Articles
   Britain Betrayed Again
  The Difference and Practical example

  Britain Betrayed AGAIN
 by Politicians WE employ to Represent OUR best interests


BLAIR MAY SIGN. BRITAIN WON'T
says MARK DANIEL in the Western Morning News

The sneakiness, the deceitfulness, the deliberate, devious chicanery
demonstrated by the government on Tuesday is beyond belief. No
administration, surely, can remain in power which so abjectly and brazenly
cheats those who employ it into giving away all that is rightfully ours.

On Monday, the relatively innocuous European Convention on Human Rights, a
non-EU convention accepted by all the countries of Europe, was incorporated
into British law. This gave British courts the right to judge on human
rights cases in the UK where formerly such cases must be heard in
Strasbourg. Some of us, who prefer freedoms to rights, balked and flinched,
but, in the end, we have been living with the Convention for fifty years. It
could not do that much harm to have British rather than foreign judges
deciding British cases...

There was a nation-wide advertising campaign, paid for by the taxpayer,
featuring a poem by an 11 year-old boy in order to show that the European
Convention on Human Rights was apolitical, innocuous, friendly. Jack Straw
appeared on television with the Magna Carta, asserting that this was nothing
more than its natural successor.

On Tuesday, just twenty-four hours later, Downing Street announces that the
government has no further objection to the European Charter of Fundamental
Rights, an iniquitous document which renders British judges impotent and
which transfers ultimate power over every aspect of our lives to the
European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, on the grounds that the charter is
"a valuable document" and that it does "not assert new legal rights". The
Charter will now be signed by Britain in Biarritz next week.

In short, the Human Rights Act, transferring power to British courts, was a
sham, intended only to ease the transference of power to Luxembourg, and the
advertising campaign, paid for by the taxpayer, was an implement of
political purpose, intended to lull the electorate into confusing the
Convention and the Charter and permitting the nation, in ignorance, to take
its greatest step yet towards total integration in a super-state.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is, simply, an imperialist document. It is
defined by the Commission as 'the central element of a process giving the
European Union a constitution'. Its adoption would see the greatest ever
transfer of power to make choices over social and economic policy from
elected politicians to unelected judges ever seen in Britain.

Under the Charter, EU judges will have scope to reinterpret many of the
rules and directives already laboriously negotiated in order to suit the
needs and requirements of the British people. It will introduce the hobbling
over-regulated corporatist system which has sapped the strength of the
European economies over the past decade. It will undo all the good work of
Mrs Thatcher in ensuring free trade. It will, theoretically, and therefore
almost certainly, be used to interfere in every aspect of our lives, and its
provisions will soon be enforceable by Europol, the armed police force,
immune from prosecution, which is currently being equipped, formed and
trained. Even Andrew Duff, a Liberal democrat MEP who is serving as a
'rapporteur' on its drafting, has described the plan as 'representing
everything Britons do not like.'

And the hope of the government is plainly that at least half of the silly
electorate will not know the difference between this threat to our freedoms
and the Convention.

The deception has been managed 'softly softly'. When debated by EU heads in
December, it was agreed that the Charter would be a 'political statement'
rather than a legally binding document. As late as March, Tony Blair was
calling for a 'showcase' that would not transfer jurisdiction outside the
country. The document to which the government now has no objection is no
showcase. It is Europe's magna carta, an historic and disastrous
constitution whereby Britain hands over the right to self-governance.

Unlike Magna Carta, it contains the infamous and iniquitous Article 53,
which states that the EU itself is free to violate the 'Fundamental Rights'
of the people if it should be in the interests of the EU to do so, or, as
Sir John Fortescue summed it up, "That which pleaseth the prince hath the
force of law." This article can never and must never be a part of our law.
It has already been used in the case of Bernard Connolly, a senior
Commissioner who quite rightly blew the whistle on the corrupt European
Commission in his book, 'The Rotten Heart of Europe'. Connolly was sacked,
pleading his right to freedom of speech, but the Courts deemed that the
interests of the Community overruled that right. In short, the EU imposes
restrictions and obligations upon everyone save itself. Unlike Magna Carta,
the Charter also proscribes various political views and parties. Under its
provisions, for example, "xenophobe" (undefined, but could that mean
eurosceptic?) parties will be effectively banned.

Unlike Magna Carta, which is an entrenched and irrevocable bill, not an act
of parliament, and which is fundamental to common law, which presumes our
freedoms and rights save where they are proscribed as interfering with
another's freedoms, the Charter presumes to grant us freedoms and rights and
retains the right to withdraw them.

I make no secret of my opposition to big European government and creeping
integration, but surely even the most ardent pro-European must resent the
knavery and trickery of this government in trying to lead us by the nose
into something which, it is quite clear, the majority of the electorate
dislikes and mistrusts. The government is not empowered in law to follow its
own international policies and agendas without the consent of the
electorate, yet it is doing so. The government claims its authority from a
public mandate, yet abuses the public which gave it that mandate and treats
them as dupes and fools. As the Duke of York told another arrogant and
capricious ruler in Shakespeare's Richard II, 'Take from time his charters
and his customary right;/Let not tomorrow then ensue today;/Be not thyself -
for how art thou a king /But by fair sequence and succession?'

So too the government presumes to wield a power entrusted to it by the
people to abuse and deceive the people. This is one dirty trick, one
autonomous, autocratic, undemocratic, self-interested ploy too many.

That Charter may be signed by Tony Blair, but it will not be signed by
Britain.


Top

The Difference and Practical example 

At one minute to midnight on the 1/10/2000 YOU and I had inalienable rights
and freedoms granted under the British Constitution. These were your birthright
and could not be removed, even by Parliament because they pre dated
Parliament and were accepted as 'doubly entrenched' as the planks of our
democracy and the fundamental principles of Parliament.

We had an absolute right and freedom to do anything we wished other than
that was specifically 'proscribed' as impinging too greatly on the rights
&/or freedoms of another citizen.

At midnight any and all rights and freedoms were illegally removed from us
and gathered to the gift of the State.

At one minute past midnight the State granted you certain rights and
freedoms and defined the terms by which the State could withdraw them from
individuals, groups or the population.

The difference between these two situations is complex but, with the danger
of over simplification, under the British Constitution and British Common
Law the State is there for the benefit of the peoples; whereas under the new
system which is predicated by Justinian Law as in 'Corpus Juris' whereby the
people are 'repressed' [quote the EU official manual page 40 para 3]  thus
the people are there to ensure the State functions smoothly.

Lets look at FUEL:

up until midnight on the first WE HAD the right of free speech and the
freedom to peacefully protest under prescribed terms.

From midnight we NO LONGER HAVE the right of free speech and the freedom to
protest 'should it be deemed to be against the general interest' - think
that one through!!! The Government are those who 'deem' and should they
claim that the public interest IN THEIR OPINION is ill served they have the
POWER to ban ALL discussion of Fuel and ALL protest.

Therefore:

BoycottPumps @ BP
for
One British Pound for One British Gallon

and make sure EVERYONE is aware of this before discussion becomes illegal
because it is impossible for the Government to prosecute [at the moment]
should you buy from one organisation and not from another. You will be aware
that BP has noticeably increased its advertising and dropped the price of
its fuel to try to maintain market share already - the campaign is having
great difficulty getting publicity in the media and there is little chance
of the Brussels Broadcasting Company airing other than propaganda as Blair's
Bent Corporation with his apparatchicks Greg Dyke and Andrew Marr in place.

You will recall the lies Andrew Marr was peddling during the last bout of
fuel protest where he was talking of massive damage to the NHS and the
violent protests which were palpable LIES.

The Government LIES/Spin on the EU are almost endless with propaganda like
'how much better employment and wages terms are now that we have the EU
working time directives etc. in place'. If they were right what was to stop
Westminster passing such laws in our own independent sovereign nation? or
are Labour saying they are so incompetent that they are unfit to govern the
country?

Of course the mass of people take only a superficial glance at rights,
freedoms, legislation and politics - and I for one don't blame them as it is
a massive study. For years we have turned out every 4 or 5 years to vote and
then trusted the politicians to protect our interests in the interim, it is
only in recent times we have come to realise just how dishonest our
politicians are and how they have betrayed us.

Take for example the FACT that when actually polled the British people
reject the EUro and wish to keep the Pound by over a 90percent majority -
see the Sunday Telegraph page 4 1st. October 2000 - yet our Government
betrays us by spending millions of pounds on propaganda and preparations for
the introduction of the EUro, millions of Pounds are being stripped out of
the primary health budget of the NHS and from Local Government budgets just
to pay for the Governments dishonesty and determination to pursue their own
interests against the wishes of the public they represent.

To fund this sort of arrogant hubris and the 1,800,000 per hour the EU COSTS
us the tax on fuel is extortionate.

Greg Lance - Watkins.
For further information
e-mail:      Greg@GlanceBack.Demon.co.UK
Tel:             01291 - 626562
fax:             01291 - 628787