative MEP, added: "The Conservative Party has developed an increasingly hostile attitude to Europe, which I believe would be damaging to our national interest if pursued in government. Michael Howard has already indicated that he would act unilaterally to denounce at least two of our treaty commitments.

"There is a real and dangerous momentum building in the party to take Britain out of the EU. If the Conservative Party were to form the next government it would actively work to provoke an unnecessary and wholly undesirable crisis in our relations with Europe. I note at the same time that Michael Howard's failure to maintain a clear and consistent line on the Iraq war means that a Conservative government would find itself at odds not only with the rest of Europe but also with Washington."

Michael Howard's whole strategy now lies in tatters all around him. Not only has he alienated the entire eurosceptic movement in Britain to placate his eurofanatics, principally by keeping his MEP's within the ultra-federalist EPP Group in Strasbourg, he has now upset the Kenneth Clarke faction by daring to suggest we might have some right to bring up past Treaty commitments such as that which has destroyed our fishing industry and the living resources of our seas which surround our island.

Mr Jackson is right for the wrong reasons. Meantime Britain must continue to cry out for a proper opposition party!

Michael Howard targeted under freedom of information changes

The BBC News report linked here, highlights the risk to politicians of both the tired old parties of the truth about their periods of office being even slightly subject to public disclosure.

Here we have questions about Howard's role in an expedited passport for Petronella Wyatt, what other ghosts might be brought forth - new computers for the Home Office was one such suspicious area we suggested very shortly after the Conservative Party's disastrous decision to select as their leader a man they had previously spurned when memories of his record in office were fresher. Who on either front bench could the public now trust/ None that I can see!

Conservative's launch Manifesto - Howard to continue after losing

Such were the reports from The Herald in Scotland, no particular surprise there, but for the Daily Telegraph to concentrate on what the Tory's leader would do after losing the next election does seem somewhat odd. Read the article from here and see what you think - oh by the way, there is a link to the actual Tory proposals, as if any will be interested!

'Labour's hold on power could be precarious'

Ben Hall the FT's Political Correspondent, headlines his article with the title above. The prospect is for an interesting political year ahead with the impact of smaller and newer parties perhaps proving crtical. He concludes his review (linked here) as follows:-

Another factor that could play in Labour's favour is the strength of minority parties, especially the anti-European UK Independence party and the antiwar Respect party.

Labour to target 'Wobbly' Howard

The Daily Telegraph reports that the Labour Party is preparing, perfectly sensibly, to target the Tory's disastrous leader Michael Howard in the coming General Election campaign. The article may be read from this link, which reports the leader has already suffered a recent 'wobble'.

Can this really come as any surprise to the conservative party. What else did they expect when they undemocratically dumped a properly elected leader for a failed has been?

The Yorkshire Post predicts today that the Tories will be finished as a party if Howard fails to win at least an extra fifty seats. The main question at present remains whether he will be able to hang on to those he has at present. Howard's main hope of that must now be if his ex-Tory colleague Roger Knapman can continue his disastrous leadership of UKIP and thus end any electoral hopes that might have been held for that party.

Will we be under joint EU/LibDem rule at the next new year? If so we may never get the chance to select our own rulers ever again!

Happy New Year

May I wish all readers of this Blog a Very Happy New Year. To those genuinely committed to restoring accountable democracy to the people of Britain, which to my mind will only be achieved by a withdrawal from the institutionally corrupt and ungovernable EU - A PROSPEROUS AND SUCCESSFUL YEAR AS WELL!

A Similar View of Howard

I found this gem on a first visit to the blog 'The England Project'

How the Tories Select their MEP's Leader

The following is an extract from the blog of Richard Corbett MEP for 14th December:-

In the afternoon we learn who has been elected as the new leader of the Tory MEPs - they are changing yet again - and it is our very own Yorkshire MEP Tim Kirkhope. He is pro-European and fended off a challenge from Chris Heaton-Harris, a eurosceptic. But to get into the final ballot, after a tie with Giles Chichester MEP in the first ballot, he had to win a cut of a deck of cards in which he came up with the Ace! What a way to decide a leader!

Anyway, I wish him well when I bump into him, saying "This will keep you busy and out of mischief in Yorkshire!"

In the evening I go to the mince pie and drink offered by UKREP - the UK Embassy to the EU - to which all British MEPs and officials are invited. This is one of the few cross-party social occasions, though only one UKIP MEP turns up, and even then briefly.

What are the eurosceptic Conservative MEPs such as Daniel Hannan, Roger Helmer and Christopher Heaton-Harris still doing within the EPP group one must ask - as they all made commitments before the last election not to continue therein?

SEASONAL GREETINGS TO ALL OUR READERS

------------- MERRY CHRISTMAS -------------

------------------- MARTIN ------------------

Tory rebels on ID Cards

According to the Evening Standard, linked here, the following Tories were among those who voted against the Bill:-

"nine Tories, including former frontbenchers Damian Green and David Curry, defying the whip."

According to the same newspaper:-

"The Tory rebellion appeared to stretch to the senior ranks of the shadow cabinet, with at least six members failing to appear on the frontbench.

They included John Redwood, Tim Yeo, Nicholas Soames and David Cameron. Their absence may have been for another reason, but the lack of frontbench support is a blow to Mr Howard.

Other senior Tories absent included David Willetts, George Osborne, Alan Duncan, and Gerald Howarth."

How Howard finally threw the General Election

The linked Opinion column by Stephen Robinson, clearly a natural conservative supporter, which may be read by clicking here, pretty much provides a fitting obituary on Michael Howard's leadership and the conservative party's hopes for the next general election.

It discusses the vote last night by Howard's front bench misfits for the introduction of ID cards and concludes as follows:-

In selfish terms, I was relieved to see Michael Howard take the easy way out and endorse ID cards, because it freed me of any sense that I should have to vote for his party. No longer will I have to profess enthusiasm about Tory policies, or pretend that I see the green shoots of a Conservative revival.

For the first time I shall vote for the Liberal Democrats, because they do understand that the identity card debate is about the just role of government, and I suspect tens of thousands of instinctive Conservatives will do the same next year.

Tory Central Office faces 'MELTDOWN'

The Telegraph (once considered the House Journal for the Tories) has a gob-smacking report on the further disintegration of that party which may be relished by clicking here.

Ken Clarke and Michael Howard at Cambridge

I found this interesting blog item while researching the new Home Secretaries reumoured Communist Party membership. The full item is linked here of which the following is a direct quote:-

Born in Nottingham, Clarke was educated at the private Nottingham High School and went on to study law at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar in 1963 and married Gillian Edwards in November 1964. He had joined the Conservatives while at university, where he was chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association for an eight week term. He first gained notoriety in this post when he invited the fascist leader Oswald Mosley to speak, twice. This forced some Jewish students, including his future succesor at the Home Office, Michael Howard to resign in protest at the seeming anti-semitism of Mosley’s two invitations. This almost certainly led to Clarke’s surprise defeat for the presidency of the Cambridge Union by, Michael Howard. It is not, however, Mosley’s anti-semitism that made a mark on Ken Clarke, but his ground breaking advocacy of a European Union. Mosley was the first politician of any standing to call for British participation in building up a federal state, and his call for Europe a Nation has found echoes in much of Clarke’s rhetoric. (emphasis mine)

As Blunkett Resigns The Nation needs to Know: "WHY HAVE WE NO OPPOSITION?"

The question must be of even more concern to any who saw the treacherously deposed ex-Leader Iain Duncan -Smith expose the Blair Government's non-democratic bent in the Commons last evening.

Who are the Tory Traitors who dumped this man for a totally hopeless and ineffectual, deeply distrusted has-been such as Michael Howard?????????????????????????????

Howard to continue even following another election fiasco?

Read the following excerpt from an item in the Independent on Sunday today, linked here:

Mr Howard, who is 63, is expected to stay in office for two or three years after the next election even if the Tories are heavily defeated, instead of precipitating the party into an immediate leadership contest as did John Major in 1997, and William Hague in 2001.

One leading Tory said: "One effect of the recent polls is to repress expectations so much that if we come back with anything over 200 MPs, Michael will have been seen to have done rather well. He won't be under any pressure to go early. If we are within striking distance, he may even want to stay the full Parliament."

I find the whole article quite remarkable, first because of the underlying assumption of the whole piece that the leadership of the main opposition party is within the gift of the incumbent leader or his coterie, something I belived they had tried to get away from following the rise of Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Secondly, and more importantly perhaps is the apparent calm acceptance of the Tory's coming massacre in the General Election.

The country badly needs an opposition that offers the voters a real opportunity to rid the country of the failed Blair administration whenever the election comes. Five more years of the same increasingly authoritarian rule is not an option, even if 200 prospective and sitting conservative MPs choose to believe that it is.

Tories 15 million in debt and dying on their feet!

The crisis in the Conservative Party is now hitting their revenues, as the impossibilty of electoral success dawns on even the most faithful of supporters and former donors. Read The Times report from here.

A public row illustrating how the party is now even unable to agree on presentation of a once underlying tenet of toryism - tax cuts is reported in The Scotsman from here, here and was reported on in depth on the World at One radio programme today, when the Shadow Chancellor's absence was pointedly noted.

Howard's Fate seems sealed - IDS offers support!

The interview with IDS appears in this morning's The Independent following right along from yesterday;s disastrous poll. This quote contains what must appear a very chilling assurance from the ousted and betrayed leader:

Mr Howard is persona non grata at the White House for criticising Mr Blair over Iraq. Karl Rove, the President's chief of staff, left a message for Mr Howard telling his office not even to bother trying to see the President.

Mr Duncan Smith, a highly respected friend of the Bush family, has had two recent meetings with Condoleezza Rice, who is about to become the first black female US Secretary of State, and long conversations with Mr Bush. But Mr Duncan Smith is not a man to gloat. He told The Independent: "I am absolutely determined the Conservatives will back Michael all the way through. As long as he wants to do this job, he has my full support."

This Blog's Nightmare Predictions for the Tories Loom Larger

The poll published in the Independent on Sunday today, linked here, clearly sets the start of the real descent this blog always predicted would follow the non-democratic ousting of Iain Duncan Smith and his replacement with the clear no-hoper Michael Howard!

Now that our obvious predictions as to this likely end-result must soon be conceded, even by those who stubbornly refused to previously accept the obvious, perhaps this blog might soon be required to propose some intelligent options for one-time or still hopeful Conservatives to debate. First the poll and the commentaryfrom the story headlined:-

Poll reveals crisis of Howard's 'false dawn'

'IoS' poll: Tory leader fails to register with voters, and Blair - despite bad news from Iraq - looks like increasing his majority

So now the burning question has become what will be the swing from the already slaughtered and subjugated Conservatives TO the Labour or LibDems at the next General Election????

Bravo Michael, how are things going to look in Folkestone even if your schemes and conspiracies with Nigel Farage do work out....all OK in West Dorset Ollie?

Now the actual quote:-

If the changes in vote share reflected in our poll were repeated uniformly across the country next May, Mr Blair would actually increase his majority in the House of Commons to 168.

Enough said? If not go back a year and start reading this blog again from scratch.

Teeter to turn to Toppled!

The following paragraph opens the Daily Telegraph commentary on the latest YouGov opinion poll, linked here:

Conservatives these days must envy Sisyphus. That poor fellow was doomed to spend all eternity rolling an enormous boulder up a hill only to see it roll back down again as soon as it approached the summit. Today's Tories are even worse off. They seem unable to push their boulder within sight of the summit.

In fact of course things are far worse than the present polls even begin to suggest. There is presently no opposition to the three main parties who the electorate are increasingly aware are the cause of their loss of both national sovereignty and democracy.

The turmoil in the UK Independence Party, long a mere plaything of the establishment, Nigel Farage, Tory Peers and sundry others within what seems to be the EU-federalist cause, is poised to come to an early resolution with Robert Kilroy-Silk either emerging victorious or free to move away from the disgraced UKIP party organisation to form a powerful rallying point for Eurorealists presently scattered in a multitude of small pressure groups or previously powerless small parties.

The Tories are poised to very soon cease their Teetering and thereafter start to Topple! Democracy is a powerful cause too long ignored!

Election Analysis by Imperial College Student Newspaper

An wide ranging review of the electoral situation highlights the amazing nature of the UKIP achievement last June and contains clearl warnings about the uncertainties that now lie ahead. It is recommended to be read in full from here, but the following is a sample:
Quote
In the last nationwide test of public opinion before the general election, Labour were soundly beaten by the Conservative party, 27 MEPs to 19. Not only that, but the UK Independence Party (UKIP), a marginal party at best, polled a massive 16% of the vote, only 6% behind Labour and forcing the Liberal Democrats into fourth place. This should have sounded a warning bell about a rise of parties on the right of the political spectrum. Yet no change in the Labour position seems to have been forthcoming.

It is surprising then to see that the Government still has so much support, even when most of these issues go against the grain of the public at large as well as against the beliefs of the ‘traditional’ Labour voter.

In May, Tony Blair is expected to win his third term of office with a comfortable majority of between 30 and 75 seats. This view seems to have been strengthened given the Bush victory and the recent result from Australia.

The question remains: how can such a range of unpopular decisions lead to another parliamentary majority? Well first we have to consider the strength of the opposition.

The Conservative party should be the main challengers in this election, but they are a party in disarray. They lack confidence, ability and a proven winner. At the end of the day, Michael Howard will always be remembered as a loser who went down with the Major government.

So we look further afield to the Liberal Democrats, the up and coming political party with the popular view of the war in Iraq, and the choice of the young professional. Well, that’s how they would like to be seen, but it’s not really the case. Although they will make the largest gains at the next election, and could possibly become the official opposition, they will not make the gains they require to affect Labour’s majority. The minor parties may pick up seats here and there, but the lack of cohesion in all of these organisations will undoubtedly be their downfall.

However, the most important factor will be the voices of the voters we have yet to hear. These are not the protesters or the politically motivated, but the silent majority who have had enough of pandering to the most vocal minorities. This group has been the deciding factors in both the Australian and American elections and they are cautious centre-right voters. This is a much-maligned group, especially in Britain, but we will certainly hear their voice at the next election. They voted for Blair in 1997 and have supported him since. They are unhappy, but they have not abandoned the Labour party just yet.
Unquote

Is Cornwall a sign of Howard's End?

I recommend this review of a Paxman programme posted on ukfuture.net and linked here.

Lying Conservative Prime Ministers

"There will not be a blueprint for a federal Europe" - Edward Heath, as Prime Minister, House of Commons, 25th February 1970

Contrast with...

Presenter (Peter Sissons): "The single currency; a United States of Europe; was that in your mind when you took Britain in?" Edward Heath: "Of course, yes" - BBC Question Time 1st November 1991.

(With thanks to Raymond ... for research and circulation)

Something of the Night?

This report from The Independent on Sunday, linked here, once again reveals the question marks that continually arise regarding Michael Howard's judgement. The following quote gives a flavour of the type of people he now employs, his secretiveness over their appointment providing proof of his knowledge of their likely tactics.

The Conservative leader engaged the services of Mark Textor, a market research expert, two months ago but did not publicise the appointment. His reticence may be explained by Mr Textor's colourful career as a controversial adviser to right-wing politicians in his native Australia.

Among the more serious allegations made against him is that he helped to distribute a damaging questionnaire falsely claiming an opponent supported the right to abortion at nine months.

Mr Textor and others apologised and paid out damages of around £34,000 to settle a court action brought by the Labor candidate who lost the 1995 Canberra by-election.

It is difficult to believe that the Conservative Party was once deemed a respectable political choice - Can it ever be again, under such as Howard? Where is IDS? - Some clues in the Sunday Telegraph by Matthew d'Ancona, linked here, which opens as follows:-

For my money, the most intriguing MP of the moment is Iain Duncan Smith. The former Tory leader, I am told, has done some serious schmoozing in Washington recently, including two audiences with Condoleezza Rice, before her elevation to Secretary of State, and informal conversations with the President himself. Mr Duncan Smith may have been sacked by Tory MPs a year ago but - unlike the man they put in his place - he is still very welcome in the White House.

No less interesting will be IDS's response to the ban on hunting with hounds when it comes into force on February 18. I well recall a conversation with him some years ago when he told me that such a measure might force him into acts of civil disobedience. Whatever else is said about Mr Duncan Smith, he is a man who treats the law - and parliamentary statute in particular - with the utmost reverence.

What a difference a year makes!!!!!

Sykes will not fund the Tories

The following is an excerpt from a report in the Yorkshire Post of 15th November:-

YORKSHIRE POST 15-11-2004

In a separate development, Paul Sykes, who pulled out as UKIP's main backer last month, has revealed to the Yorkshire Post that senior Tories have failed in their attempts to win him over.

The Tories had hoped that the Yorkshireman, who has given an estimated £6m to anti-EU causes, would turn some of his financial firepower to their side.

They have succeeded in prizing him away from UKIP, thanks to a toughening-up of the Tories' Europe policy and the return of leading Tory eurosceptic John Redwood to the shadow cabinet, but no further.

Mr Sykes, who has turned down an invitation for personal talks with Michael Howard, said: "I will be voting Conservative at the next general election but that's all I'm doing.

"I'm not coming back to join the Conservative Party. I can't and won't fund the Tory policy at present. It's misleading.

"I don't agree with their policy over the EU, but they're the best of a bad bunch."

He added that he would give assistance to any candidate, of any party, who agreed with him over the EU.

"I will consider helping anybody who's prepared to tell the truth," he said.

"If they're on message, I'll support them. Tory, Labour or Lib Dem.

"I do have lots of fellow travellers in the Labour Party too.

"I'll campaign with anyone who's in favour of self-government for Britain."

Mr Sykes has a chequered history with the Tory Party, having quit them twice before.

Kilroy is Coming!

Read this and panic if you are a tired old Tory - Kilroy calls for UKIP revolt - linked here.

Out of Touch!

I listened to Radio 4's 'Any Questions' this evening. It was broadcast from Chichester.

It had a Chairman, one of the Dimblebys clearly a BBC Clone, Clare Short ( of reason) and David Willets ( rumoured to be nicknamed the 'Brain" in the Tory Party) whose answers proved conclusively the absence of such that now clearly exists in the Conservative Party.

Only the audience that voted for a ban on smoking were more appalling!

Thank goodness the typical person in the country has probably never heard of 'Any Questions'

Willets would choose Socrates as a mentor, we learned at the programme's close - proving he has never passed beyond the first steps of anything perhaps?

Howard and the Dunnos - No Chance!

The Daily Telegraph has a column on the above topic linked from here. This quote was the most telling for me:-

So one of Britain's biggest political parties is the Don't Know Party. And if you ring up a Dunno person, they usually say: "I voted Labour last time but I don't think I can support Blair again. I can't stick him. He's weak. Labour have lied over everything, not just the war. But I don't know about the others either. The Conservatives don't seem to stand for anything. Well, I dunno." The Dunnos hold the key to the next election.

A wise observer of British politics tells me he thinks the Dunnos actually want a hung Parliament and will subconsciously self-organise and vote tactically to achieve that end....

Unless something better is finally offered!

Michael Howard's Year

What a mess! Anybody recall if he ever answered this letter from the normally politically inept Denis Macshane?

Rt Hon Michael Howard MP
Leader, The Conservative Party
Dear Michael,
As the European Peoples Party congress takes place in Brussels this week I hope you
will take this opportunity to clarify your party’s position as members of the EPP, on a
number of key issues:
1. As you know many in the EPP support the removal of all national vetoes
within the proposed European constitution and call for a single EU income tax.
EPP parties also want Britain and France to surrender their permanent seats on the
UN Security Council.
2. How do you reconcile the majority EPP positions with the Conservative Party
position? Your predecessor Iain Duncan Smith, made his plans to take the
Conservatives out of the EPP clear. Are you committed to this pledge? The
Conservative Party now has a clear decision to make. You can confirm your
party’s membership of the EPP, and endorse its federalist beliefs, or you can
continue with plans to leave the EPP and face the difficult questions of who the
Conservative Party would then join forces with in the European parliament.
3. Can you make clear that the Conservative Party is opposed to the anti-Turkish
rhetoric from the CSU and CDU parties in Germany as well as conservative
politicians in France. Mr Pottering, the leader of the EPP has said that Turkey will
be a “hot theme” in the European Parliament elections. The last thing we need in
Europe is an anti-Turkish campaign whipping up fears and hate in Germany. Will
you ask EPP colleagues to make clear that no democratic politician in Europe
should seek to make the issue of Turkey’s relations with the EU an election issue?
4. In The Times last Friday, Conservative MEPs were quoted as calling for all
European Parliament money currently given to support the the EPP’s work to be
paid directly to Central Office and the headquarters of national right-wing parties.
This policy if implemented would not only mean EU taxpayers’ money going to
extremist parties like the French National Front, it would also be a direct subsidy
from Brussels to national political parties. Do you support your fellow
Conservative MEPs and MPs in advocating Brussels funding of national parties?
Yours sincerely,
Denis MacShane MP
Minister for Europe

UKIP Founder revealed as member of secretive British American Project

Dr Alan Sked is revealed in a report in today's The Guardian, titled 'Friends in High Places' by Andy Beckett, linked here, as a member of a very peculiar group of partularly influential individuals, all at a first glance seemingly totally devoted to Britain's total immersion into the EU.

This report also appears on Ironies and UKIP Uncovered.

No-one is a stronger supporter of the European Union than me and, indeed, my party.

Visit the Conservative Party web-site and read the full report from this link to a speech to the Welsh Assembly by a Mr Bourne, that appears under a photograph of the 'not to be trusted' Tory party leader Michael Howard. History would argue that Mr Bourne is correct - no-one could be a stronger supporter of the European Union than the Conservative Party which means its lies, its totalitarianism, its destruction of democratic process, its corruption, its corporatism, its nepotism....need I go on!

Nothing good has ever emerged from the EU - NOTHING WHATEVER!

Lord Pearson to dine tonight with UKIP's Knapman and Farage.

Lord Pearson, whose excellent paper on the EU has recently been published on the Bruges Group site is reported to be dining with the embattled leaders of UKIP this evening.

It will be recalled that Lord Pearson was one of several peers who lost the Conservative Party Whip in the Lords for recommending a vote for UKIP in the June European elections.

Kerry has conceded the election in the USA. Congratulations to George W. Bush and a REAL conservative party, that of the Republiacans in the USA!

Republican's Smashing Victory in the US - More Gloom for shunned Howard

Nothing Michael Howard attempts works out well.

What a disaster he has been for low tax, liberty loving, free market supporters who might normally consider themselves of a conservative bent within Britain. What a contrast with the stunning victory achieved by George W. Bush's Republicans in the Senate, House and the Presidential race now certainly his. Shock top issue revealed by the exit poles (NB so called Tory Reformers - traditional values!)

Michael Howard who has been rightly ostracised by George Bush faces more years of being ignored. His party needs to think again or Britain needs a new party

Daniel Hannan still with the EPP

My Conservative MEP (Mole Valley Constituency) still writes for the Sunday Telegraph.

He still draws all the expenses and salaries due an MEP.

AND contrary to his promise before the June elections - he still belongs to the ultra-EU federalist EPP group in the European Parliament as do his similarly unreliable colleagues Roger Helmer MEP and Christopher Heaton-Harris MEP!

Is that why he still has not answered my letters. Pity my most logical alternative recourse is the appalling Nigel Farage MEP for the South East for UKIP..... or Ashley Mote perhaps!

The EU Constitution signed today

Please visit Ironies for a very important analysis of the possible consequences of the pomp, circumstance and destruction of democracy and liberties that took place today in Rome.

Part I of Anthony Coughland's hugely important pamphlet, click here.

Part II of the paper please click here.

Ten points down and tumbling

The following is an extract from this morning's Leading Article (linked here) in the 'Tory House Journal' the Daily Telegraph:-

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the public sees almost no likelihood that they would be any more "honest and trustworthy" than Labour. Michael Howard's personal rating is now a full 10 points behind the Prime Minister's, and the Conservative Party's support has fallen to its lowest level since Mr Howard became leader.

The 'YouGov' poll on which the comment is based may be read from here. Some low lights if you still believe that the Tory Party, under its present leadership, has anything to offer the country:

Per cent believing a future Conservative Government would be trustworthy.....19 ( 6 behind)

Confidence in Blair to take right decisions over Iraq 35 pct ... Michael Howard 29 pct. (Even Kennedy beats Howard on that one at 30 pct)

Can anything more really be said?

Michael Howard at the RUC Memorial Garden yesterday.

Read the Conservative Party web page report on yesterdays visit linked here. A quote:-

'I want to put on record my tribute to the RUC and its record of sacrifice.

'For nearly thirty years it was the RUC that stood in the front line against vicious, cowardly and evil terrorism.

Read any extract from the Patten report linked here, prepared by his former Cabinet Colleague, whose recent 'fat' and worthless lifestyle as an EU Commissioner is almost entirely due to the selling out of these brave men, the memory of whom his Conservative Party leader praises above.

Conservative Party senior politicians - don't you just love them! UGGGHHHHHHHHH!

Desperate Tories call on John Major to rebut EU Withdrawalists

The Frost TV programme, linked here, drug up the Maastricht perpetrator to talk about saving Britain from the EU this morning. Shameful and degrading stuff for the country as Blair prepares for Rome next Friday and the ultimate treachery.

Have these establishment figures absolutely no shame nor conscience whatsoever? It seems not -

THAT WAS YOUR COUNTRY THAT WAS!

Another Party anyone?

Mr Robert Kilroy-Silk told GMTV this morning that :-

......................he had considered forming an alternative party to UKIP.

“We think the unthinkable, we think the stupid, because often what you think is stupid and impossible actually you think ’hang on, this might be quite a good idea’,” he said.

“Of course I think about those things and other people do too...people from all different kind of politics.”

The broadcast which mainly concerned the apparently stalemated leadership dispute within UKIP is also of great interest to all those concerned at Britain's lost sovereignty and democracy, that once were considered important matters to members of the Conservative Party. A report on the interview, from which the above quote is taken, may be read by following this link, to The Scotsman.

Does Michael Howard believe in Press Freedom?

Clearly not - given his dispatch of Boris to Merseyside last week. The question was tellingly put by Kirsty Buchanan in the Western Mail this morning. I quote from her article "Conservative leader Michael Howard seemed to forget the whole concept of freedom of the press by ordering Boris Johnson to Liverpool this week."

As poor Howard has now resorted to Australian advice to save his electoral chances this link to an Australian radio report of his latest misjudgement might prove of interest. This is a taste:-

But as one newspaper later reported, Liverpudlians who'd been stung by the severity of the comments were split between those who loathed Boris Johnson and wished he'd go home, and those who loathed him and wished he'd never come in the first place.

It has been difficult to judge who comes out the worse from this incident. I thought at first Boris for so desperately wishing to cling to a Shadow Minister's title (albeit for the arts) when there were zero prospects of the job ever becoming substantial. Now however I believe it has damaged Howard even more - if it is possible to further damage the reputation of this battered, hopeless and increasingly obnoxious appearing aspirant PMl. Just think what must have gone through his mind before sending Boris north - what could he have hoped to achieve and what bullying threats or bluster must he have used to bring it to pass. Nasty business - not funny at all really.

Is this the bold and trumpeted Tory's repatriation of Fisheries?

The EU Referendum blog linked here, sets forth various ideas about how the reassertion of British rule over our own - UN and Internationally delineated - seas might operate.

I presume that these ideas might eventually turn up in conservative party policy, bearing in mind the author of this posting recently accompanied the shadow fisheries minister onto the cold North Sea and movingly wrote of the experience on that same blog.

The posting referenced is linked from here. The following quotes were what alarmed me:-

The actual point is that, while the intention is to repatriate the policy, this does not necessarily mean excluding fishing vessels from EU member states from British waters....

Fishing vessels from other states have had access to our waters long before the EEC was even dreamed of, and have acquired rights which transcend the current EU arrangements.

(Such an argument did not cut much ice during the Icelandic cod wars when they first extended their exclusive area to first 50 and then 200 miles offshore!)

Finally the paragraph that is just plain wrong and epitomises the problem of EU re-negotiation absent withdrawal:

It would be unlikely, therefore, that the UK would seek to exclude these vessels and, for the time that it took to sort out new arrangements, the status quo in terms of access would almost certainly continue, not least because British vessels also have rights in waters outside our own exclusive economic zone – which must also be protected.

(WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG , WRONG - to recover what is ours requires an element of toughness. We must be prepared to look at all aspects of recent agreements afresh, with the clear knowledge that if we cannot regain our true INDEPENDENCE by negotiation, then we will not shirk from confrontation, whether over fisheries, the eurofighter, women's rights or whatever else it takes to restore Sovereign Rule (the power to periodically remove our rulers back in the hands of the British people.)

There will be no 'Grandfather Rights' from any 'EU Treaty' in a withdrawal 'process' undertaken by a rejuvenated, Kilroy led UKIP!

Was nobody listening in Wokingham?

Howard miscalculates yet again?

Was it really wise to send Boris Johnson to Liverpool to apologise for something that occurred outside his political life?

Does Michael Howard have any political 'feel' whatever? This latest incident tells us the answer as convincingly as all else that has taken place during his disastrous first year at the helm. Read the report from the Scotsman, linked here.

Cringe if you heard the attacks on poor Boris from the broadcast media.

Howard calls on John Howard's Aussie election adviser

Michael Howard has called on Lynton Crosby to run his general election campaign. My view, predictable to members of this blog, is that even the great Houdini himself could not extract this Howard from this mess. Can he retain his own seat seems the only major question in doubt!

Kilroy challenge to Redwood in his Wokingham Constituency

As trailered in this morning's Daily Telegraph, linked here, Mr Robert Kilroy-Silk is to take the challenge of the Tory duplicity over Europe straight to the home constituency of the Shadow Minister for Deregulation Mr John Redwood.

The press release with details of the meeting is as follows:-

ROBERT KILROY-SILK M.E.P.

European Parliament Member for the East Midlands Region
Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire and Rutland

MEDIA ADVICE: Monday 18 October 2004, 1pm

KILROY-SILK AT WOKINGHAM - WEDNESDAY:
CHALLENGE TO JOHN REDWOOD: “Will the Conservatives stay in the E.U., or come out?”

CANTLEY HOUSE HOTEL, MILTON ROAD, WOKINGHAM - 8pm

Robert Kilroy-Silk, East Midlands M.E.P. for the U.K. Independence Party, will address a UKIP Meeting in Wokingham this week - which will be open to the public - to rally support for his view that the U.K. Independence Party must fight every seat in the coming General Election, even against so-called ‘eurosceptics’ like John Redwood.

Mr Kilory-Silk made a powerful speech at the UKIP Conference in Bristol on 2 October, condemning what he described as the policy of ‘doing shoddy deals with other parties’ on Europe. Following his speech, delegates voted overwhelmingly to reject a motion put forward by the current leadership of UKIP for UKIP candidates to stand down in favour of ‘eurosceptic’ Conservatives like John Redwood.

Mr Kilroy-Silk will use his speech on Wednesday to tell UKIP members and the wider public that Redwood is lying when he claims that the Conservative will ‘repatriate’ powers already lost to Brussels. Redwood and Conservative Party Leader Michael Howard said recently that they would ‘repatriate’ fishing, employee rights under the ‘Social Chapter’, and overseas aid. However, Mr Kilroy-Silk will tell his audience, “In the 47-year history of the Common Market, since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957, no E.U. Member State has ever openly defied the European Union. Member States who join the E.U. must sign up to implement all E.U. law as a whole. Britain, under the Tories, passed the European Communities Act in 1972, which bound Britain to implement E.U. law for ever. We have to decide as a nation whether we want to be in or out”.

Wokingham is a strongly eurosceptic constituency. Local UKIP Vice-Chairman Frank Carstairs said: “We beat the Liberal Democrats into third place in the European elections. We have had a dramatic increase in membership in the last 12 months and fielded 23 candidates in the local elections this year, averaging 15% of the vote. I talk to local Conservatives all the time and to a man and woman they all want Britain to leave the E.U. and become independent again. Our task is to persuade as many of them as possible to vote for British independence at the coming General Election”.

Why renogotiating with the EU isn't that easy!

The 'Factortame' case concerning Spanish Fishing rights under the EU Fisheries Policy clearly shows the supremacy of Community Law, the impossibility of the Westminster Parliament being able to legislate to circumvent it - and consequently the complete hypocrisy of the Howard conservative oppositions stance on renegotiating the Fisheries Policy or anything else.

The following extracts are taken from 'THE FACTORTAME SAGA: THE FINAL CHAPTER?' available in pdf format from this link.

Quote
THE FACTS AND THE HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION
Briefly, in the 1980s the United Kingdom Government formed the view that Spanish
fishing vessels with no genuine connection to the United Kingdom had registered in
Britain in order to obtain access to British fishing waters. The Government therefore
introduced new licensing conditions pursuant to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act, 1967
restricting registration by reference to nationality, residence and social security
contributions. The majority of these conditions were found by the Court of Justice to
be unlawful in R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Agegate Ltd.5
and R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Jaderow Ltd.6
Considering that the situation was worsening, the Government subsequently enacted
the Merchant Shipping Act, 1988. This provided that a vessel could only be registered
as British if all the legal owners and at least 75 per cent of the beneficial owners were
‘‘qualified persons or companies’’ 7 and its charterer, manager or operator was a
qualified person. The vessel must also be managed and its operation directed and
controlled from within the United Kingdom.

On 19 June 1990, in Factortame I, the Court of Justice ruled that the English rule
of law preventing suspension of the Act pending determination of its validity must be
disapplied and, on 25 July 1991, in Factortame II it held that the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act as to nationality, residence and domicile for legal and beneficial owners, charterers and managers and operators of fishing vessels were contrary to Community law and in particular to article 43 (ex 52) of the EC Treaty on the freedom of establishment. However the requirement that the vessel be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within a Member State was not contrary to
Community law.
Meanwhile, the Commission had also brought proceedings against the United Kingdom under article 226 (ex 169) EC. On 10 October 1989 the President of the Court of Justice made an order for interim suspension of the Act pending a final ruling
and, on 4 October 1991, the Court of Justice ruled the Act invalid in the article 226
EC proceedings. Under article 228 (ex 171) EC the United Kingdom was obliged to
take measures to comply with this judgment.

In Factortame III the Court of Justice repeated its reasoning in Francovich v. Italy
that although the Treaty did not expressly provide for Member State liability in
damages for breach of Community law, such liability was vital to ensure the full
e摯瑬敳獩ectiveness of Community law. The obligation to remedy breaches of Community law
was also part of the duty of Member States under article 10 (ex 5) EC to fulfill their Treaty obligations. However, where a Member State had a wide discretion over its actions, it could only be liable for a breach of Community law where that breach was sufficiently serious, national courts could take into account a number of factors. These factors included the clarity and precision of the rule breached, the measure of discretion left to the national authorities by the rule, whether the infringement and damage were intentional or involuntary, any contribution to the State’s act or omission made by the position taken by a Community institution and the adoption or retention of measures or practices contrary to Community law.10
When Factortame III returned to the Divisional Court 11 in the United Kingdom, that
court ruled that, on the facts, the enactment of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1988
constituted a sufficiently serious breach of EC law so as potentially to give rise to
liability in damages to the applicants.12 The court noted a number of relevant factors:
the intended effect of the domicile and residence conditions was discrimination on the ground of nationality; the Government was aware that the conditions would cause loss to the applicant; the Commission was hostile; the use of primary legislation meant that under domestic law interim relief was unavailable; the superior rules of law of proportionality and legitimate expectation had been breached; and the Government had failed to comply immediately with the Order of the President of the Court of Justice in proceedings under article 226 (ex 169) EC that the Act should be suspended pending determination of its validity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Divisional Court 13 and the
Government made a further appeal to the House of Lords. It argued that its breach
was excusable, since the law was not clear until the judgment in Factortame II and
there was substantial objective justification in the form of protection of the national fish quota. In addition, other Member States had adopted the same approach as the United Kingdom, the national courts regarded the issue as complex and the
Government had sought and relied on independent legal advice that its action was in
accordance with Community law. The United Kingdom was not obliged to follow the
advice of the Commission and it had not intended to breach Community law or injure
the respondent fishermen. Finally, even if the breach caused by the nationality
condition was sufficiently serious, that caused by the residence condition was not.

Unquote

Footnote references and the eventual outcome of Factotame III can be found from the link.

In a comment to the final ruling which went entirely against the British Government, the following point was made regarding lessons for the future:

The judgment also gives guidance for future applicants and the government. First, the fact that favourable legal advice is received will not, of itself, render a breach of Community law excusable. Second, any delay in giving effect to a ruling of the Court of Justice is likely to be considered to be a sufficiently serious breach of Community law in itself. Third, where a serious injury to the potential applicant is a foreseeable result of the government’s action, this will also give weight to the argument that there has been a sufficiently serious breach.

Naturally none of this will come as any surprise to Howard's Conservative Party, who while proclaiming 'Trust Us' are, as usual, engaged in an elaborate chirade designed to dupe the electorate and bind us ever more closely and cravenly to the non-democratic EU that will soon become their principle source of unconditional funding. (See my posting to Ironies of last Friday, linked from here).

State funding of political parties is as unacceptable as Company Directors operating without either shareholders or a Companies Act!

John Redwood edges the Tories towards sanity on the EU

This report from The Scotsman, linked here, gives a glimmer of hope that sense may be returning to the Conservative Party. The reaction from Denis 'Macshame' the Minister for Europe, reported by the BBC is also worth reading, it is linked from here.

When Clarke, Heseltine and the other Euro-supremacists start heading towards New Labour or the Lib Dems where their EU federalist and anti-democratic totalitarian views would make them more naturally at home, then there may be hope indeed. Howard?-----(kaput - comes to mind!)

UKIP and the Tories

Mathew Parris in the 9th October edition of The Spectator, attacks UKIP as mad, bad and nasty. The flavour of the article , linked here, may be guaged from this brief quote:-

Ukip is mad, bad and nasty. Its ill-doing is intentional. It is nothing like the Conservative party. Its aims are hugely different from those of the Tories, and profoundly wrong. For any former Tory voter, supporting Ukip is an act of idiocy and of betrayal, and unforgivable. Ukip people are not (in Michael Howard’s term) ‘gadflies’, they are scorpions.

I have now seen an article by Peter Hitchens, also from The Spectator 2nd October edition linked here, which mounts a similar attack but here upon the conservatives and ends as follows:-

"....by 1997 the Tories had accepted so much of the Left's thought that it was hard for them to argue against its logical conclusion in Mr Blair, Mr Brown and Mr Campbell. The slow-motion coup d'état which placed the state under the full authority of political commissars was the end of a process they had begun themselves with their platoons of special advisers. Their own long failure to defend the hereditary principle as a valued part of the constitution left them headless and gutless when New Labour turned on the Lords and began to jostle the monarchy. They had actively taken part in the egalitarian trashing of the education system. They had emasculated the police, destroyed the power of parents and teachers over children, undermined marriage, sought to attack juries and mused publicly about introducing identity cards. They had initiated the process leading to capitulation to the IRA, and so couldn't oppose surrender when it took place. They were even more compromised on the European project. Because they no longer really believed in British interests themselves, they couldn't even see that the Iraq war was not in British interests.

The rejuvenated Labour party is in the hands of blithe, shameless cynics who are delighted to endure the attacks of stupid leftists who think they are 'right-wing' if they can convince enough dim Tories to believe the same piffle. The successful advance of a breathtakingly radical programme proceeds unnoticed and unopposed. New Labour is indeed a new danger, but it can only be beaten by people who both understand its nature and fundamentally disagree with it. That will not happen until the wreckage of the Conservative party is cleared out of the way."

The problem for voters is, of course, that there are large amounts of truth to what both these concerned columnists write. (Especially if the present discredited UKIP leadership cabal succeed in clinging to their posts) It is difficult to conclude anything other than that some new political entity is now the only answer.