Eurosceptic campaigns alleging the abolition of Westminster
by Augustus_Grothier
You do realise of course my fellow Freeman that you have so very little time left to waste with fighting parking tickets and council taxes dodging TV detector vans and the DVLA. Messing about with absurdities such as Commercial Redemption, and the like.
Of course you can all continue to do so, but its your feet, under which the ground is being mined.
Please take a look at this:-
Eurosceptic campaigns alleging the abolition of Westminster
Standard Note:
SN/IA/4894
Last updated:
20 November 2008
Author:
Vaughne Miller
Section
International Affairs and Defence Section
This Note looks at eurosceptic campaigns alleging that the EU will remove England from the map of Europe and abolish Westminster. It does not examine the allegations and claims in detail, but presents the basic arguments and considers the EU instruments to which they are linked.
Contents
1 Westminster will be abolished 3
2 England will disappear 4
2.1 The EU will wipe the UK off the map 4
2.2 Interreg 4
2.3 UK Interreg programmes 6
2.4 The Arc Manche/Transmanche Region 7
2.5 The Channel Arc Manche Assembly 9
3 The Data Collection ‘conspiracy’ 11
4 The ‘Common Purpose’ organisation 12
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it.
A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required.
This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the
content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.
Westminster will be abolished
David Noakes, a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), stated on his website EUtruth
“The European Union has the Constitution of a dictatorship, and the laws of a police state.
Dictatorships lead to oppression, poverty and war”.
1 His campaign maintained that “clause I-46-4” of the EU Constitution aimed to split up the UK and abolish national political parties, thereby bringing about the abolition of the British Government in Westminster:
The Conservative, Labour and Lib-dem parties will be abolished (only pan EU parties like the EPP or PES are allowed -see clause I.46.4 of the EU Constitution). It will then be blindingly obvious to even the dumbest politician there is no reason to keep Westminster open, and that the EU has the legal right to close it.
2. The Article referred to was in the 2004 Constitutional Treaty and is now in the Lisbon Treaty as amended Article 8A(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It actually states: ”Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union” and it conforms with the present wording of Declaration No. 11 on Article 191 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Nice.
This Article concerns EU political parties, not national parties, and poses no threat to the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, or any other party. However, there are conditions regarding the funding of EU political parties, including levels of voter representation, which are set out in a 2003 EU Regulation as amended by a 2007 Regulation.
3. The Lisbon provision aims to make EU political parties more than the loose coalitions of national parties and groups that they represent at the moment, although it could be argued that national parties would have to change as well and take more seriously their relationship with corresponding EU parties.
The EUtruth website no longer exists, but Mr Noakes continues to campaign on a new site called European Truth, maintaining that the Lisbon Treaty was signed illegally and that it would, if implemented, bring about the end of the British Constitution:
As with the other five treaties their [those of the “Britain's Queen and party leaders”] signatures will be illegal under the British Constitution but as that too will be abolished in 2009, they will again get away with it. We will then be imprisioned (sic) inside the EU police state and the nations of Britain, England, our 48 counties, our monarchy common law and the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties (clause 1-46-4), will all be abolished by the EU constitution.
4. 1 http://www.aboutus.org/EuTruth.org.uk
2 http://eutruth.org.uk/ (now defunct)
3 Regulation 2004/2003 4 November 2003 “on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding” at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:3200... amended by Regulation 1524/2007, 18 December 2007 at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:343:0005.... The text of the consolidated Regulation is at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2003R2004:...
4 http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/abolish%20britain.html
3
2
England will disappear
2.1
The EU will wipe the UK off the map
The Noakes campaign and reports in The Sun and the Daily Mail maintained that as a result of EU Treaty changes and EU law the map of Europe will be redrawn without England and the English Channel. The campaign alleges that the “European Territorial Cooperation Objective” (INTERREG, see below) is an EU plot to redefine Europe by combining regions in different Member States. The EU will split “England into three and [lump] those parts together with chunks of other countries to create “transnational regions”.
England's 48 counties are being abolished and replaced with 9 European Regions under the European Regionalisation Plan. We became committed when the Queen signed, without our consent, the 1972 European Communities Act.
The Queen's signing of Maastricht and the Amsterdam Treaty have speeded up the process.
England's 20,000 town, district and county Councillors will also be abolished. There is no democratic process here; it is being done illegally, but central government does not expect councillors to stand up for their rights, or ours.
To give two examples, the county of Cornwall will be abolished and replaced by a European Region who's boundaries stretch from Land's End to include the former counties of Wiltshire and Gloucestershire. The Regional Capital is Exeter, as that city proclaims on its road signs.
The South Eastern Region includes Hampshire to Kent; it's Regional Capital is Calais. The 9 Regional Capitals report directly to the 25 unelected EU Commissioners in Brussels, not to Westminster, which will very effectively eliminate the nation of England.
5
2.2
Interreg
Interreg programmes receive EU funding to help regions in the Member States to form partnerships for joint work on common projects. Below is information on the Interreg IIIA initiative, for example, which included a map of EU regions:
Until December 2006, the Community Initiative will build on the success of the previous programmes INTERREG I (1990-1993) and INTERREG II (1994-1999). In fact, about 400 cross-border projects have already been set up through the Franco-British co-operation.
The objective of INTERREG IIIA is to encourage cooperation between the cross-border areas. The European Regional Development Funds can co-finance individual projects between partners separated by a border but linked by common interests.
The priorities are:
- strengthening cross-border co-operation in the service of the citizen,
- promoting balanced spatial development,
- promoting an attractive and welcoming region.
5 http://eutruth.org.uk/counties2.pdf (now defunct)
France and Great Britain, two member states of the European Union, are partners in this programme and set up regional projects for the benefit of all. To achieve this aim, the projects should have a coherent and lasting impact on the citizens.
6. A more recent development has been the creation of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) to manage Interreg programmes and projects. The Europa page on the EGTC states that “Unlike the structures which governed this kind of cooperation before 2007, the EGTC is a legal entity and as such, will enable regional and local authorities and other public bodies from different member states, to set up cooperation groupings with a legal personality”. The background to the new instrument is set out in the following extract from the Interact Handbook:
1.1. Background – The genesis of the EGTC and the state of the art
Until the end of the programming period 2000-2006, very few INTERREG programmes were directly managed by a joint integrated management body, e.g. in the form of Euroregion or other cross-border structures with legal personality (only 6% of the INTERREG IIIA programmes were managed in this way3).
Instead, management functions (primarily Managing Authority, Paying Authority, Joint Technical Secretariat) were usually fulfilled by regional or national institutions (regional councils, ministries, etc.) from one or more participating countries.
Numerous reasons can be posited for this, the main one being the absence or lack of an appropriate legal framework for the setting-up of such joint management structures.
The European Court of Auditors, the European Parliament and the European Commission therefore saw the need to create an adapted instrument and on 14 July 2004, the European Commission proposed a Regulation to create a European Grouping of Cross-border Cooperation (EGCC)4. This proposal by the European Commission was part of the Cohesion legislative package for the programming period 2007-135, consisting of a general Regulation and a 6 INTERREG IIIA at http://www.interreg3.com/EN/programme.asp
5
Regulation for the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), respectively.
This new instrument was mainly, though not exclusively6, meant to be used for EU programme and project management: as a matter of fact, recourse to an EGTC for programme management is one way (among others) of complying with the principle of joint management and single management structures (Articles 59 and 60 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006). Another reason for creating such instrument is the application of the principle of non-discrimination: cooperation should not be more difficult between partners from two different Member States than between partners located in the same Member State.
The focus of the draft regulation on cross-border cooperation was soon abandoned and the scope of the instrument was enlarged to include all types of territorial cooperation7. The instrument was thus renamed European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), and was eventually approved, in the form of a Regulation of the Council and the European Parliament, on 5 July 2006. Following the approval of the Regulation, which has been directly applicable in all 27 EU Member States since 1 August 2006, Member States had one year's time to make national provisions to ensure the effective application of this Regulation89. To date, this process has not yet been completed in all EU Member States (see Chapter 3).
NOTES
INTERACT Point Tool Box: Study on organisational aspects of cross-border INTERREG programmes - Legal aspects and partnerships, 2006.
4 COM (2004) 496 final.
5 Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006: however it is a normative instrument whose validity is not limited to 31.12.2013.
6 The four types of EGTC are presented in detail in Point 2.1.
7 A distinction is made between 'European Territorial Cooperation' in the meaning of the EU-funded programmes that replace the former INTERREG programmes, and 'territorial cooperation' in a more general sense (cross-border, transnational or interregional cooperation projects/actions, with or without EU-funding).
8 Art. 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 covers the obligation of Member States to make such provisions as are appropriate to ensure the effective application of this Regulation. These provisions should have been already made until 1 August 2007.
9 Throughout the document this process will be referred as the ‘implementation’ or ‘integration’ of the EGTC Regulation into the national legal systems. 7
The first officially registered EGTC was the Eurometropole Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai, created on 28 January 2008 with the first meeting of its Constitutive Assembly of 14 partners from the urban French-Belgian border area around Lille, Kortrijk (Belgian Flemish Region) and Tournai (Belgian Walloon Region).
2.3
UK Interreg programmes
An ERDF/Department for Communities and Local Government consultation began on 20 March 2008 on the Interreg IVa programme on an England-France-Flanders-Netherlands Cross border co-operation Operational Programme. The consultation questions are set out in DEP2008-0799. 7 See http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2008/DEP2008-1963.pdf and Europa website at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/index_en.htm
6.A recent Parliamentary Questions from Eric Pickles concerned Interreg IVC projects involving UK regions:
John Healey: Five projects have been approved with UK lead partners in the first call for projects on Interreg IVC programme, which has now closed.
These are:
1. Power—where the South East RDA is the lead partner
2. SEE—where Design Wales is the lead partner
3. PIMMS Transfer—where the London Borough of Bromley is the lead partner
4. GRaBS—where the Town and Country Planning Association is the lead partner
5. RAPIDE—where the South West Regional Development Agency is the lead partner.8
2.4
The Arc Manche/Transmanche Region
According to Noakes the EU regional divisions across national borders mean that people living in Kent and East Sussex will no longer be part of the UK but will join the Transmanche region. This region will include parts of Northern France, the North Sea region including eastern England and parts of Scandinavia, Germany and the Low Countries. Western Britain and Ireland would be in the Atlantic region and include parts of France, Spain and Portugal. Noakes elaborates:
Counties along England’s south coast form the “Manche Region” along with northern France.
The “Atlantic Region” takes in western England, along with Ireland, Wales and parts of Portugal, Spain, France and Scotland.
Meanwhile eastern England is part of the “North Sea Region”, which covers areas of Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands.
The UK Government is fully behind the project, even though the words “England” and “Britain” are left off official maps of each area and the Manche Region renames the English Channel “The Channel Sea”.
Each region, which will be given taxpayers’ money to promote trade links, cultural ties, transport policies and tourism, is to be run by a “managing authority” of unelected officials overseen by a director.
None will be based in the UK, Manche will be ruled by the French, Atlantic by the Portuguese and North Sea by the Danes.
The regions have legal status and Manche has a budget of £261 million between 2007 and 2013, Atlantic £127million and North Sea £219million.
7. Every project funded by a region must have a publicity campaign which ensures “there is provision for flying the EU flag at least one week every year”.
Britain has now become a province and its "Mother of Parliaments," a regional assembly. And that's no small humiliation for a country that gave the world English and saved Western civilization in the Battle of Britain in 1940.9
The Arc Manche or Transmanche region is voluntary network of French regions and English local authorities which border the English Channel (La Manche). Arc Manche describes itself as follows:
Arc Manche is a flexible network of French Regions and British local authorities along the Channel. Its aims are:
- to co-operate on themes of common interest,
- to reinforce the links between both sides of the Channel.
Arc Manche involves in its aims and outputs various categories of stakeholders, bodies and local authorities of the Channel.10
Its history and founding mission are also outlined on its website11 as follows:
Arc Manche was founded on the 9th February 1996 when a declaration of intent was signed by the Regions of Brittany, Nord-Pas de Calais, Lower Normandy, Upper Normandy, Picardy and the Counties of Dorset, Hampshire, Kent, West Sussex, East Sussex and the Isle of Wight (with the counties of Essex, Cornwall and Devon as observers).
They undertook to work towards the establishment of the Arc Manche region in Europe, with the aims of:
1) obtaining recognition of the specificity of the Channel area by the EU
2) developing a joint initiative on the future of the area
3) achieving improved integration of the Channel coastal regions within Europe
4) enhancing the local and regional economies
5) proposing a framework for cooperation between our regions on common themes.12
As Arc Manche is recognised at European programme level and is considered for EU funding for partnership projects, the Arc Manche Assembly is preparing a bid for the Espace Manche Development Initiative (EMDI).13 The EMDI is the second Arc Manche project funded by Interreg and was worth €1m over 3 years 2005-2007. In October 2006 the EMDI project,
8. HC Deb 29 October 2008 c 1147W at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081029/text...
9 24 April 2008 at http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/goodbye%20england.html
10 http://www.arcmanche.com/e_intro.htm. See also http://atlas-transmanche.certic.unicaen.fr/index.gb.html
11 Hampshire County Council hosts the website.
12 http://www.arcmanche.com/e_intro.htm
13 South East England Regional Assembly South East England Development Agency, Joint Europe Committee, Minutes of meeting on 4 June 2008 at http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/documents/events/36/minutes-040608.pdf
8
which was supported by the “North-West Europe” Interreg III B programme and managed by the Haute-Normandie Region in collaboration with its partners, published a “Strategic Vision” for the whole Channel area. This influenced the Interreg IVA Operational Programme and supported lobbying for EU Commission recognition of the Channel area as a specific sea area.14 The Assembly contributed to the Commission’s Green Paper on the European Integrated Maritime .Policy, participated in the final Espace Manche Development Initiative conference in Rouen in November 200715 and addressed the EU Committee of the Regions’ Blue Planet Forum in 2007.
The University of Brighton Applied Geology Research Unit (AGRU) has outlined two Franco-British Interreg-funded Arc Manche environmental projects in which it has participated:
1. FLOOD1 is an £3,400,000 EU INTERREG IIIA funded collaborative project between the Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM), the University of Brighton, and the British Geological Survey (BGS) that aims to investigate the role of groundwater in flooding on Chalk catchments by providing a more detailed understanding of processes in the unsaturated zone of the Chalk aquifer of southern England and Northern France, to develop monitoring techniques for groundwater in the saturated and unsaturated zones, and to produce more appropriate methodologies and tools for forecasting groundwater flood events over longer timescales than is currently possible. The Brighton team, lead by Professor Rory Mortimore, also includes Martin Smith, David Pope, Ian Molyneux and Neill Hadlow. FLOOD project website
2. ROCC (Risk of Cliff Collapse) an £600,000 INTEREGII programme jointly with the University of Le Havre and the French Geological Survey (BRGM) to produce a common database and geohazard map of the Chalk coastlines of England and France. Professor Mortimore leads the Brighton Team with David Pope. James Lawrence is the current Research Assistant on the project.16
Cooperation since 1997 between the Universities of Caen, Portsmouth and various other French and British Universities has given rise to a ‘Transmanche’ Atlas, the content of which is described as follows:
The Transmanche Electronic Atlas represents a working tool for understanding the vast area from Dover to Cornwall and from Calais to Brest. It analyses the contemporary dynamics in the regions. It supplies maps, statistics, indicators and analyses. Today it comprises some 300 documents.17
2.5
The Channel Arc Manche Assembly
The regions which have cooperated under the auspices of Interreg have formed their own forums for conferences and discussions. On 12 October 2005 the elected members of Arc Manche met in Brighton and created the Channel Arc Manche Assembly. Alain Le Vern (Upper-Normandy Region) became President and Brad Watson (West Sussex County 14 “Progress Report - The Channel Arc Manche Assembly and future activities of the network”, report of: Cllr Brad Watson, OBE, 22 February 2008 at http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/documents/events/14/agenda_item_10e-chann... . For information on project, see http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/europe/arc/EMDI.ppt
15 See conference programme at http://www.emdi.certic.unicaen.fr/en/documents/EMDIprog_Ang.pdf
16 http://sesis.eng.bton.ac.uk/environment/research/earth_systems/agru/proj...
17 http://www.arcmanche.com/pages_arc/rub_2_e.php3?Page=p_2_3.htm. Maps can be found at http://www.arcmanche.com/pages_arc/rub_2_e.php3?Page=p_2_3.htm#
9
Council) Vice-President. Brad Watson became the Assembly President in November 2007. In October 2006 he had published a letter on the Arc Manche website in an attempt to allay fears raised by newspaper articles about the Assembly and its intentions:
I have been reading with amazement (and not a little amusement) of claims that the Arc Manche organisation is somehow secret and subversive.
Far from being a plot to wipe England from the map, the Arc Manche Assembly in fact is a grassroots initiative that aims to put England on the map. It is a network of French Regions and English local authorities who border the Channel.
We decided to come together because of our shared interest in the future development, prosperity and sustainability of the Channel area. By working together with our French colleagues we have a much stronger voice that actually gets heard by Governments and the EU.
For instance at the annual conference of Arc Manche we launched a strategic vision for the Channel and brought together more than 200 people to start putting projects together to implement the strategy. The document has been influential in securing millions of pounds of investment in the Channel area for the next six years under the EU's co-operation objective funding programme.
The Arc Manche network can now facilitate partnerships and projects to take advantage of this funding. Arc Manche is about co-operation not governance. The Channel is the busiest maritime seaway in the world with 600 vessel movements a day. It is clearly in our interests to work together to ensure the safety of this waterway for commercial and leisure users and to avoid major pollution incidents. The coast, sand dunes, cliffs and the biodiversity of this region need to be protected, not only in the light of competing development pressures, but also because the beauty of our coastline is a major tourist attraction. We need to find the balance between economic development and environmental protection. The regeneration of our coastal towns is important - many have pockets of severe deprivation, among the worst in Europe.
The Arc Manche Assembly brings together organisations from both sides of the Channel to work on issues of common interest. It is only by working together that we will be able to make a concerted difference. 18
The eurosceptic MEP, Daniel Hannan, has been critical of the organisation:
[…] the Arc Manche region is far more than a talking shop. As its pamphlet boasts: "Since 2003, Arc Manche is also a political project, strengthened in October 2005 by the creation of the Arc Manche Assembly". Just what the Channel needs, eh? More politicians and a whole new parliament.
As long ago as 1972, Enoch Powell warned that the Euro-federalists would conscript the cause of regionalism, grinding the nation-state between the upper millstone of Brussels and the lower one of local bureaucracies.
What we should be doing, of course, is embracing genuine localism: decentralising power to the lowest practicable level. Instead, we are creating 18 Arc Manche News 27 October 2006 at http://www.arcmanche.com/pages_arc/rub_3_e.php3?Page=p_3_1_1.php3&commun...
10
synthetic regions lacking in any public support: a neat metaphor for the entire European project.19
The Assembly holds an annual conference in the UK or France. The next one is on 3 December at Leas Cliff Hall, Folkestone and will focus on spatial planning, environmental and maritime activities. The Assembly is funded by the participating local authorities. A parliamentary answer in March 2007 stated that it received no UK or EU funding:
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what public funding has been provided to the Arc Manche regional assembly from (a) central Government and (b) the EU Interreg programme. [124481]
Mr. Woolas: None. There is no such organisation. Arc Manche is a voluntary network of French regions and English local authorities along the English channel. Its aims are to co-operate on themes of common interest and to reinforce the links between both sides of the channel. This network has no implications for regional structures, or either elected or non-elected regional assemblies.20
3
The Data Collection ‘conspiracy’
Directive 2007/2/EC of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) was published in the EU Official Journal on 25 April 2007,21 came into force on the 15th May 2007 and must be implemented by Member States by May 2009.22
According to the “United Kingdom Report on the Re-use of
Public Sector Information 2008”:
INSPIRE covers information about mapping of the land and sea, the weather, geology, the environment, population, housing and public utility services. The purpose of the INSPIRE Directive is to ensure that private and public sector bodies and citizens across Europe can gain access to this information, can study it, and where appropriate can use it to develop new services and new information resources.23
The Government, which found this directive largely non-contentious, has answered a number of parliamentary questions on it. One such is:
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential of the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe directive to harmonise and regulate cadastral data.
Barry Gardiner: Cadastral data are covered by the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe (INSPIRE) Directive and will be subject to the interoperability requirements that INSPIRE will lay down. 19 Telegraph.co.uk 5 July 2007 at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2007/07/05/deceptive_loc...
20 HC Deb 5 March 2007 c1766W at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070305/text...
21 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:108:SOM:EN:HTML
22 There is a great deal of information on the Inspire Directive website at http://inspire.jrc.it/home.html
23 Cm 7446 July 2008 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/psi-regulations/uk-report-reuse-psi-2008.p...
11
INSPIRE will create a European Spatial Data Infrastructure by improving the interoperability of spatial information (a term often used interchangeably with geographic information) across the European Union at a local, regional, national and international level.
A series of technical implementing rules will accompany the Directive. These are currently being developed by several drafting teams under the auspices of the European Commission. They include implementing rules on the interoperability and, where practicable, harmonisation of spatial data sets.
The implementing rules will be subject to expert and public review. DEFRA and other government organisations are participating in this process. In addition, as part of the process for developing the interoperability implementing rules, the Commission (with input from member states) will undertake analyses to ensure that the rules are feasible and proportionate in terms of their likely costs and benefits.24
The European Scrutiny Committee found this a “sensible initiative”.25 The directive entered into force in May 2007. INSPIRE has not yet been implemented in the UK and DEFRA has commented:
The Defra led transposition project has been continuing the work with lawyers and stakeholders to consider how best to put INSPIRE into UK legislation. One of the key issues is that the Implementing Rules are in various stages of preparation with not all the IRs due to be finalised by the 15th May 2009. Hence the precise contents of those IRs will not be known in time for transposition. Given that any transposition legislation needs to be specific about obligations, we are currently considering our approach, including the possibility of adopting a phased approach to transposition.
Complementary to transposition, we have continued to develop the blueprint for implementation with stakeholders. The blueprint in essence provides a policy framework to guide implementation, and the latest version is available on the IGGI website. We have also begun to prepare an implementation programme within Defra.26
4
The ‘Common Purpose’ organisation
“Common Purpose” is a charity founded by Julia Middleton, which, according to its own mission statement, “helps people in leadership and decision-making positions to be more effective: in their own organisations, in the community and in society as a whole”. Ms Middleton elaborated on the organisation’s aspirations in an article in the Guardian in April 2008: 24 HC Deb 16 Apr 2007 cc 90-1W
25 ESC 34th Report 2003-04 at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/c...
26 David Lee 24 July 2008 at http://www.iggi.gov.uk/assets/downloads/files/20080724%20Defra%20INSPIRE... . See also the regulatory Impact Assessment on INSPIRE, 26 May 2005, at http://www.iggi.gov.uk/assets/downloads/files/INSPIRE_partialRIA_May2005... and further information at http://www.iggi.gov.uk/initiatives.php, and http://www.iggi.gov.uk/assets/downloads/files/Defra%20INSPIRE%20Update%2...
12
Common Purpose and Oxford Said Business School run a programme, What Next?, to help those in positions of leadership prepare for these roles. They hear from speakers about the reality of a non-executive position, and they learn about pitfalls to avoid and how to influence an organisation when they no longer hold an executive position in it. It provides them with the freedom to explore which roles might best satisfy their passions, values and strengths, and helps them plan ahead to develop the right networks and experiences to pursue a new direction in the future.
For society, we must ensure that this rich pool of talent is not lost but is utilised for the knowledge and experience that it can bring, particularly to governance roles. Those willing to make the leap and use their abilities in these roles should be valued for the contribution they can make in leading organisations through an increasingly complex world. The benefits will be felt not just by the individual but by the organisation and society as a whole.27
UKIP and other eurosceptic organisations have accused “Common Purpose” of destroying the UK’s territorial and political structure. In the following blog by a member of the Libertarian Party, Common Purpose is charged with recruiting and training leaders to be loyal to the objectives of the organisation and the EU, preparing the governing structure for what it calls the “post-democratic society” after nations are replaced by regions in the EU. Much of the blog expresses similar sentiments to those of the Noakes campaign, but with Common Purpose members allegedly preparing to hold senior “command and control” positions in the new European order:
The Destruction of Counties, departments and districts, as Regions take over, the demise of Parliament and the Reign of the Emperor of Europe. […]
England is to be split into 9 regions, the Ministers like Gauliters have already been appointed, and the County system will be abolished forever, along with the County Councils and local authorities. England will no longer be a country at all.
For example. Historic counties like Devon or Cornwall will no longer be mentioned by name as the map from the South West RDA below shows. […]
These will be the new area names within the region. Each Region will be run by RDA’s, supported by personnel headed by graduates in each district from Common Purpose.
The same will happen to each and every county of England. Scotland and Wales are safe, and will remain as they are, with their own new parliaments, each being a region to remain intact, but they will lose national status, and be downgraded by our new master in Europe to regional status. England will no longer exist as a country, just 9 regions.
The UK as represented in Europe will be known as the 11 regions of the UK.
This is not unique to the UK, it is happening to every member state of Europe. If we take France for instance, since 1999 the new regions have slowly been establishing themselves in the same way, quietly, in the background so that the people don’t notice the transformation. […]
At the same time, Party Politics will also be abolished. Westminster will be closed as a debating chamber and will become the headquarters of the London Region, the South East Region, and the Governor of the UK.
There will no longer be a Conservative, LibDem or Labour Party. Never again will there be a democratically elected UK government, an opposition and democratic debate. 27 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/16/11?gusrc=rss&feed=society . Its website at http://www.commonpurpose.org/home/about.aspx provides information on its activities, aims and objectives.
13
There will only be 1 ruling party, who will rule the UK from Westminster, who will swear allegiance to Brussels. If still in office in 2009, Gordon Brown will become the first State Governor of the UK.
The people of the UK have now been disenfranchised. Common Purpose will fill the command and control gaps that are left between the State Governors office (Westminster), RDA’s and the people after their local authorities and councils have gone. […]
This is the future in Brown’s new kind of politics, ruled from Brussels, through National Governors, down to regional directorates (RDA’s, who assumed the powers of the now defunct Regional Assemblies).
Common Purpose personnel will run the services within each region, Hospitals, transport, emergency services, police, fire, ambulance, and the boards of the thousands of Quango’s which have been established to run local services such as rubbish collection, housing associations and the like. […]
********All that Common Purpose training*******, of selected candidates, under the Chatham House rules is to develop not just networks, but clear cohesive soviets for each region, awash with money from Europe, and Banks who have donated to the network of Common Purpose run charities. In one fell swoop, a revolution right across Europe without the guns and revolutionary battles.
Yet. […]28 28 The Common Purpose across Europe, IanPP, 11 October 2007 at http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/10/11/3283329....
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I WOULD ASK YOU ALL MY PEOPLE THAT YOU PLEASE SPARE A LITTLE TIME TO STUDY THE FOLLOWING EXTRACT FROM HANSARD.
You wont find this information on the net.
You want to talk plots and treason--well my people it all here for you!
BROWSING THROUGH THE DEBATES IN THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT----HANSARD.
Most politicians, if not all, know exactly what the European Union is to turn into, for it is written clearly enough in Hansard. It is only the ordinary people of the Country that these politicians of yesterday and today didn't see fit to enlighten. Yet these ordinary people trusted them, they voted for them to look after them and this their Country.
As I take words from Hansard, and to mean anything at all, they have to be the words taken from before we actually joined the European Community or Common Market as we were told. My one difficulty is, there are so many words to choose from on this subject it is difficult to choose which ones to set down for you to read. I have put the dates and column numbers for your own confirmation.
Prime Minister Harold Macmillan 31st July 1961 (column 928) "This is political as well as an economic issue. Although the Treaty of Rome is concerned with economic matters it has an important political objective, namely to promote unity and stability in Europe which is so essential a factor in the struggle for freedom and progress throughout the world".
Mr Fell (Same day Column 935), "Is the Prime Minister aware that this decision to gamble with the British sovereignty in Europe, when 650 million people in the British Commonwealth depend upon his faith and his leadership, is the most disastrous thing that any Prime Minister has done for many generation past?"
On 2nd August 1961 column 1478 a Mr Silverman is restating that on the 28th June he moved a Motion about the European Common Market in the following terms, "That this House, being gravely concerned at the pressure to make this country enter a European Common Market and the consequent threat to subject its independence, its membership of the Commonwealth and its right and power to plan its economy in its own way, to a political union with Germany, France, Italy and Benelux, as well as a threat to the survival of the Commonwealth inherent in these proposals, urges Her Majesty's Government not to enter into any negotiations concerning such entry until expressly empowered so to do by a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers and by this House."
Later on that same day, column 1480 at 3.42 pm, the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan: "I beg to move, That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom. Etc, etc"
Later on (column1491) he states, "This problem of sovereignty, to which we must, of course, attach the highest importance is, in the end, perhaps a matter of degree. I fully accept that there are some forces in Europe which would like a genuine federalist system. There are many of my colleagues on both sides of the House who have seen this at Strasbourg and other gatherings. They would like Europe to turn itself into a sort of United States, but I believe this to be a completely false-analogy."
Mr Gaitskell then reminds the Prime Minister (column 1498) what Macmillan said in 1956 when Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was, Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common assembly, directly elected. The whole idea of the six, the coal and steel community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration. That is a fine assertion, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal---to accept as the ultimate goal--political federation in Europe, including ourselves".
Later on (column1501) Mr Gaitskell says, "There is the question of a common currency, which is mentioned in various quarters as something to which we must look forward. In my opinion, it is idle to speak about a common currency until there is a common government, and the idea of not being in control of our own currency, and having it subject to a supranational or international gathering, would be quite wrong, and I hope that, equally, will be made abundantly plain".
On 3rd August 1961 (column 1735) Mr Shinwell continues his words after having read out a part of the Treaty of Rome, ending with "reinforcement of the European Parliament through direct elections and widening of its powers and, finally, a European Government. That is the intention. That is their object and that is what they are saying on Hon Members can talk until they are black in the face about the Rome Treaty and there being no provision for federation, but there is no doubt that from the declarations made by some of the most influential people--M.Spaak, Professor Hallstein and others who have indicated that there is a definite intention and that once we accept the economic provisions of the Rome Treaty---and it looks as though this government might---they are on their way towards complete political integration".
"I wonder what this place will be like during the course of the next ten years? There will not be 630 Hon Members. There will be no need for more than 150 or so. It will be like---"
Mr A. C. Manuel, "A Council".
Mr Shinwell, "I was about to say a Parish Council, with the authority of some kind delegated to it by the European Parliament and dictated to be a European Government. To that we are being led".
On 16th November 1966, Column 446, I quote just a couple of comments from the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Brown on the subject of joining the EEC, "The issue today is not do we join Europe-- (who does he remind you of?) we have always been there. The issue is can we play such a role that from here on the continent shall be unified and we shall be effectively a leader of it?" And a little later on (488) he says, "We could clearly play a much greater role from within the Community, in influencing these affairs than we can play from outside".
I now turn to Sir D.Walker-Smith, snippets from his speech on 16th November 1966 (Column474) "On the constitutional side, the agricultural position shows clearly under the Treaty of Rome we would no longer be masters in our own house and that the powers of decision would pass from Parliament. For many years this country has practised a system of price support. It may or may not be the best system, but it has operated for 20 years with the assent of both sides of the House, etc, etc".
"But the constitutional question is clear. It would not matter if not one Member wanted to change the system. That would be irrelevant because, under the Treaty of Rome, if we join the Community the power of decision passes from this House".
"I now turn to the political and constitutional aspects, of which there are two. First, there is the immediate affect of adherence to the Treaty on British sovereignty, and secondly, the future question whether membership of the Community carries any implied or inescapable commitment to political federation in the future?"
"On the second of those matters, the position is clear as far as it goes; but our range of vision is necessarily limited. The Treaty, of course, carries no express commitment to future federation. But the difficulty is that as time goes by, if we join the Community, the decision about federation would not be one of our own choosing so much as the will of others, because our arrangements would be so inextricably involved with those of the Community that it would be difficult to the point of impossibility in practice---though not impossible in theory-- to dissociate ourselves from a supranational federation if our partners decide that they want it". Etc, etc,
"I come now to the other question relating to the political and constitutional aspect---the immediate consequences of signing the Treaty of Rome. Here we can see the position much more clearly. Two truths are apparent---first, that over a wide range of our national life there would be an immediate abandonment of sovereignty and of our constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. The second truth is that, so far, the British people have very little idea of what is involved".
Column 478, "It is clear that Article (189) in respect of those Regulations this House can be nothing but a conduit pipe. That will be its role. We cannot reject of even vary any of the regulations which are at present pouring out from Brussels. The collective law of the Community would bind the individual British citizen, and Parliament and Courts alike would be powerless to intervene. That would be a heavy price to pay for Membership of the Community".
"The British people may, in the event, pay it. I do not presume to prophesy about that, but I do know that they should not be asked to pay it in ignorance. It is a mistake to assume that the British people are interested only in the economic bread and butter aspects of this matter. It is a mistake to assume that they are not interested in these great political and constitutional matters. I know, of course, that terms like "sovereignty" are not part of the every day idiom of the British people; but the represent things which are long-established and cherished. They are like the air we breath---little noticed in its presence but valued beyond price in the event of deprivation".
"There is therefore, a duty on the Government of explanation and instruction, a duty not to gloss over these political and constitutional consequences".
Mr Stanley Orme, 16th November 1966, Col 489. "I want first to consider the European situation. At a private meeting in the House, M. Spaak, who was prominent in the setting up of the Community, explained his concept of what the European Community should be and what it should entail, and his explanation sent shivers down the spine's of some of my Hon Friends who are very pro-European. M. Spaak's political concept is that of many statesmen, particularly among the five, excluding France, (General de Gaulle, who wanted a Europ des Patries) It is the political issue which we must seriously consider".
"M. Spaak is against the entry of any neutrals. He regards the Community purely as an extension of the militarily based N.A.T.O. a further extension of a military alliance. I do not attribute those views to all of my Hon Friends who favour entry, but I do know that there are many Hon Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the Community not just as an economic unit but as a political unit too. They regard it as a supranational authority of which Britain should be a part".
Page 492 still Mr Orme, "It has been said that the British people do not fully understand what is involved in our entry to the Common Market. This is true, and I am hoping that the continuing debates on this matter will get the facts across to our people. It is not just a matter of an increase in food prices, serious as they may be; it is not simply the effect on the economy, the distribution of our industry and our future development, or our social services. It has also to do with how the Community is operated and controlled. The Community is undemocratic".
Mr Jennings 16th November 1966 Column 495. "I cannot bring myself to assume that there will be no political and constitutional connotations if we sign the Treaty of Rome. It is historically illogical that this should happen, that one step will follow another, and that from economic union there will follow political union. I have no objection to economic arrangements, even a negotiated economic union, provided we get certain safeguards. But I am horrified when I am told that I am as British as ever because I do not want to be a European first. I want to be British first and European after. Is there any shame of disgrace in wanting to be British first? It is therefore the implications and consequences of economic union of which I am frightened".
"We know quite well that five or six years ago, when we debated the question in this House, the sentiment in most of those who supported going into the Market was eventually for a political alignment and a politically united Europe. They do not deny it. They are quite honest. Even Members who are here tonight are nodding their heads on agreement. They know that this is what they want. That is what frightens me".
"The question of sovereignty or loss of sovereignty and political union in a political union in a federal United States of Europe has been swept nicely, beautifully and quietly under the carpet".
"It is almost a sin to talk about it. Apparently we have got to get into the Community, because of the mess we are in, in order to live as a nation. 'Oh thou of little faith',. Have we lost faith in our own selves? Have we lost pride in our own ability even to stand alone?"
Page 497. "My Rt. Hon and leaned friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith who five years ago most expertly, throughout the country and in this House, exposed what the loss of sovereignty would be, has touched upon it and given us the gist of it this afternoon. But the ordinary man in the street has no conception of what he will lose in rights and privileges that he now enjoys, even in a denigrated Britain, which is the attitude that many people tend to adopt. I mean questions of social services, benefits, rates of contributions, the position of the trade unions and all that sort of thing. How much loss of sovereignty of this House will there be"?
"It is easy to talk glibly about going into Europe. That is the way that it is put over to the electorate. "Let us go into Europe". Is the theme. We never attempt to say what we mean by going into Europe, but just what do we mean? Do we mean trade? Is that all? Do we leave the other sort of things, the unmentionables? Under the carpet or push them under the bed, or where? By going into Europe, do we mean in addition to the trade negotiations a form of federalism in which Britain would become a State in a United States of Europe, or part of Europe---what I have described as the rump of Europe"?
"I am not in favour of a federal United States of Europe or binding ourselves in any direction like that. I would look more kindly on a confederal system, if we had to have something like this. The alternative is what is called federalism."
"I am not prepared to sign a blank cheque that would denude this House of its powers; nor can I support a central Parliament to which we would contribute electorally, a central Parliament in Europe. I ask the Rt Hon Gentleman who is to reply to this debate, if this question of sovereignty and all it means does not arise, will he tell us quite clearly, and if he does, will he tonight, or his Rt. Hon Friends tomorrow night, tell us how much loss of sovereignty is involved"?
16th November 1966 Column 510. Mrs Renee Short. "I must add my view that many of those speaking in favour of going into the Common Market are tending to gloss over the problems and difficulties that would face us as a Nation. This is not really being fair to the public outside this place whom we represent and who rely on us for leadership in this matter, and in connection with all the other important problems with which we as Members of Parliament have to deal".
"My own view on this issue of entering or not entering the Common Market we have been brainwashed for a long time. I do not go along with this emotive phrase, "Going into Europe". As my Rt. Hon Friend said, we are in Europe; the question is what sort of Europe are we going into? Enormous pressure has been exerted, not only by big business, which has obviously vested interests for going into Europe, but by the Press". Etc, etc.
Page 518 still Mrs Short. "It is no use saying that if we go into the Common Market we should accept the Treaty of Rome as if it is written, with all the small print---most of which I find extremely alarming, including many articles which were referred to by the Rt. Hon and learned Member for Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith), which refer to the power of the Commission to issue directives to Member States as to what they should do about their economy. There are many of these articles (Interruption) Oh yes, there are. There are at least a dozen. The Rt. Hon Gentleman gave some of the numbers. They lay down clearly that the Commission can issue directives to Member States. In the event of economic difficulties the Commission can issue directives about taxation, aid to nationalised industries, and many other matters which affect the economies of nations".
"It is no good saying, "It is all right. We can accept this and when we get inside we shall be able to change the machinery." This is barking up the wrong tree. If we go in we shall have precisely the same voting power--no more and no less, as West Germany, France or Italy, based on population. We shall therefore be faced with the possibility of being out-voted if three or four or five, of the existing Members decide to vote together on any issue. We shall be able to speak and raise our voice, but our vote will not be decisive".
-------------------------------
16.11.1966 Column 530 Mr. A.J.Irvine, "It will be found that there is strong opposition in this country and, I think, on this side of the House, to federalism, and I share that opposition. There is certainly strong opposition to an excess of federalism, to any loss of identity of this Parliament, to any loss of sovereignty affecting foreign affairs, defence or certain aspects of our industrial and economic planning".
"The most interesting single feature of the Community at present is that, as I understand it, in our dislike of the federal solution we have a supporter in the President of France, and in the outlook of the French Government. The President's objections to federalism, which I share and which are enormously influential inside the Community, might in some respects neutralise his objection to our special relation with the United States".
16th November 1966 Page 535. Sir Legge-Bourke. "The only respectable basis upon which anybody could be in favour of Britain's entering the Common Market is by being at the same time entirely confederalist or federalist for Europe as a whole. A study of the Treaty of Rome shows straight away that inevitable it will involve political changes of a federal kind. How far and how fast and exactly how federal or confederal will be worked out as the years go by, but it is wrong to suppose that the Community can survive without a customs union being followed by a single currency, and it is wrong to suppose that the countries of the organisation can keep alive the vigour with which they started--- and all credit to them--- without developing politically with all this. To make that supposition is to fail to face what is in the Treaty, or is deliberately to deceive the people.
"I believe that the Treaty was conceived in a spirit of high federalism. It was soon apparent to Europe that Britain was not overkeen on that idea, but Britain had to be brought in by the architects of the document. And so the whole thing was trimmed and as the negotiations developed, the emphasis was more and more on economics and less and less on the political side".
"I have long believed that the most important economic freedom for nations is the one freedom which was left out of the four Atlantic freedoms---the freedom of choice to do business with whomsoever one will on mutual beneficial terms. In other words, this is the right to discriminate in trade. This right was taken from us particularly by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed by the first Labour Government after the war. Again, I do not want to hark back over what happened after that. I deeply regret that when it was returned to power the Conservative Party did not exercise the full rights which it had reserved through the mouth of Oliver Stanley and reassert our rights to alter our preferential tariffs and so on".
8th May 1967 Column 1088. The Prime Minister Mr Harold Wilson. "I should like to deal before I come to the political issue. One of them, on which certain anxieties have been expressed, is that the constitutional and legal implications for this country if we join the European Community. Here again, our examination of the Treaties and the other law emanating from the European Institutions, but even more of the way in which member states have been applying Community law, taking full account of realities prevailing in the member states, has greatly reassured us about the possible implications for Britain."
"It is important to realise that Community law is mainly concerned with industrial and commercial activities, with corporate bodies rather than private individuals. By far the greater part of our domestic law would remain unchanged after entry. Nothing in the Treaty would, for example, materially affect the general principles of the law of contract or tort or its Scottish equivalent, land law, the relations of landlord and tenant, housing, town and country planning, matrimonial law, or the law of inheritance. The constitutional rights and liberties of the individual such as habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence will, of course not be affected; not in any material sense will our criminal law. The main affect of Community law on our existing law is in the realms of commerce, Customs, restrictive practices and immigration and the operation of steel, coal and nuclear energy industries."
8th May 1967 Column 1109. Mr Turton. "The debate is historic, to follow the remarks of my Rt. Hon Friend, Sir Alec Douglas-Hume) It is historic because, if we join the Common Market, under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, NO Hon Member will be able to get up in this House and protest and vote against regulations which affect the economic or social welfare of his constituents. For many of us that is the main reason why we take the view which we hold on this issue".
"Last November, I and many of my Rt, Hon Friends asked for a White Paper on the constitutional issues. We felt that they were what all the country should know about. We have never had it. We have never had a White Paper on the economic issues. We have only had an article, a very fair and, I thought, damning article in The Times of last Monday.
Column 1114. "I believe that acceptance of the Motion would lead to a betrayal of the Queen in Parliament, would be disloyal to our Commonwealth Members, and would put unendurable burdens on the British people".
8th May 1967 Column 1154. Mr Erec S. Heffer. "I also want us to go into the Community because I believe that a United States of Europe is absolutely essential, and I want to see a Socialist United States of Europe. That is the prospect. I believe that we can get a socialist United States of Europe."
Finally I will finish with Mr Peter Shore (as he was then) on 22 February 1972 column 1164. "When we consider the net effects of what we pay out and receive back, these arrangements are little short of a national disaster. No Government in their senses could have agreed to terms so clearly against and detrimental to our interests. It is difficult to imagine a system of taxation, a tax mix, that could impose a heavier and more disproportionate burden upon us than the particular tax mix that has emerged as the permanent tax system of the Community under the "own resources" rule. I do not say that was the Community's purpose, but they have been extremely blind in not recognising the grievous effect this is bound to have upon us. Indeed, I cannot recall another example in history of a free country, without compulsion from outside, entering upon an arrangement so damaging to itself."
"Apart from being disastrous and unfair, these arrangements, as the Financial Secretary has made abundantly clear, constitutes a direct challenge to the most important power of Parliament, our exclusive control over taxation. As the Ways and Means Resolution makes clear, we shall permit the Community to tax the British people. We are acceding not just to the Treaty of Rome but to the Treaty of Luxembourg of April 1970, which specifically authorised the Community to have its own resources and to receive the yield of the three taxes to which I have referred."
"That agreement was a major development in the Community and I found it extraordinary that, in our debate last week, neither the Solicitor General nor the Prime Minister had anything to say about it. The Solicitor-General amused himself greatly by quoting from the 1967 White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of Britain joining the Common Market but, in his efforts to show that the constitutional innovation of the Communities having directly applicable law in the United Kingdom was known in 1967, he totally, and to me surprisingly, omitted to mention the second and even greater constitutional innovation which occurred in 1970: the right of the Communities to tax directly the Member States".
"For the Prime Minister to say, as he did last Thursday, that the constitutional position has not changed in any single respect since the negotiations of 1961, when it was fully discussed in the House time and again, is stretching the truth to the greatest possible extent."
"This is a major development in the Communities, as a consequence of which there is a major intrusion into the sovereignty of Parliament. The strongest of all our constitutional principles is that Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons which represents the people of this country, alone has the right to levy taxation. That has been the basic constitutional doctrine. Because Parliament three centuries ago insisted on this right, we gradually brought the Crown and the Executive under the control of elected representatives. As we were reminded recently, Parliament made the supply of money to the Government conditional on the remedying of grievances. That was the way in which control by the House of Commons was brought about".
"There should be no doubt about what is intended here. It is not proposed that we should make a contribution to the Communities, which we can alter if we think it is too much or too little. It is not a contribution at all. The right to levy taxes, which are specified, is to be ceded to non-elected institutions of the Community without the further consent of Parliament of the British people
As the Ways and Means Resolution puts it, we shall be,
"giving effect to any charge to taxation of those Communities"
That is quite unacceptable to us."
There are more, many, many more pages of these debates, for the debates on our entry into the Community cover a great many number of years. I hope I have proved, without a shadow of doubt, that most, if not all Members of Parliament knew what the Community was eventually, step by step, to become. Many Members of Parliament wanted to join, many did not. Again without a doubt, the truth of what the Community was to become was kept from the people of this Country. This was a complete betrayal to ALL in this Country. Today's politicians can find out the true facts of our history regarding this County's entry into the European Community in exactly the same way that I have. It just takes time and patience. It is all recorded, every sordid detail, (Britain's shame) in Hansard.
No matter how long ago these events took place, the Members of Parliament that are still alive, should and must be made accountable for their actions, in the same way that 'today's' MPs will surely be
You do realise of course my fellow Freeman that you have so very little time left to waste with fighting parking tickets and council taxes dodging TV detector vans and the DVLA. Messing about with absurdities such as Commercial Redemption, and the like.
Of course you can all continue to do so, but its your feet, under which the ground is being mined.
Please take a look at this:-
Eurosceptic campaigns alleging the abolition of Westminster
Standard Note:
SN/IA/4894
Last updated:
20 November 2008
Author:
Vaughne Miller
Section
International Affairs and Defence Section
This Note looks at eurosceptic campaigns alleging that the EU will remove England from the map of Europe and abolish Westminster. It does not examine the allegations and claims in detail, but presents the basic arguments and considers the EU instruments to which they are linked.
Contents
1 Westminster will be abolished 3
2 England will disappear 4
2.1 The EU will wipe the UK off the map 4
2.2 Interreg 4
2.3 UK Interreg programmes 6
2.4 The Arc Manche/Transmanche Region 7
2.5 The Channel Arc Manche Assembly 9
3 The Data Collection ‘conspiracy’ 11
4 The ‘Common Purpose’ organisation 12
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it.
A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required.
This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the
content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.
Westminster will be abolished
David Noakes, a member of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), stated on his website EUtruth
“The European Union has the Constitution of a dictatorship, and the laws of a police state.
Dictatorships lead to oppression, poverty and war”.
1 His campaign maintained that “clause I-46-4” of the EU Constitution aimed to split up the UK and abolish national political parties, thereby bringing about the abolition of the British Government in Westminster:
The Conservative, Labour and Lib-dem parties will be abolished (only pan EU parties like the EPP or PES are allowed -see clause I.46.4 of the EU Constitution). It will then be blindingly obvious to even the dumbest politician there is no reason to keep Westminster open, and that the EU has the legal right to close it.
2. The Article referred to was in the 2004 Constitutional Treaty and is now in the Lisbon Treaty as amended Article 8A(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). It actually states: ”Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union” and it conforms with the present wording of Declaration No. 11 on Article 191 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of Nice.
This Article concerns EU political parties, not national parties, and poses no threat to the Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, or any other party. However, there are conditions regarding the funding of EU political parties, including levels of voter representation, which are set out in a 2003 EU Regulation as amended by a 2007 Regulation.
3. The Lisbon provision aims to make EU political parties more than the loose coalitions of national parties and groups that they represent at the moment, although it could be argued that national parties would have to change as well and take more seriously their relationship with corresponding EU parties.
The EUtruth website no longer exists, but Mr Noakes continues to campaign on a new site called European Truth, maintaining that the Lisbon Treaty was signed illegally and that it would, if implemented, bring about the end of the British Constitution:
As with the other five treaties their [those of the “Britain's Queen and party leaders”] signatures will be illegal under the British Constitution but as that too will be abolished in 2009, they will again get away with it. We will then be imprisioned (sic) inside the EU police state and the nations of Britain, England, our 48 counties, our monarchy common law and the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties (clause 1-46-4), will all be abolished by the EU constitution.
4. 1 http://www.aboutus.org/EuTruth.org.uk
2 http://eutruth.org.uk/ (now defunct)
3 Regulation 2004/2003 4 November 2003 “on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding” at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:3200... amended by Regulation 1524/2007, 18 December 2007 at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:343:0005.... The text of the consolidated Regulation is at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2003R2004:...
4 http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/abolish%20britain.html
3
2
England will disappear
2.1
The EU will wipe the UK off the map
The Noakes campaign and reports in The Sun and the Daily Mail maintained that as a result of EU Treaty changes and EU law the map of Europe will be redrawn without England and the English Channel. The campaign alleges that the “European Territorial Cooperation Objective” (INTERREG, see below) is an EU plot to redefine Europe by combining regions in different Member States. The EU will split “England into three and [lump] those parts together with chunks of other countries to create “transnational regions”.
England's 48 counties are being abolished and replaced with 9 European Regions under the European Regionalisation Plan. We became committed when the Queen signed, without our consent, the 1972 European Communities Act.
The Queen's signing of Maastricht and the Amsterdam Treaty have speeded up the process.
England's 20,000 town, district and county Councillors will also be abolished. There is no democratic process here; it is being done illegally, but central government does not expect councillors to stand up for their rights, or ours.
To give two examples, the county of Cornwall will be abolished and replaced by a European Region who's boundaries stretch from Land's End to include the former counties of Wiltshire and Gloucestershire. The Regional Capital is Exeter, as that city proclaims on its road signs.
The South Eastern Region includes Hampshire to Kent; it's Regional Capital is Calais. The 9 Regional Capitals report directly to the 25 unelected EU Commissioners in Brussels, not to Westminster, which will very effectively eliminate the nation of England.
5
2.2
Interreg
Interreg programmes receive EU funding to help regions in the Member States to form partnerships for joint work on common projects. Below is information on the Interreg IIIA initiative, for example, which included a map of EU regions:
Until December 2006, the Community Initiative will build on the success of the previous programmes INTERREG I (1990-1993) and INTERREG II (1994-1999). In fact, about 400 cross-border projects have already been set up through the Franco-British co-operation.
The objective of INTERREG IIIA is to encourage cooperation between the cross-border areas. The European Regional Development Funds can co-finance individual projects between partners separated by a border but linked by common interests.
The priorities are:
- strengthening cross-border co-operation in the service of the citizen,
- promoting balanced spatial development,
- promoting an attractive and welcoming region.
5 http://eutruth.org.uk/counties2.pdf (now defunct)
France and Great Britain, two member states of the European Union, are partners in this programme and set up regional projects for the benefit of all. To achieve this aim, the projects should have a coherent and lasting impact on the citizens.
6. A more recent development has been the creation of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) to manage Interreg programmes and projects. The Europa page on the EGTC states that “Unlike the structures which governed this kind of cooperation before 2007, the EGTC is a legal entity and as such, will enable regional and local authorities and other public bodies from different member states, to set up cooperation groupings with a legal personality”. The background to the new instrument is set out in the following extract from the Interact Handbook:
1.1. Background – The genesis of the EGTC and the state of the art
Until the end of the programming period 2000-2006, very few INTERREG programmes were directly managed by a joint integrated management body, e.g. in the form of Euroregion or other cross-border structures with legal personality (only 6% of the INTERREG IIIA programmes were managed in this way3).
Instead, management functions (primarily Managing Authority, Paying Authority, Joint Technical Secretariat) were usually fulfilled by regional or national institutions (regional councils, ministries, etc.) from one or more participating countries.
Numerous reasons can be posited for this, the main one being the absence or lack of an appropriate legal framework for the setting-up of such joint management structures.
The European Court of Auditors, the European Parliament and the European Commission therefore saw the need to create an adapted instrument and on 14 July 2004, the European Commission proposed a Regulation to create a European Grouping of Cross-border Cooperation (EGCC)4. This proposal by the European Commission was part of the Cohesion legislative package for the programming period 2007-135, consisting of a general Regulation and a 6 INTERREG IIIA at http://www.interreg3.com/EN/programme.asp
5
Regulation for the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), respectively.
This new instrument was mainly, though not exclusively6, meant to be used for EU programme and project management: as a matter of fact, recourse to an EGTC for programme management is one way (among others) of complying with the principle of joint management and single management structures (Articles 59 and 60 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006). Another reason for creating such instrument is the application of the principle of non-discrimination: cooperation should not be more difficult between partners from two different Member States than between partners located in the same Member State.
The focus of the draft regulation on cross-border cooperation was soon abandoned and the scope of the instrument was enlarged to include all types of territorial cooperation7. The instrument was thus renamed European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), and was eventually approved, in the form of a Regulation of the Council and the European Parliament, on 5 July 2006. Following the approval of the Regulation, which has been directly applicable in all 27 EU Member States since 1 August 2006, Member States had one year's time to make national provisions to ensure the effective application of this Regulation89. To date, this process has not yet been completed in all EU Member States (see Chapter 3).
NOTES
INTERACT Point Tool Box: Study on organisational aspects of cross-border INTERREG programmes - Legal aspects and partnerships, 2006.
4 COM (2004) 496 final.
5 Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006: however it is a normative instrument whose validity is not limited to 31.12.2013.
6 The four types of EGTC are presented in detail in Point 2.1.
7 A distinction is made between 'European Territorial Cooperation' in the meaning of the EU-funded programmes that replace the former INTERREG programmes, and 'territorial cooperation' in a more general sense (cross-border, transnational or interregional cooperation projects/actions, with or without EU-funding).
8 Art. 16(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 covers the obligation of Member States to make such provisions as are appropriate to ensure the effective application of this Regulation. These provisions should have been already made until 1 August 2007.
9 Throughout the document this process will be referred as the ‘implementation’ or ‘integration’ of the EGTC Regulation into the national legal systems. 7
The first officially registered EGTC was the Eurometropole Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai, created on 28 January 2008 with the first meeting of its Constitutive Assembly of 14 partners from the urban French-Belgian border area around Lille, Kortrijk (Belgian Flemish Region) and Tournai (Belgian Walloon Region).
2.3
UK Interreg programmes
An ERDF/Department for Communities and Local Government consultation began on 20 March 2008 on the Interreg IVa programme on an England-France-Flanders-Netherlands Cross border co-operation Operational Programme. The consultation questions are set out in DEP2008-0799. 7 See http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2008/DEP2008-1963.pdf and Europa website at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/index_en.htm
6.A recent Parliamentary Questions from Eric Pickles concerned Interreg IVC projects involving UK regions:
John Healey: Five projects have been approved with UK lead partners in the first call for projects on Interreg IVC programme, which has now closed.
These are:
1. Power—where the South East RDA is the lead partner
2. SEE—where Design Wales is the lead partner
3. PIMMS Transfer—where the London Borough of Bromley is the lead partner
4. GRaBS—where the Town and Country Planning Association is the lead partner
5. RAPIDE—where the South West Regional Development Agency is the lead partner.8
2.4
The Arc Manche/Transmanche Region
According to Noakes the EU regional divisions across national borders mean that people living in Kent and East Sussex will no longer be part of the UK but will join the Transmanche region. This region will include parts of Northern France, the North Sea region including eastern England and parts of Scandinavia, Germany and the Low Countries. Western Britain and Ireland would be in the Atlantic region and include parts of France, Spain and Portugal. Noakes elaborates:
Counties along England’s south coast form the “Manche Region” along with northern France.
The “Atlantic Region” takes in western England, along with Ireland, Wales and parts of Portugal, Spain, France and Scotland.
Meanwhile eastern England is part of the “North Sea Region”, which covers areas of Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands.
The UK Government is fully behind the project, even though the words “England” and “Britain” are left off official maps of each area and the Manche Region renames the English Channel “The Channel Sea”.
Each region, which will be given taxpayers’ money to promote trade links, cultural ties, transport policies and tourism, is to be run by a “managing authority” of unelected officials overseen by a director.
None will be based in the UK, Manche will be ruled by the French, Atlantic by the Portuguese and North Sea by the Danes.
The regions have legal status and Manche has a budget of £261 million between 2007 and 2013, Atlantic £127million and North Sea £219million.
7. Every project funded by a region must have a publicity campaign which ensures “there is provision for flying the EU flag at least one week every year”.
Britain has now become a province and its "Mother of Parliaments," a regional assembly. And that's no small humiliation for a country that gave the world English and saved Western civilization in the Battle of Britain in 1940.9
The Arc Manche or Transmanche region is voluntary network of French regions and English local authorities which border the English Channel (La Manche). Arc Manche describes itself as follows:
Arc Manche is a flexible network of French Regions and British local authorities along the Channel. Its aims are:
- to co-operate on themes of common interest,
- to reinforce the links between both sides of the Channel.
Arc Manche involves in its aims and outputs various categories of stakeholders, bodies and local authorities of the Channel.10
Its history and founding mission are also outlined on its website11 as follows:
Arc Manche was founded on the 9th February 1996 when a declaration of intent was signed by the Regions of Brittany, Nord-Pas de Calais, Lower Normandy, Upper Normandy, Picardy and the Counties of Dorset, Hampshire, Kent, West Sussex, East Sussex and the Isle of Wight (with the counties of Essex, Cornwall and Devon as observers).
They undertook to work towards the establishment of the Arc Manche region in Europe, with the aims of:
1) obtaining recognition of the specificity of the Channel area by the EU
2) developing a joint initiative on the future of the area
3) achieving improved integration of the Channel coastal regions within Europe
4) enhancing the local and regional economies
5) proposing a framework for cooperation between our regions on common themes.12
As Arc Manche is recognised at European programme level and is considered for EU funding for partnership projects, the Arc Manche Assembly is preparing a bid for the Espace Manche Development Initiative (EMDI).13 The EMDI is the second Arc Manche project funded by Interreg and was worth €1m over 3 years 2005-2007. In October 2006 the EMDI project,
8. HC Deb 29 October 2008 c 1147W at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081029/text...
9 24 April 2008 at http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/goodbye%20england.html
10 http://www.arcmanche.com/e_intro.htm. See also http://atlas-transmanche.certic.unicaen.fr/index.gb.html
11 Hampshire County Council hosts the website.
12 http://www.arcmanche.com/e_intro.htm
13 South East England Regional Assembly South East England Development Agency, Joint Europe Committee, Minutes of meeting on 4 June 2008 at http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/documents/events/36/minutes-040608.pdf
8
which was supported by the “North-West Europe” Interreg III B programme and managed by the Haute-Normandie Region in collaboration with its partners, published a “Strategic Vision” for the whole Channel area. This influenced the Interreg IVA Operational Programme and supported lobbying for EU Commission recognition of the Channel area as a specific sea area.14 The Assembly contributed to the Commission’s Green Paper on the European Integrated Maritime .Policy, participated in the final Espace Manche Development Initiative conference in Rouen in November 200715 and addressed the EU Committee of the Regions’ Blue Planet Forum in 2007.
The University of Brighton Applied Geology Research Unit (AGRU) has outlined two Franco-British Interreg-funded Arc Manche environmental projects in which it has participated:
1. FLOOD1 is an £3,400,000 EU INTERREG IIIA funded collaborative project between the Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières (BRGM), the University of Brighton, and the British Geological Survey (BGS) that aims to investigate the role of groundwater in flooding on Chalk catchments by providing a more detailed understanding of processes in the unsaturated zone of the Chalk aquifer of southern England and Northern France, to develop monitoring techniques for groundwater in the saturated and unsaturated zones, and to produce more appropriate methodologies and tools for forecasting groundwater flood events over longer timescales than is currently possible. The Brighton team, lead by Professor Rory Mortimore, also includes Martin Smith, David Pope, Ian Molyneux and Neill Hadlow. FLOOD project website
2. ROCC (Risk of Cliff Collapse) an £600,000 INTEREGII programme jointly with the University of Le Havre and the French Geological Survey (BRGM) to produce a common database and geohazard map of the Chalk coastlines of England and France. Professor Mortimore leads the Brighton Team with David Pope. James Lawrence is the current Research Assistant on the project.16
Cooperation since 1997 between the Universities of Caen, Portsmouth and various other French and British Universities has given rise to a ‘Transmanche’ Atlas, the content of which is described as follows:
The Transmanche Electronic Atlas represents a working tool for understanding the vast area from Dover to Cornwall and from Calais to Brest. It analyses the contemporary dynamics in the regions. It supplies maps, statistics, indicators and analyses. Today it comprises some 300 documents.17
2.5
The Channel Arc Manche Assembly
The regions which have cooperated under the auspices of Interreg have formed their own forums for conferences and discussions. On 12 October 2005 the elected members of Arc Manche met in Brighton and created the Channel Arc Manche Assembly. Alain Le Vern (Upper-Normandy Region) became President and Brad Watson (West Sussex County 14 “Progress Report - The Channel Arc Manche Assembly and future activities of the network”, report of: Cllr Brad Watson, OBE, 22 February 2008 at http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/documents/events/14/agenda_item_10e-chann... . For information on project, see http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/europe/arc/EMDI.ppt
15 See conference programme at http://www.emdi.certic.unicaen.fr/en/documents/EMDIprog_Ang.pdf
16 http://sesis.eng.bton.ac.uk/environment/research/earth_systems/agru/proj...
17 http://www.arcmanche.com/pages_arc/rub_2_e.php3?Page=p_2_3.htm. Maps can be found at http://www.arcmanche.com/pages_arc/rub_2_e.php3?Page=p_2_3.htm#
9
Council) Vice-President. Brad Watson became the Assembly President in November 2007. In October 2006 he had published a letter on the Arc Manche website in an attempt to allay fears raised by newspaper articles about the Assembly and its intentions:
I have been reading with amazement (and not a little amusement) of claims that the Arc Manche organisation is somehow secret and subversive.
Far from being a plot to wipe England from the map, the Arc Manche Assembly in fact is a grassroots initiative that aims to put England on the map. It is a network of French Regions and English local authorities who border the Channel.
We decided to come together because of our shared interest in the future development, prosperity and sustainability of the Channel area. By working together with our French colleagues we have a much stronger voice that actually gets heard by Governments and the EU.
For instance at the annual conference of Arc Manche we launched a strategic vision for the Channel and brought together more than 200 people to start putting projects together to implement the strategy. The document has been influential in securing millions of pounds of investment in the Channel area for the next six years under the EU's co-operation objective funding programme.
The Arc Manche network can now facilitate partnerships and projects to take advantage of this funding. Arc Manche is about co-operation not governance. The Channel is the busiest maritime seaway in the world with 600 vessel movements a day. It is clearly in our interests to work together to ensure the safety of this waterway for commercial and leisure users and to avoid major pollution incidents. The coast, sand dunes, cliffs and the biodiversity of this region need to be protected, not only in the light of competing development pressures, but also because the beauty of our coastline is a major tourist attraction. We need to find the balance between economic development and environmental protection. The regeneration of our coastal towns is important - many have pockets of severe deprivation, among the worst in Europe.
The Arc Manche Assembly brings together organisations from both sides of the Channel to work on issues of common interest. It is only by working together that we will be able to make a concerted difference. 18
The eurosceptic MEP, Daniel Hannan, has been critical of the organisation:
[…] the Arc Manche region is far more than a talking shop. As its pamphlet boasts: "Since 2003, Arc Manche is also a political project, strengthened in October 2005 by the creation of the Arc Manche Assembly". Just what the Channel needs, eh? More politicians and a whole new parliament.
As long ago as 1972, Enoch Powell warned that the Euro-federalists would conscript the cause of regionalism, grinding the nation-state between the upper millstone of Brussels and the lower one of local bureaucracies.
What we should be doing, of course, is embracing genuine localism: decentralising power to the lowest practicable level. Instead, we are creating 18 Arc Manche News 27 October 2006 at http://www.arcmanche.com/pages_arc/rub_3_e.php3?Page=p_3_1_1.php3&commun...
10
synthetic regions lacking in any public support: a neat metaphor for the entire European project.19
The Assembly holds an annual conference in the UK or France. The next one is on 3 December at Leas Cliff Hall, Folkestone and will focus on spatial planning, environmental and maritime activities. The Assembly is funded by the participating local authorities. A parliamentary answer in March 2007 stated that it received no UK or EU funding:
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what public funding has been provided to the Arc Manche regional assembly from (a) central Government and (b) the EU Interreg programme. [124481]
Mr. Woolas: None. There is no such organisation. Arc Manche is a voluntary network of French regions and English local authorities along the English channel. Its aims are to co-operate on themes of common interest and to reinforce the links between both sides of the channel. This network has no implications for regional structures, or either elected or non-elected regional assemblies.20
3
The Data Collection ‘conspiracy’
Directive 2007/2/EC of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) was published in the EU Official Journal on 25 April 2007,21 came into force on the 15th May 2007 and must be implemented by Member States by May 2009.22
According to the “United Kingdom Report on the Re-use of
Public Sector Information 2008”:
INSPIRE covers information about mapping of the land and sea, the weather, geology, the environment, population, housing and public utility services. The purpose of the INSPIRE Directive is to ensure that private and public sector bodies and citizens across Europe can gain access to this information, can study it, and where appropriate can use it to develop new services and new information resources.23
The Government, which found this directive largely non-contentious, has answered a number of parliamentary questions on it. One such is:
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential of the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe directive to harmonise and regulate cadastral data.
Barry Gardiner: Cadastral data are covered by the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe (INSPIRE) Directive and will be subject to the interoperability requirements that INSPIRE will lay down. 19 Telegraph.co.uk 5 July 2007 at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2007/07/05/deceptive_loc...
20 HC Deb 5 March 2007 c1766W at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070305/text...
21 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:108:SOM:EN:HTML
22 There is a great deal of information on the Inspire Directive website at http://inspire.jrc.it/home.html
23 Cm 7446 July 2008 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/psi-regulations/uk-report-reuse-psi-2008.p...
11
INSPIRE will create a European Spatial Data Infrastructure by improving the interoperability of spatial information (a term often used interchangeably with geographic information) across the European Union at a local, regional, national and international level.
A series of technical implementing rules will accompany the Directive. These are currently being developed by several drafting teams under the auspices of the European Commission. They include implementing rules on the interoperability and, where practicable, harmonisation of spatial data sets.
The implementing rules will be subject to expert and public review. DEFRA and other government organisations are participating in this process. In addition, as part of the process for developing the interoperability implementing rules, the Commission (with input from member states) will undertake analyses to ensure that the rules are feasible and proportionate in terms of their likely costs and benefits.24
The European Scrutiny Committee found this a “sensible initiative”.25 The directive entered into force in May 2007. INSPIRE has not yet been implemented in the UK and DEFRA has commented:
The Defra led transposition project has been continuing the work with lawyers and stakeholders to consider how best to put INSPIRE into UK legislation. One of the key issues is that the Implementing Rules are in various stages of preparation with not all the IRs due to be finalised by the 15th May 2009. Hence the precise contents of those IRs will not be known in time for transposition. Given that any transposition legislation needs to be specific about obligations, we are currently considering our approach, including the possibility of adopting a phased approach to transposition.
Complementary to transposition, we have continued to develop the blueprint for implementation with stakeholders. The blueprint in essence provides a policy framework to guide implementation, and the latest version is available on the IGGI website. We have also begun to prepare an implementation programme within Defra.26
4
The ‘Common Purpose’ organisation
“Common Purpose” is a charity founded by Julia Middleton, which, according to its own mission statement, “helps people in leadership and decision-making positions to be more effective: in their own organisations, in the community and in society as a whole”. Ms Middleton elaborated on the organisation’s aspirations in an article in the Guardian in April 2008: 24 HC Deb 16 Apr 2007 cc 90-1W
25 ESC 34th Report 2003-04 at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/c...
26 David Lee 24 July 2008 at http://www.iggi.gov.uk/assets/downloads/files/20080724%20Defra%20INSPIRE... . See also the regulatory Impact Assessment on INSPIRE, 26 May 2005, at http://www.iggi.gov.uk/assets/downloads/files/INSPIRE_partialRIA_May2005... and further information at http://www.iggi.gov.uk/initiatives.php, and http://www.iggi.gov.uk/assets/downloads/files/Defra%20INSPIRE%20Update%2...
12
Common Purpose and Oxford Said Business School run a programme, What Next?, to help those in positions of leadership prepare for these roles. They hear from speakers about the reality of a non-executive position, and they learn about pitfalls to avoid and how to influence an organisation when they no longer hold an executive position in it. It provides them with the freedom to explore which roles might best satisfy their passions, values and strengths, and helps them plan ahead to develop the right networks and experiences to pursue a new direction in the future.
For society, we must ensure that this rich pool of talent is not lost but is utilised for the knowledge and experience that it can bring, particularly to governance roles. Those willing to make the leap and use their abilities in these roles should be valued for the contribution they can make in leading organisations through an increasingly complex world. The benefits will be felt not just by the individual but by the organisation and society as a whole.27
UKIP and other eurosceptic organisations have accused “Common Purpose” of destroying the UK’s territorial and political structure. In the following blog by a member of the Libertarian Party, Common Purpose is charged with recruiting and training leaders to be loyal to the objectives of the organisation and the EU, preparing the governing structure for what it calls the “post-democratic society” after nations are replaced by regions in the EU. Much of the blog expresses similar sentiments to those of the Noakes campaign, but with Common Purpose members allegedly preparing to hold senior “command and control” positions in the new European order:
The Destruction of Counties, departments and districts, as Regions take over, the demise of Parliament and the Reign of the Emperor of Europe. […]
England is to be split into 9 regions, the Ministers like Gauliters have already been appointed, and the County system will be abolished forever, along with the County Councils and local authorities. England will no longer be a country at all.
For example. Historic counties like Devon or Cornwall will no longer be mentioned by name as the map from the South West RDA below shows. […]
These will be the new area names within the region. Each Region will be run by RDA’s, supported by personnel headed by graduates in each district from Common Purpose.
The same will happen to each and every county of England. Scotland and Wales are safe, and will remain as they are, with their own new parliaments, each being a region to remain intact, but they will lose national status, and be downgraded by our new master in Europe to regional status. England will no longer exist as a country, just 9 regions.
The UK as represented in Europe will be known as the 11 regions of the UK.
This is not unique to the UK, it is happening to every member state of Europe. If we take France for instance, since 1999 the new regions have slowly been establishing themselves in the same way, quietly, in the background so that the people don’t notice the transformation. […]
At the same time, Party Politics will also be abolished. Westminster will be closed as a debating chamber and will become the headquarters of the London Region, the South East Region, and the Governor of the UK.
There will no longer be a Conservative, LibDem or Labour Party. Never again will there be a democratically elected UK government, an opposition and democratic debate. 27 http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/16/11?gusrc=rss&feed=society . Its website at http://www.commonpurpose.org/home/about.aspx provides information on its activities, aims and objectives.
13
There will only be 1 ruling party, who will rule the UK from Westminster, who will swear allegiance to Brussels. If still in office in 2009, Gordon Brown will become the first State Governor of the UK.
The people of the UK have now been disenfranchised. Common Purpose will fill the command and control gaps that are left between the State Governors office (Westminster), RDA’s and the people after their local authorities and councils have gone. […]
This is the future in Brown’s new kind of politics, ruled from Brussels, through National Governors, down to regional directorates (RDA’s, who assumed the powers of the now defunct Regional Assemblies).
Common Purpose personnel will run the services within each region, Hospitals, transport, emergency services, police, fire, ambulance, and the boards of the thousands of Quango’s which have been established to run local services such as rubbish collection, housing associations and the like. […]
********All that Common Purpose training*******, of selected candidates, under the Chatham House rules is to develop not just networks, but clear cohesive soviets for each region, awash with money from Europe, and Banks who have donated to the network of Common Purpose run charities. In one fell swoop, a revolution right across Europe without the guns and revolutionary battles.
Yet. […]28 28 The Common Purpose across Europe, IanPP, 11 October 2007 at http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/10/11/3283329....
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I WOULD ASK YOU ALL MY PEOPLE THAT YOU PLEASE SPARE A LITTLE TIME TO STUDY THE FOLLOWING EXTRACT FROM HANSARD.
You wont find this information on the net.
You want to talk plots and treason--well my people it all here for you!
BROWSING THROUGH THE DEBATES IN THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT----HANSARD.
Most politicians, if not all, know exactly what the European Union is to turn into, for it is written clearly enough in Hansard. It is only the ordinary people of the Country that these politicians of yesterday and today didn't see fit to enlighten. Yet these ordinary people trusted them, they voted for them to look after them and this their Country.
As I take words from Hansard, and to mean anything at all, they have to be the words taken from before we actually joined the European Community or Common Market as we were told. My one difficulty is, there are so many words to choose from on this subject it is difficult to choose which ones to set down for you to read. I have put the dates and column numbers for your own confirmation.
Prime Minister Harold Macmillan 31st July 1961 (column 928) "This is political as well as an economic issue. Although the Treaty of Rome is concerned with economic matters it has an important political objective, namely to promote unity and stability in Europe which is so essential a factor in the struggle for freedom and progress throughout the world".
Mr Fell (Same day Column 935), "Is the Prime Minister aware that this decision to gamble with the British sovereignty in Europe, when 650 million people in the British Commonwealth depend upon his faith and his leadership, is the most disastrous thing that any Prime Minister has done for many generation past?"
On 2nd August 1961 column 1478 a Mr Silverman is restating that on the 28th June he moved a Motion about the European Common Market in the following terms, "That this House, being gravely concerned at the pressure to make this country enter a European Common Market and the consequent threat to subject its independence, its membership of the Commonwealth and its right and power to plan its economy in its own way, to a political union with Germany, France, Italy and Benelux, as well as a threat to the survival of the Commonwealth inherent in these proposals, urges Her Majesty's Government not to enter into any negotiations concerning such entry until expressly empowered so to do by a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers and by this House."
Later on that same day, column 1480 at 3.42 pm, the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan: "I beg to move, That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom. Etc, etc"
Later on (column1491) he states, "This problem of sovereignty, to which we must, of course, attach the highest importance is, in the end, perhaps a matter of degree. I fully accept that there are some forces in Europe which would like a genuine federalist system. There are many of my colleagues on both sides of the House who have seen this at Strasbourg and other gatherings. They would like Europe to turn itself into a sort of United States, but I believe this to be a completely false-analogy."
Mr Gaitskell then reminds the Prime Minister (column 1498) what Macmillan said in 1956 when Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was, Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration. We can see that in Article 138 of the Treaty, which looks towards a common assembly, directly elected. The whole idea of the six, the coal and steel community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration. That is a fine assertion, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal---to accept as the ultimate goal--political federation in Europe, including ourselves".
Later on (column1501) Mr Gaitskell says, "There is the question of a common currency, which is mentioned in various quarters as something to which we must look forward. In my opinion, it is idle to speak about a common currency until there is a common government, and the idea of not being in control of our own currency, and having it subject to a supranational or international gathering, would be quite wrong, and I hope that, equally, will be made abundantly plain".
On 3rd August 1961 (column 1735) Mr Shinwell continues his words after having read out a part of the Treaty of Rome, ending with "reinforcement of the European Parliament through direct elections and widening of its powers and, finally, a European Government. That is the intention. That is their object and that is what they are saying on Hon Members can talk until they are black in the face about the Rome Treaty and there being no provision for federation, but there is no doubt that from the declarations made by some of the most influential people--M.Spaak, Professor Hallstein and others who have indicated that there is a definite intention and that once we accept the economic provisions of the Rome Treaty---and it looks as though this government might---they are on their way towards complete political integration".
"I wonder what this place will be like during the course of the next ten years? There will not be 630 Hon Members. There will be no need for more than 150 or so. It will be like---"
Mr A. C. Manuel, "A Council".
Mr Shinwell, "I was about to say a Parish Council, with the authority of some kind delegated to it by the European Parliament and dictated to be a European Government. To that we are being led".
On 16th November 1966, Column 446, I quote just a couple of comments from the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr George Brown on the subject of joining the EEC, "The issue today is not do we join Europe-- (who does he remind you of?) we have always been there. The issue is can we play such a role that from here on the continent shall be unified and we shall be effectively a leader of it?" And a little later on (488) he says, "We could clearly play a much greater role from within the Community, in influencing these affairs than we can play from outside".
I now turn to Sir D.Walker-Smith, snippets from his speech on 16th November 1966 (Column474) "On the constitutional side, the agricultural position shows clearly under the Treaty of Rome we would no longer be masters in our own house and that the powers of decision would pass from Parliament. For many years this country has practised a system of price support. It may or may not be the best system, but it has operated for 20 years with the assent of both sides of the House, etc, etc".
"But the constitutional question is clear. It would not matter if not one Member wanted to change the system. That would be irrelevant because, under the Treaty of Rome, if we join the Community the power of decision passes from this House".
"I now turn to the political and constitutional aspects, of which there are two. First, there is the immediate affect of adherence to the Treaty on British sovereignty, and secondly, the future question whether membership of the Community carries any implied or inescapable commitment to political federation in the future?"
"On the second of those matters, the position is clear as far as it goes; but our range of vision is necessarily limited. The Treaty, of course, carries no express commitment to future federation. But the difficulty is that as time goes by, if we join the Community, the decision about federation would not be one of our own choosing so much as the will of others, because our arrangements would be so inextricably involved with those of the Community that it would be difficult to the point of impossibility in practice---though not impossible in theory-- to dissociate ourselves from a supranational federation if our partners decide that they want it". Etc, etc,
"I come now to the other question relating to the political and constitutional aspect---the immediate consequences of signing the Treaty of Rome. Here we can see the position much more clearly. Two truths are apparent---first, that over a wide range of our national life there would be an immediate abandonment of sovereignty and of our constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. The second truth is that, so far, the British people have very little idea of what is involved".
Column 478, "It is clear that Article (189) in respect of those Regulations this House can be nothing but a conduit pipe. That will be its role. We cannot reject of even vary any of the regulations which are at present pouring out from Brussels. The collective law of the Community would bind the individual British citizen, and Parliament and Courts alike would be powerless to intervene. That would be a heavy price to pay for Membership of the Community".
"The British people may, in the event, pay it. I do not presume to prophesy about that, but I do know that they should not be asked to pay it in ignorance. It is a mistake to assume that the British people are interested only in the economic bread and butter aspects of this matter. It is a mistake to assume that they are not interested in these great political and constitutional matters. I know, of course, that terms like "sovereignty" are not part of the every day idiom of the British people; but the represent things which are long-established and cherished. They are like the air we breath---little noticed in its presence but valued beyond price in the event of deprivation".
"There is therefore, a duty on the Government of explanation and instruction, a duty not to gloss over these political and constitutional consequences".
Mr Stanley Orme, 16th November 1966, Col 489. "I want first to consider the European situation. At a private meeting in the House, M. Spaak, who was prominent in the setting up of the Community, explained his concept of what the European Community should be and what it should entail, and his explanation sent shivers down the spine's of some of my Hon Friends who are very pro-European. M. Spaak's political concept is that of many statesmen, particularly among the five, excluding France, (General de Gaulle, who wanted a Europ des Patries) It is the political issue which we must seriously consider".
"M. Spaak is against the entry of any neutrals. He regards the Community purely as an extension of the militarily based N.A.T.O. a further extension of a military alliance. I do not attribute those views to all of my Hon Friends who favour entry, but I do know that there are many Hon Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the Community not just as an economic unit but as a political unit too. They regard it as a supranational authority of which Britain should be a part".
Page 492 still Mr Orme, "It has been said that the British people do not fully understand what is involved in our entry to the Common Market. This is true, and I am hoping that the continuing debates on this matter will get the facts across to our people. It is not just a matter of an increase in food prices, serious as they may be; it is not simply the effect on the economy, the distribution of our industry and our future development, or our social services. It has also to do with how the Community is operated and controlled. The Community is undemocratic".
Mr Jennings 16th November 1966 Column 495. "I cannot bring myself to assume that there will be no political and constitutional connotations if we sign the Treaty of Rome. It is historically illogical that this should happen, that one step will follow another, and that from economic union there will follow political union. I have no objection to economic arrangements, even a negotiated economic union, provided we get certain safeguards. But I am horrified when I am told that I am as British as ever because I do not want to be a European first. I want to be British first and European after. Is there any shame of disgrace in wanting to be British first? It is therefore the implications and consequences of economic union of which I am frightened".
"We know quite well that five or six years ago, when we debated the question in this House, the sentiment in most of those who supported going into the Market was eventually for a political alignment and a politically united Europe. They do not deny it. They are quite honest. Even Members who are here tonight are nodding their heads on agreement. They know that this is what they want. That is what frightens me".
"The question of sovereignty or loss of sovereignty and political union in a political union in a federal United States of Europe has been swept nicely, beautifully and quietly under the carpet".
"It is almost a sin to talk about it. Apparently we have got to get into the Community, because of the mess we are in, in order to live as a nation. 'Oh thou of little faith',. Have we lost faith in our own selves? Have we lost pride in our own ability even to stand alone?"
Page 497. "My Rt. Hon and leaned friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith who five years ago most expertly, throughout the country and in this House, exposed what the loss of sovereignty would be, has touched upon it and given us the gist of it this afternoon. But the ordinary man in the street has no conception of what he will lose in rights and privileges that he now enjoys, even in a denigrated Britain, which is the attitude that many people tend to adopt. I mean questions of social services, benefits, rates of contributions, the position of the trade unions and all that sort of thing. How much loss of sovereignty of this House will there be"?
"It is easy to talk glibly about going into Europe. That is the way that it is put over to the electorate. "Let us go into Europe". Is the theme. We never attempt to say what we mean by going into Europe, but just what do we mean? Do we mean trade? Is that all? Do we leave the other sort of things, the unmentionables? Under the carpet or push them under the bed, or where? By going into Europe, do we mean in addition to the trade negotiations a form of federalism in which Britain would become a State in a United States of Europe, or part of Europe---what I have described as the rump of Europe"?
"I am not in favour of a federal United States of Europe or binding ourselves in any direction like that. I would look more kindly on a confederal system, if we had to have something like this. The alternative is what is called federalism."
"I am not prepared to sign a blank cheque that would denude this House of its powers; nor can I support a central Parliament to which we would contribute electorally, a central Parliament in Europe. I ask the Rt Hon Gentleman who is to reply to this debate, if this question of sovereignty and all it means does not arise, will he tell us quite clearly, and if he does, will he tonight, or his Rt. Hon Friends tomorrow night, tell us how much loss of sovereignty is involved"?
16th November 1966 Column 510. Mrs Renee Short. "I must add my view that many of those speaking in favour of going into the Common Market are tending to gloss over the problems and difficulties that would face us as a Nation. This is not really being fair to the public outside this place whom we represent and who rely on us for leadership in this matter, and in connection with all the other important problems with which we as Members of Parliament have to deal".
"My own view on this issue of entering or not entering the Common Market we have been brainwashed for a long time. I do not go along with this emotive phrase, "Going into Europe". As my Rt. Hon Friend said, we are in Europe; the question is what sort of Europe are we going into? Enormous pressure has been exerted, not only by big business, which has obviously vested interests for going into Europe, but by the Press". Etc, etc.
Page 518 still Mrs Short. "It is no use saying that if we go into the Common Market we should accept the Treaty of Rome as if it is written, with all the small print---most of which I find extremely alarming, including many articles which were referred to by the Rt. Hon and learned Member for Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith), which refer to the power of the Commission to issue directives to Member States as to what they should do about their economy. There are many of these articles (Interruption) Oh yes, there are. There are at least a dozen. The Rt. Hon Gentleman gave some of the numbers. They lay down clearly that the Commission can issue directives to Member States. In the event of economic difficulties the Commission can issue directives about taxation, aid to nationalised industries, and many other matters which affect the economies of nations".
"It is no good saying, "It is all right. We can accept this and when we get inside we shall be able to change the machinery." This is barking up the wrong tree. If we go in we shall have precisely the same voting power--no more and no less, as West Germany, France or Italy, based on population. We shall therefore be faced with the possibility of being out-voted if three or four or five, of the existing Members decide to vote together on any issue. We shall be able to speak and raise our voice, but our vote will not be decisive".
-------------------------------
16.11.1966 Column 530 Mr. A.J.Irvine, "It will be found that there is strong opposition in this country and, I think, on this side of the House, to federalism, and I share that opposition. There is certainly strong opposition to an excess of federalism, to any loss of identity of this Parliament, to any loss of sovereignty affecting foreign affairs, defence or certain aspects of our industrial and economic planning".
"The most interesting single feature of the Community at present is that, as I understand it, in our dislike of the federal solution we have a supporter in the President of France, and in the outlook of the French Government. The President's objections to federalism, which I share and which are enormously influential inside the Community, might in some respects neutralise his objection to our special relation with the United States".
16th November 1966 Page 535. Sir Legge-Bourke. "The only respectable basis upon which anybody could be in favour of Britain's entering the Common Market is by being at the same time entirely confederalist or federalist for Europe as a whole. A study of the Treaty of Rome shows straight away that inevitable it will involve political changes of a federal kind. How far and how fast and exactly how federal or confederal will be worked out as the years go by, but it is wrong to suppose that the Community can survive without a customs union being followed by a single currency, and it is wrong to suppose that the countries of the organisation can keep alive the vigour with which they started--- and all credit to them--- without developing politically with all this. To make that supposition is to fail to face what is in the Treaty, or is deliberately to deceive the people.
"I believe that the Treaty was conceived in a spirit of high federalism. It was soon apparent to Europe that Britain was not overkeen on that idea, but Britain had to be brought in by the architects of the document. And so the whole thing was trimmed and as the negotiations developed, the emphasis was more and more on economics and less and less on the political side".
"I have long believed that the most important economic freedom for nations is the one freedom which was left out of the four Atlantic freedoms---the freedom of choice to do business with whomsoever one will on mutual beneficial terms. In other words, this is the right to discriminate in trade. This right was taken from us particularly by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed by the first Labour Government after the war. Again, I do not want to hark back over what happened after that. I deeply regret that when it was returned to power the Conservative Party did not exercise the full rights which it had reserved through the mouth of Oliver Stanley and reassert our rights to alter our preferential tariffs and so on".
8th May 1967 Column 1088. The Prime Minister Mr Harold Wilson. "I should like to deal before I come to the political issue. One of them, on which certain anxieties have been expressed, is that the constitutional and legal implications for this country if we join the European Community. Here again, our examination of the Treaties and the other law emanating from the European Institutions, but even more of the way in which member states have been applying Community law, taking full account of realities prevailing in the member states, has greatly reassured us about the possible implications for Britain."
"It is important to realise that Community law is mainly concerned with industrial and commercial activities, with corporate bodies rather than private individuals. By far the greater part of our domestic law would remain unchanged after entry. Nothing in the Treaty would, for example, materially affect the general principles of the law of contract or tort or its Scottish equivalent, land law, the relations of landlord and tenant, housing, town and country planning, matrimonial law, or the law of inheritance. The constitutional rights and liberties of the individual such as habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence will, of course not be affected; not in any material sense will our criminal law. The main affect of Community law on our existing law is in the realms of commerce, Customs, restrictive practices and immigration and the operation of steel, coal and nuclear energy industries."
8th May 1967 Column 1109. Mr Turton. "The debate is historic, to follow the remarks of my Rt. Hon Friend, Sir Alec Douglas-Hume) It is historic because, if we join the Common Market, under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, NO Hon Member will be able to get up in this House and protest and vote against regulations which affect the economic or social welfare of his constituents. For many of us that is the main reason why we take the view which we hold on this issue".
"Last November, I and many of my Rt, Hon Friends asked for a White Paper on the constitutional issues. We felt that they were what all the country should know about. We have never had it. We have never had a White Paper on the economic issues. We have only had an article, a very fair and, I thought, damning article in The Times of last Monday.
Column 1114. "I believe that acceptance of the Motion would lead to a betrayal of the Queen in Parliament, would be disloyal to our Commonwealth Members, and would put unendurable burdens on the British people".
8th May 1967 Column 1154. Mr Erec S. Heffer. "I also want us to go into the Community because I believe that a United States of Europe is absolutely essential, and I want to see a Socialist United States of Europe. That is the prospect. I believe that we can get a socialist United States of Europe."
Finally I will finish with Mr Peter Shore (as he was then) on 22 February 1972 column 1164. "When we consider the net effects of what we pay out and receive back, these arrangements are little short of a national disaster. No Government in their senses could have agreed to terms so clearly against and detrimental to our interests. It is difficult to imagine a system of taxation, a tax mix, that could impose a heavier and more disproportionate burden upon us than the particular tax mix that has emerged as the permanent tax system of the Community under the "own resources" rule. I do not say that was the Community's purpose, but they have been extremely blind in not recognising the grievous effect this is bound to have upon us. Indeed, I cannot recall another example in history of a free country, without compulsion from outside, entering upon an arrangement so damaging to itself."
"Apart from being disastrous and unfair, these arrangements, as the Financial Secretary has made abundantly clear, constitutes a direct challenge to the most important power of Parliament, our exclusive control over taxation. As the Ways and Means Resolution makes clear, we shall permit the Community to tax the British people. We are acceding not just to the Treaty of Rome but to the Treaty of Luxembourg of April 1970, which specifically authorised the Community to have its own resources and to receive the yield of the three taxes to which I have referred."
"That agreement was a major development in the Community and I found it extraordinary that, in our debate last week, neither the Solicitor General nor the Prime Minister had anything to say about it. The Solicitor-General amused himself greatly by quoting from the 1967 White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of Britain joining the Common Market but, in his efforts to show that the constitutional innovation of the Communities having directly applicable law in the United Kingdom was known in 1967, he totally, and to me surprisingly, omitted to mention the second and even greater constitutional innovation which occurred in 1970: the right of the Communities to tax directly the Member States".
"For the Prime Minister to say, as he did last Thursday, that the constitutional position has not changed in any single respect since the negotiations of 1961, when it was fully discussed in the House time and again, is stretching the truth to the greatest possible extent."
"This is a major development in the Communities, as a consequence of which there is a major intrusion into the sovereignty of Parliament. The strongest of all our constitutional principles is that Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons which represents the people of this country, alone has the right to levy taxation. That has been the basic constitutional doctrine. Because Parliament three centuries ago insisted on this right, we gradually brought the Crown and the Executive under the control of elected representatives. As we were reminded recently, Parliament made the supply of money to the Government conditional on the remedying of grievances. That was the way in which control by the House of Commons was brought about".
"There should be no doubt about what is intended here. It is not proposed that we should make a contribution to the Communities, which we can alter if we think it is too much or too little. It is not a contribution at all. The right to levy taxes, which are specified, is to be ceded to non-elected institutions of the Community without the further consent of Parliament of the British people
As the Ways and Means Resolution puts it, we shall be,
"giving effect to any charge to taxation of those Communities"
That is quite unacceptable to us."
There are more, many, many more pages of these debates, for the debates on our entry into the Community cover a great many number of years. I hope I have proved, without a shadow of doubt, that most, if not all Members of Parliament knew what the Community was eventually, step by step, to become. Many Members of Parliament wanted to join, many did not. Again without a doubt, the truth of what the Community was to become was kept from the people of this Country. This was a complete betrayal to ALL in this Country. Today's politicians can find out the true facts of our history regarding this County's entry into the European Community in exactly the same way that I have. It just takes time and patience. It is all recorded, every sordid detail, (Britain's shame) in Hansard.
No matter how long ago these events took place, the Members of Parliament that are still alive, should and must be made accountable for their actions, in the same way that 'today's' MPs will surely be
