Articles
  Not JUST fuel tax !!
 Fuel
 Informing The British People
  No representation in lieu of the people!
 A Point of View
  Please Publish & Distribute
 Highway Robbery
 VAT on Fuel
  Letter to Blair
 BRITISH POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY
  Britain in Europe

  Not JUST fuel tax !!

Top

 Fuel

How can any government justify 73% taxation on fuel, which by it very nature
penalizes the most vulnerable in our society. If my family's income was in
excess of £200,000 as Tony's is 81p a litre may not be a problem but as it
is I fully support the current protest. 
BTY While Tony says he understand our plight I'm sure that as a minister we 
pay for his petrol anyway.

David Moran 

Top

Informing The British People

Dear Sirs

INFORMING THE BRITISH PEOPLE OF THE STEALTHY DESTRUCTION OF THEIR NATION AND
THEIR DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS

The process of destruction of Great Britain is gathering pace.  There are
now so many methods being employed by our elected government to bring about
the rapid demise of British parliamentary sovereignty that is difficult to
keep up with what is going on.

To confine ourselves just to the European Union related events which are
hastening the death of this nation, we have EMU, Corpus Juris, The European
Convention of Human Rights, and now the Charter of Fundamental Rights.  The
Nice Treaty will do much to ensure that these last three eventually take
precedence over British/English national law, and lead to the suspension of
the writ of Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury.

It is all too much for even the most concerned citizen to follow.  So what
chance have the man and woman in the street got of keeping abreast of
events?

What action can be taken to ensure that when the time comes for the British
to speak, our citizens will be well informed?

The Democracy Movement is doing a lot to keep people informed.  But I
suspect that it is not nearly enough.  What more can be done that will not
be financially ruining to the DM?

I think we could do worse than to follow the example of one of the greatest
of contemporary Britons: Leonard Cheshire.  Everyone knows his story and the
selfless courage that led him to sacrifice easy personal fame to the service
of the incurably sick and dying.  Maybe fewer know that Cheshire had a
burning ambition to reconvert England to Catholicism.  His task was hopeless
but he set about trying to accomplish it in a typical practical way which
maximised the efficiency of his meager resources.  He achieved much.  He
could not succeed, of course, because he could not stir the collective soul
of the English.

However, we who wish to preserve the democratic freedoms of the British
people, within an independent and sovereign British nation, do carry the
nation's soul with us and we can win.  So let us learn from Leonard
Cheshire.

What Cheshire did was this:

Knowing that the collective issues of the Catholic versus Protestant claim
to be the more representative of the Christian Faith were highly complicated
and great in number, Cheshire printed seven pamphlets or "flyers", each one
of which dealt with a separate central issue of his argument.  He printed as
many as he could afford and distributed them at meetings all over England.
He then bought an old Bus and toured the country holding rallies.  His
efforts, in the early nineteen fifties, were widely reported in the press
and enjoyed much public support even though they did not achieve their aim.

Using similar methods, the Democracy Movement together with other movements
which also aim to preserve British sovereignty can win.

The pamphlets can be seven in number and issued one after the other in
relatively quick succession to support the Movement's opposition to the
ratification by Parliament of the Treaty of Nice.

They could be distributed on every street corner and at every local meeting,
if not to every home in the land.  As soon as we are sure that enough people
have read them, their content can be commented on by TV and radio
public-information "shots" lasting a few seconds only.  Sympathetic
newspaper editors could be asked to reproduce them and their contents could
be discussed at the numerous meetings of pro-democracy groups.  They would
contain all the facts that the present Government denies to the British
people. With luck, their message would be picked up by opposition parties
and used in debate and electoral campaigns.

And, of course, the internet would spread their message far and wide all
over Europe and the world.

There is no doubt, given the desire of the vast majority of the British
people to carry on living as citizens of a free and sovereign nation, that
we will be victorious and that our nation will shake itself free of the
shackles with which the European Union is seeking to imprison it.

I cannot claim to know what would be the best way of dividing up the message
of the seven issues of the pamphlet, but I submit the following for
starters:

1. A brief history of the evolution of our democratic institutions telling
how men and women fought against foreign and domestic tyranny in order to
win for us the democratic freedoms we enjoy today, and which, having only
recently won them for ourselves, are in the process of abolishing on the
insistence of Brussels.

2. How Parliament assures the accountability of the executive, remains free
from the legislative binds of all previous Parliaments, approves the laws
and taxes proposed by the executive, and ensures that its sovereignty is
returned to the British people every five years at least for the re-election
of a new set of people's representatives.  And, of course, how we are now
witnessing the disenfranchisement of the British people through the
dismantling of Parliamentary sovereignty by our Government which is
illegally giving away our people's sovereignty to Brussels.

3. The history of the franchise.  Constituencies.  How British citizens can
lobby Parliament through their MP.  How a massive federal Europe would mean
the rule of Britain's economic areas by a federal government and a European
Parliament so vast that local representation would be at best ineffective
and at worst impossible. (Proportional representation, party-lists, over
twenty nations etc etc)

4. Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury, the guarantors of the freedom before the
law of British citizens.  How the imposition of Corpus Juris will get rid of
these guarantors.

5. The history of the principle of "no taxation without representation".

6. A description of the structure, administration and functions of the
European Union showing how it is dominated by bureaucratic (mandarin-type)
elites of the Napoleonic School, whose appointment has more to do with
having followed a specific type of education and with the readiness of
office holders to swear allegiance to a vague supranational idealism than
with fitness for the job, basic competence and the willingness to serve the
people through a democratically elected government.  An illustration of how
only these "eurocrats" are regarded as European Citizens First Class,
enjoying money grants and tax concessions denied to the rest of us. (i.e.
grants to send their children to university even though they earn very high
salaries, the preservation of the right to buy tax free goods through EU
commissaries, while these rights have been abolished for the ret of us. etc,
etc.).

7. A description of the future of Britain as a region of Europe.

I hope this helps.

Les Fellows  (Mr)

Top

No representation in lieu of the people!

It's no wonder our government doesn't listen to us. Our government is a
corrupt dictatorship run for the good of money grabing capitalists, so what
would be the point of listening to us? The entire system of government is
totally dictatorial and completely devoid of any semblance of democracy.

In the words of Proudhon: Universal suffrage is counter-revolution.

No longer must there be representation in lieu of the people, but a direct
participatory democracy in which everyone has a voice and not merely a vote.
DOWN WITH DICTATORSHIP!

E. Pettman

Top

A Point of View

If many of us who voted YES in 1975, had realised that the outcome of that
vote would:

a) put us in danger of losing an essential control over our own economic
identity

and

b) forbid us, through treaty, to enter into free trade agreements with
potential global trading partners, the result might have been very different
   
    Further integration places in danger all the changes for the better that
deregulation, over the past 20 years, has brought about. Deregulation was
essential and it was achieved at great cost. That cost was, however, a long
time coming and which many people could see that it would have to be paid at
some time or another. It is that very deregulation which has made the UK such
an attractive country for inward investment. We destroy it with further
Brussels interference at our peril     
Real prosperity for EVERYBODY does not come from an over-bearing,
over-regulating, nanny-state government. Government should have nothing to do
with the achievement of prosperity except in the sense that it should make
the means available for the creation of prosperity. It must and with minimal
government interference, it will be prosperity for all not just the lucky
few. So far as I am concerned even Maggie Thatcher's "leave the markets alone
to decide" administration interfered far too much.     
A country which suffers the dead hand of government slows down and eventually
stops. Government cannot create demand, it can only command. Command
economies such as that practised in the old USSR and its satellites has
plainly been shown to be a total failure. The sort of restrictions to free
trade which are inherent in a command economy are also present in the
Brussels model.
    I am disabled and I vote Tory. What? I hear you say. You vote Tory? Isn't
that rather like turkeys voting for Christmas? You are free to think so but
you would be wrong. I do not want the dead hand of government bureaucracy to
destroy all that has been so painfully achieved since 1979. The corporate
state is dead and no one should try to resurrect it. It nearly destroyed
Great Britain and we should ensure that its coffin lid is, and remains, well
nailed down
    Business - commerce and industry - must be free to trade and spend freely
and globally. People must be free to decide how they and not a government
should spend the majority of their hard-earned money. Freedom to trade and
the resulting corporate wealth taken together with Individual prosperity
creates a healthy, vibrant economy. A healthy and vibrant economy, unfettered
by excessive government control, means not only more freedom for everyone but
a greater tax rake off for the Chancellor. If the Treasury has more, all the
government spending departments benefit. The government has no money of its
own. All it has is what WE pay to it and it behove's a government to leave
well alone if it wants to see an increase in tax receipts and the maintenance
of a healthy economic climate.      An increase in tax receipts does not
automatically require higher taxation. It is not unusual for high taxes to
mean lower receipts as competition decreases and only the big boys are left
in the game. There is, in fact, there is a case to be made for a drastic
reduction in many taxes and, perhaps even the abolition of income tax
altogether. Tax reduction can be used as a means of creating a greater and
greater incentive to increase productivity to the point where we can properly
equate that increase with concomitant increases in levels of reward. High
productivity = high wages. And high wages, even at moderate taxation levels
mean higher tax receipts.
    If we want the government to continue to fund welfare, especially in a
society where the baby boomers advance from middle to old age, we have to
accept that the less government has to do with anything other than defence,
health and welfare, transport infrastructure etc. In order that government
spending departments remain able to afford to play a part in the well being
of the whole of our population, we must ensure that we strive towards a
position where government interferes only peripherally in our daily lives.
That way we shall be able to afford to take care of the poor, the elderly,
the sick and those of us who are unable to work through illness or physical
disablement.
    The alternative is higher and higher taxation on a dwindling number of
those who are a) young enough and b) fit enough to work. Higher and higher
taxation equals lower and lower incentive for work. Why, after all, should a
person strive for many hours a day/week/year only to see a large chunk of his
or her salary disappear into what might as well be a black hole.
    The Brussels model which everyone who is fervently in favour of deeper
and deeper integration would lay a clay fist on all incentive by greater and
greater centralisation of power OUTSIDE the boundaries of this nation state.
Let us have none of it

Andrew G T Bailey

Top

Please Publish & Distribute

The following is by way of information for you and at your discretion to
publish where you think fit, also to distribute as widely as possible,
either in your own words or intact over my signature.

Most of the British public are now not only well aware of the EU Single
Currency debate but are vehemently opposed to handing over our economy to
foreign and alien control and destroying the British Pound to replace it
with the collapsing EUro. It is doubtful however if many  will know of the
imminent threat to our freedom of speech and the freedom of the press if
the proposals for the disgraceful 'Nice Treaty' are implemented, and the new
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is forced into "law" in the UK once
incorporated into the Treaty.

What has incensed the EU in general, and Mr Neil Kinnock our sordid little
Commissioner in particular, has been the level of healthy criticism and
debate voiced by our national media of the EU's undemocratic and corrupt
policies, and  which generally reflect a EUroRealist public on a wide range
of issues and dishonesties of the EU and its vociferous minority of
supporters. The British public are by and large opposed to continued
membership of the EU as it has now developed, far from being an Economic
Community as 'sold' with lies to the British peoples it has metomorphosised
as an Evil Union of Political centralised control.

Mr Kinnock has accused certain British newspapers of "toxic levels" of
"biased" reporting on the EU, and has even drawn up a list of perceived
'offending' newspapers and journals. "Toxic" in this instance must be some
sort of obscure 'valleys' slang for truth that disagrees with 'gravy train
spin'.  It is rather choice for him to talk of "bias" when one notes that
the EU spends over 250,000,000 Pounds per annum on propaganda, producing
multitudinous expensive glossy publications crammed full of
misrepresentations of the EU and downright lies - even invading our schools
to propagandise our children!

The proposed Charter, if permitted to survive, would allow the "suspension"
of the freedom of the press if it is considered that  reporting is "not in
the general interest of the Union" (An undefined euphemism for views and
opinions with which the EUphoric disagree or don't wish to admit are true!).

Under Article 7,  the voting rights of any member state could be suspended
if "deemed", and those who "deem" would be the self styled elite of the EU,
not fully in accord with "European values" (ie. The OFICIAL EU Party Line!).
This would not mean democracy was fundamentally flawed as in the EU today
but once signed it must be considered officially dead.

This Charter faces us with an  unprecedented and  dangerous threat to
liberty and our prized freedom of the press.  Ironically it is supposed to
be all about our  "rights" but in reality it will have more affinity with
the old totalitarian systems of Eastern Europe than with  any concept of a
modern  free democratic society, presided over by a dictator committee and
implemented by an army of apparatchicks and ink slingers.

This sordid treaty devotes much time to obscure legal jargon as to how the
Super State of EUrope can control its peoples and withdraw their fundamental
human rights, such as freedom of speech and the freedom of the press,
facilities are to be enshrined in EU law which can deny entire nations of
their freedom or any pretence at democratic discussion or disagreement.

For a British politician, representing the best interests of Britain and our
people, it  would not only be a massive betrayal but an act of treason under
the British Constitution to promote or sign this exorable Treaty. Further
for Her Majesty The Queen to grant her Royal Assent to such a Bill or Act of
Parliament, even under duress, would be a breech of Her Coronation Oath and
a betrayal beyond countenance.

Britain would become a vassal region of a foreign and alien power. No doubt
we could expect signs at points of entry, similar to those now displayed in
Gibraltar, which state "Welcome to Gibraltar a EUropean Union Territory".
Westminster has already been converted to the baying of castratti with no
powers to enact law which is not previously approved by a foreign power in
Brussels.

Has not the time come to honour the sacrifice of the 1,242,000 who died in
defence of Britain's independent national sovereignty during the 20th.
Century and repatriate our democratic rights and preserve our freedom for
future generations as previous generations granted freedom to us.

Yours faithfully,

Greg Lance - Watkins

Top

Highway Robbery

Car drivers were very supportive of the lorry and tractor drivers during the fuel tax
protest. Now it seems that the lorry and tractor drivers are going to get reduced fuel. What about the ordinary motorist. What about our heating oil. Our heating oil has gone up from  20.5p  per litre to 25.9p per litre in less than two months.

We live on a country lane 1^1/4 miles from the main road. We need our car to shop, to
go to work, to care for our animals if they fall ill.

Cutting road tax for motorists seems a good idea but will petrol go up as road tax
comes down?. If oil bought from the Middle East  is at a set price per barrel why is it that nearly every country has a different fuel price. Answer - Lower fuel tax.
No wonder people go abroad to fill up but that does nothing for the British economy.

Jennifer Holland
East Yorkshire     
  
Top

VAT on Fuel

One scratches one's head in amazement when one learns that American
truckers went on a protest drive from Ontario, California, to Washington DC
earlier this year to protest about escalating petrol prices. The high cost of
fuel was, they claimed, 'driving' them out of business. The cost? About $
1.75 per gallon, or 26 pence per litre. Yet our government raises its
eyebrows in bewilderment at our protests over fuel costs over three times
higher!
    Legal protest, one of our basic human rights, is no longer tolerated by
our 'democratic' politicians, so what recourse have we? Rational discussion
and legal protest don't work, so we must look for another solution to the
problem. I believe I have found such a solution.
    For the sake of simplicity I will assume a petrol price of £ 4.00 per
gallon, 0r 89 pence per litre. How does this break down?

        VAT @ 17.5 %                =   £ 0.70
        Excise duty @ 75 %          =   £ 2.47
        Price of petrol                 =   £ 0.83
        Total                           =   £ 4.00

Which brings us to an interesting point - should VAT be applied to the
overall cost of the petrol plus the excise duty rather than to just the cost
of the petrol? I don't think so. Is it even legal? I would like to see it
contested. Taxing a tax is, to my mind, absolutely outrageous.
    If VAT were just applied to the price of the petrol and not to the duty,
what effect would this have on the cost of petrol? Lets have a look.

        Price of petrol                 =   £ 0.83
        Excise duty @ 75 %          =   £ 2.47
        VAT @ 17.5 % on petrol only =   £ 0.15
        Total                           =   £ 3.45

    This amounts to a reduction of 55 pence per gallon, or 13 pence per
litre. I think this is a far more agreeable solution than the pathetic reduction
offered by our esteemed chancellor.
    Would someone please look into this and do something about it, as,
although I have the inclination, I have not the means to take on the
government by myself. To this end I am sending a copy of this e-mail to as
many road hauliers, oil companies, petrol protesters, newspapers, and
interested individuals as I can think of.
    Regards,
        George Maciver

Top

Letter to Blair

Dear Mr Blair,
 
I would suggest you ignore this letter at your peril, as it may be the last
warning you get. A fellow student of Master Wongıs Desmond Williams has
written to you on many occasions, you have failed to respond and must attend
to the consequences. Desmond Williams is a classic New Labour supporter or
member of the electorate that you claim to be reaching out to. He is from an
ethnic minority, black and disabled from early childhood. The help he gave
you prior to the last election in his local constituency and his asking
Master Wong to give you a  blessing  to help you win the last election was
an integral part of your landslide victory. This was an example of the
sincerity of people from different ethnic groups working together to put a
halt to what they believed was a sleazy and unrepresentative Tory
Government.

What did we get in its place? An even more sleazy, degenerate, immoral and
totally unaccountable Government determined to undermine and destroy
democracy at any cost. Your behaviour has been completely insane and totally
without conscience since coming to office, pretending to care for minority
groups and only using them to divisively undermine the mainstream agenda.
Wheeling out Mandela at the New Labour conference, Mandy clinging to the
shirt tails of the Dalai Lama and all your politically correct agendas count
for nothing. In fact they are fuelling religious, racial and sexual
prejudice and  hatred. Your attempt to play everyone off against every one,
divide and rule style, while you quietly sell off the nations soul is not
going unnotiticed.

By manipulating and pandering to what you perceive to be the weaker and more
marginal groups with promises of a greater say and power in the New Order
you are alienating and betraying the hard working and loyal majority,
regardless of their colour, class or sexual orientation for your personal
dream of a federal Europe and your own selfish political immortality. Do you
not realise that when you have handed over your people, chattles and all,
the the powers that be will only marginalise you for you treachery. This is
war and you are working for the enemy! There are now 1000ıs of people all
over the country working toward yours and New Labourıs downfall and
absolute destruction and that of any future political ideology that does not
represent the will of people.

Being an Essex boy, yob trader,  who is part of the economy that makes this
and has made this country successful for hundreds of years I resent your
moronic and vacuous leaderless direction. Especially expensive reports that
come up with comments like Lady Gavron's in her interpretation of the word
English. The word summons up images of football hooliganism and white
Essex men. Donıt worry this did not pass unnoticed as a breach of your much
vaunted Human Rights Act which so massively undermines the rights and
freedoms we have by birth. Your racism may well yet put money in the pockets
of Matrix lawyers before the Human Rights Courts - "tis the sport to see the
engineer hoist on his own petard". Matrix, I hear, have a good record
protecting child killers, rapists and paedophiles, Iım sure Essex boys are
somewhere lower down the scale in your eyes.

We are going to break you just as we made you and put you where you are.
Thereıs no nice guy Desmond anymore, Iım pro British and pro democratic
rights and want to see an accountable Government with a EUroRealist party
holding the balance of power.

Compassionate as we are Master Wong will still give you a chance to repent
if you can make a visit in the next 6 months and show any signs of humility,
otherwise its asta la vista, baby. Remember you only have 24 hours to get
out of Downing Street come election day, so get house hunting, otherwise the
mobs will burn you out.

Enclosed is a document I laid regarding treason, I think we will be seeing
something of one another in the near future.

"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses
to frighten you."

It was noticeable very early on that what you feared most was adverse
criticism....You are totally incapable of handling it, and the tactic you
regularly employ against those who dislike, detest and abhor your penchant
for liars, traitors and perverts of all persuasions? Is to instantly accuse
your critics of "intolerance", and racial, homophobic, or moral
intolerance.....and such is the atmosphere of moral turpitude in the society
in which we now have to live, this charge is, nine times out of ten, quite
sufficient to silence further public objections.

After hubris comes nemesis and your hubris is plain for all to see so also
will be your nemesis.

Finally  lest we forget............

It's the soldier, not the fort
That gives us our freedom of speech
It's the soldier, not the reporter
That gives us our freedom of the press
It's not the campus agitator
That gives us the right to demonstrate
Its the soldier that salutes the flag
Who serves under the flag
Whose coffin is covered by the flag
Who gives us the opportunity to burn the flag
---Father Desmond O'Brien

Yours faithfuly



Charles Pycraft
http://www.yellowdragon-music.co.uk

Top

THE CONTINUING TRANSFER OF BRITISH POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY
TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

Squadron Leader L Fellows RAF (retired)
Abingdon
Oxon
OX14 2AD

Dr Evan Harris MP  (Copy to The Silent Majority)
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA 27 November 2000

Dear Dr Harris

I have written to you twice in the last month expressing my deep concern
that, at the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference in Nice next month,
long-standing constitutional rights and freedoms of the British people will
be placed in jeopardy by further surrenders of the British Government's
vetoes on European Union (EU) legislation.  If you have read my
correspondence, you will recall that I was particularly concerned about the
consequences of the surrender of the veto on Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
which could lead to the imposition of Corpus Juris on the United Kingdom and
ultimately undermine the protection offered to British citizens by the Writ
of Habeas Corpus and the right of Trial by Jury.  I put three very specific
points to you about the consequences of the surrender of the JHA veto and
asked you, as my MP, to confirm or deny whether the points I raised posed a
constitutional threat to this country, in your view.  However, you have not
replied.

The points I made are not trivial or fatuous ones.  They concern threats to
the continuing freedom under Common Law of the people of our nation if the
present (or any other) Government continues to pursue a path of ever closer
political union with the EU.  In the name of the freedoms for which  the
people of this land have fought and died, firstly to achieve, and then to
preserve for this present and future generations, I ask that you do not
neglect the obligation you bear as an MP to scrutinise the Government's
surrender of British political sovereignty, whether intentional or
unintentional, in the light of their constitutional consequences.

The matter of the continuing surrender of political sovereignty by Britain
to EU agencies,  with the signing of each new EU treaty, and without any
mandate from the British electorate,  is now becoming one of the utmost
seriousness, threatening the very survival of our nation as a self-governing
state.

I write to you here to ask if, from your point of view as a parliamentarian,
you can answer the constitutional questions, thrown up by present events,
that I and many other concerned British citizens are asking.

The Labour Government is quite wrong to associate support for the continuing
surrender of the British veto in EU policy matters with patriotism.  It may
be argued that Britain would exert more influence as a member of an
ever-deepening EU than she would as an independent sovereign nation, but to
play the patriotism card is disingenuous.  Most people who are fighting the
determination of this and previous governments to bring about the death of
Britain as an independent democratic nation are not xenophobes or little
Englanders.  They are defenders of Britain's freedom to trade and to conduct
her diplomacy on the world stage for the greater good of her own citizens
and of all the world's peoples.  They have no desire to see Britain's
politicians, bureaucrats and business magnates make their fortunes in an
increasingly "globalised" world merely because Britain could exert greater
influence in that world as a member of a federal super-state which  would
rob her citizens of the power of democratic self-determination.

For many centuries, first England, then Britain, have been playing an
influential role in international affairs.  Being part of a deepening EU
will bring us nothing new there.  But, until last century, ordinary British
citizens did not enjoy the full privileges of democratic self-determination,
or full freedom and equality before the law, though these liberties and
privileges were always theoretically ours, guaranteed by Magna Carta and the
Bill of Rights.  Only this last century have ordinary men and women attained
these privileges and freedoms and now enjoy them in full.    Proposals of
yet closer integration with the EU so as to create Mr Blair's European
"super-power" will rob the British people of the precious and hard-won
freedom of self determination.  For many of us, the continental system of
democracy which will replace our Anglo-Saxon model is inferior.  But this
present Government  will force the British to live under it without asking
whether we want it or not.

Mr Cook's words of two weeks ago make it clear that he is willing to see the
end of Britain as a self-governing nation.  However, the people are not so
foolish as to think that the EU can be a superpower without first becoming a
superstate.  The Government seeks greater influence for Britain as a member
of this "superpower".  But a nation becomes great, not only because of the
power it can exert in the world but also because that nation's power can
guarantee the political and judicial freedoms of its citizens.

From what I understand of British Constitutional Law, the transfer of powers
that the Government seems set to sanction in Nice (as well much transfer of
power that has already taken place) is unlawful.

Rather than patriotic, this transfer of power is a betrayal of the British
people.  Mr Blair and Mr Cook argue that Britain will conserve her veto on
taxation, defence and social security.  But, since 1975, we have been
continually promised that there will be no further transfer of sovereignty
to Brussels.  As you know, these promises, made by both Labour and
Conservative governments, have always been broken.  Just as inevitably, the
Labour Government's assurances that there will be no EU superstate mean
nothing.  They are in a game where the other main players are determined to
bring an end to the nation state and create a politically united Europe.
Britain's only real choice is to continue playing this game to the rules set
by France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries or to withdraw.  The
Government is fooling itself, and the British people whom they serve, if
they think there is any other option.

At the very least, Parliament should see to it that Britain does not go any
further down the road to closer political unity with the EU without a national debate 
and a referendum on the issue.

I present to you  here what I see as the real constitutional danger to
Britain of the present Government's continuing to cede political sovereignty
to the EU.   In particular, order that the British people might better
understand the possible consequences of the soon-to-be signed Treaty of
Nice, would you, as my MP and a parliamentarian, answer the constitutional
questions I ask in this letter?  The questions are in bold italics.  I would
also be grateful if you would confirm your agreement with the constitutional
conclusions that I reach in this letter, or inform me where I have reasoned
wrongly.

I regret the length of the letter, but the matter is one of supreme
importance.

Fundamental Principles of the British Constitution

There are two major principles on which the British Constitution stands.
They are:

1. The Supremacy of Parliament.
2. The Rule of Law.

The exercise of power by the government is conditioned by law, and no
British citizen can presently be subject to the arbitrary will of his ruler.
In 1688, the Bill of Rights finally established that the supremacy of law
shall be that of the Common Law, and gave legal standing to the supremacy of
Parliament.  I believe that the Bill of Rights has never been repealed.

Parliamentary supremacy requires that there should be no rival legislative
authority.  Yet, the British Government now recognises that EU law should
take precedence over legislation passed by the British Parliament.  Is this
situation not unconstitutional?

The Constitution also recognises that the electorate is the political
sovereign.  It is a Convention of the Constitution that Parliament exercises
its legislative supremacy with its responsibility to the people in mind.
Parliament exercises the sovereignty that the electorate entrusts to it for
the span of one parliament only (i.e. up to five years).  At the end of that
time, political sovereignty must be handed back to the people, undiminished.
No parliament may assume that it has been  mandated by the people to
surrender political sovereignty to any agency, unless the ruling party
commanding a majority vote in the House of Commons has been elected to
office having clearly stated, in its manifesto, its intention to cede
sovereignty.  Or else, that such a mandate has been given to Parliament by
the people in a referendum.  Neither the present government, nor any recent
government, has received such a mandate from the British people.  Thus, if
the Labour Government surrenders yet more of the sovereign rights of the
British people in Nice, will it not be acting unlawfully?

The Unlawfulness of EU Treaties which Limit British Parliamentary
Sovereignty

On the basis of the reasoning presented in the previous paragraph, all the
treaties signed since 1975 (the year of the referendum on Britain's staying
in the Common Market) which have surrendered any of Britain's sovereign
powers, successively, to the European Economic Communities, European
Communities and EU were unlawfully ratified, since the political sovereignty
handed back to the electorate at the end of the respective parliament's life
was unlawfully diminished compared to that which had been entrusted to it by
the British people at the corresponding general election.  Is this not so?

The Treaty of Nice

I understand that if the British Government agrees, in Nice, to give up
Britain's veto on justice and home affairs (JHA), the EU will acquire,
through the Treaty of Nice, the power to impose 'Corpus Juris' on the UK by
Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), even against the will of the British
Parliament. Will you please check whether Corpus Juris can be imposed on
Britain, in the way that I mention?  The Home Office has written to inform
me that the British Government has not said it will accept QMV for JHA
issues.  But this message is not at all clear for the Government has not
included JHA in the list of vetoes you say you will retain for Britain.  Can
you please let me know whether the Government intend to give up the veto on
JHA or not?

If it does so, the surrender of the veto in this area will mean that the
rule of Common Law by which British governments govern this country will
have been modified, by the present Government, unconstitutionally; that is,
without any mandate from the British electorate.

As well as giving the EU the powers to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in
Britain by QMV, and against the wishes of the British Parliament, I read
that Corpus Juris empowers the European Court of Justice to set up a
'European Civil Disorder Squad' which would have powers to arrest and detain
British citizens on British soil indefinitely, without trial or any public
hearing.  Could you please confirm or deny that the European Court of
Justice would have these powers, if the Government surrenders the veto on
JHA?

I understand that an incipient European Police Force, EUROPOL has already
been established and its officers granted, by virtue of European Union
decisions and regulations passed by our Parliament, lifetime immunity from
prosecution whatever offences they may commit in the course of their duties.
That this is so was confirmed to me by a letter from the Home Office
Judicial Co-operation Unit, Reference 2767/00, dated 14 November 2000.  Is
such immunity not contrary to Common Law?

The Unlawfulness of the Abandonment of the British Veto on Justice and Home
Affairs

If the Government does surrender veto on justice and home affairs at Nice,
it will have committed, in that single act, an offence against the two most
fundamental principles of the British Constitution already mentioned: the
Supremacy of Parliament, and the Rule of Law.

In my understanding, if Corpus Juris were to be imposed on Britain, any UK
citizen suspected of committing a crime could be arrested on British soil on
the orders of a judge in another EU country, according to the laws of that
foreign country, without that judge having to produce any evidence or fulfil
any formality whatsoever.  The suspect could then be deported to the country
in which the Order of Arrest was raised and imprisoned on the orders of a
European Public Prosecutor, without charge, for 6 months, renewable for a
further 3 months, without any limit to the number of renewals.  The "trial"
would be heard by professional judges, specifically without "simple jurors"
or "lay magistrates".  These latter features of Corpus Juris seem
specifically aimed at nullifying the British trial system where crucial
decisions can be taken by ordinary people.  In Corpus Juris, the fate of a
person accused of a crime would be in the hands of professional jurists not
in the hands of his peers.  The accused would, thus, be subject to the
arbitrary will of judges of the European Court of Justice, employees of
European institutions, if not of the EU.  The accused will have been robbed
of his basic freedoms, presently guaranteed by the British Constitution and
the Common Law, by an unlawful act of the British Government.  Would you
please confirm or deny that the scenario I depict here is a possibility
under Corpus Juris?

Such precious freedoms presently enjoyed by British citizens as Habeas
Corpus and the right to be judged by their peers (Trial by Jury), as
enshrined in Common Law, protect our citizens against arbitrary conviction
and imprisonment; that is, against the arbitrary and tyrannical exercise of
power by the state.    Under the Writ of Habeas Corpus, an accused person
must be taken to a court subject to the British Crown, normally within 24
hours, and his accusers must produce evidence there and then and formally
charge him.  At any trial, the accused is adjudged innocent or guilty by his
fellow citizens.

If the Government gives up such freedoms in Nice would that not constitute a
heinous crime against the British people?  I cannot see how the Government
can describe the surrender of the JHA veto as "patriotic" and in the
national interest.

The Dangers Posed by Further Abandonment of British Parliamentary
Sovereignty in Nice

The British Government has received no mandate from the British electorate
to surrender to EU agencies any of  our people's political sovereignty or
freedoms guaranteed by Common Law.  Thus, I conclude that the British
Government has no lawful power to modify the rule of law by which it is
obliged to govern.  Do you accept this conclusion?

If the Government's surrender of any further political sovereignty, in Nice,
through the abandonment of yet more national vetoes, were subsequently to be
ratified by Parliament, Parliament would, itself, be acting
unconstitutionally because it, too, would be unlawfully diminishing its own
sovereignty and, with that, the political sovereignty of the British
electorate, without having received a mandate to do so from the electorate.
Do you agree that Parliament would be acting unconstitutionally by ratifying
a Treaty of Nice in which the Government had surrendered yet more political
sovereignty?

What is certain is that each successive surrender of our political
sovereignty leads inevitably to the surrender of yet more sovereignty.
Gradually, the British people are becoming less and less able to call to
account those in the EU who are daily taking decisions which affect our
lives.   The idea that, in the future, British Members of the European
Parliament (MEPs) will be able to call to account, in the British interest,
EU decision-makers is naive.  As the EU grows to include 20 or more nations,
protection of the national interest will become ever more difficult.
National party-divisions between MEPs will gradually and naturally be
eroded.  MEPs will inevitably realign along European party-lines, identify
less and less with their homeland, and will doubtless vote in accordance
with the policies of the EU-oriented parties.

If this comes to pass, with no further power to set the taxes and laws of
our land, Britain will cease to be a sovereign nation state.  Her people
will be powerless to call EU rulers to account in British affairs alone.
The British will in many ways be subject to the arbitrary rule of EU
decision-makers just as, in the past, they were subject to the arbitrary
rule of monarchs and  un-elected parliaments.

In such a situation, the potential for tyranny on a European scale will be
great.  For instance, how will a federal European parliament be able to
control a European Government which rules over so many disparate nations,
all with their different cultures and languages?  Centuries of progress in
Britain and in other lands, which have led to the growth of democratic
institutions that permit citizens to control the power of their political
rulers, will begin to be reversed.

Certainly, as Mr Cook stated last week, the influence of Britain in the world
may be greater in such a federal super-state than as an independent nation.
But the freedom before the law, and powers of self-determination of the
British people, will be greatly diminished.  How can the support of such a
development by the British people be described as "patriotic"?

This is why the Labour Government should not surrender any more of British
sovereignty to the EU.  The Government protests in vain that there will be
no federal European superstate (only a superpower), but that is the
direction in which the main powers of the EU are headed.  Britain has two
choices: either to step out of the way or be swept along with them.  The
whole story of Britain's involvement in the EU is one of a continual
transfer of political sovereignty to Brussels.  This is despite an assurance
to those of us who voted in 1975 to stay in the then Common Market that
there would be no loss of Britain's Parliamentary sovereignty.  The British
population has been lied to and duped constantly over EU affairs.  I am no
xenophobe or little Englander.  I once believed in ever closer association
of EU nations.  In pursuit of that belief, I spent 12 years on the continent
of Europe, learned to speak French and German fluently, and  brought up my
three children bi-lingually.  My job was and is community, international and
business relations.  I work at the heart of European cooperation in a
particular specialist field.  Just as I see the effective cooperation
between European companies in the furtherance of  pan-European trade, I also
see the corruption, incompetence and self interest of the Eurocrats whose
aim is to set up a soviet-style federation of vassal states subject to their
rule.  No one who works with these Eurocrats can fail to see what is going
on.

However, on the continent, these Eurocrats  cannot be accused of lying to
their people.  I hear and read of, every day, on German and French
television and radio, and in their newspapers,  politicians and ordinary
people discussing their aims to create a  federal Europe.  Only the British
are misled and lied to by their successive governments.

When the British people finally realise that their nation has been denuded
of its sovereign powers they will protest mightily.  As our Constitution
states that no Parliament can pass legislation which binds its successors, a
constitutional crisis will arise of which the magnitude and severity can
only be guessed at.  Presumably, the British Parliament will still retain
its power to repeal an Act of Parliament and thus will be able to repeal
that Act, or those Acts, which have recognised the supremacy of  EU
legislation in this country.  The shockwaves from any repeal of those Acts
will have unimaginable consequences for the political and economic well
being of our people and our nation.   It could be, of course, that
Parliament even votes away its ancient right not to be bound by previous
parliaments and effectively votes itself out of existence (as did the French
National Assembly in 1940) so placing itself in thrall to EU institutions.
If this were to happen then the seeds of possible civil war will have been
sown.

Conclusion

The only practical and constitutionally safe way of contemplating the
surrender of any further political sovereignty to the EU is by holding a
national debate and referendum on Britain's whole relationship with the EU
and on the extent of political harmonisation and/or union that Britain is
prepared to accept.

For the time being, however, the British Government should note that their
intention to give up yet more of Britain's vetoes, in Nice, will shake the
very pillars of the British Constitution.

For the Government to carry out its intention without a mandate from the
electorate  would be an act of the utmost folly.  Such an act would be a
betrayal of the British people's political sovereignty and would gravely
endanger the well-being and stability of the British nation.

I would be most grateful if you, as my MP, would answer the constitutional
questions I have asked in this letter and let me know where you stand
personally on the issue of the continuing surrender of the British people's
political sovereignty to the EU.

Yours sincerely


Les Fellows


Top

Britain in Europe

I have visited your site and have read your myths section.

There are several things wrong with your site:

-Many of your answers to the "myths" are just quotes from eurocrats rather
than facts

-You say the French and Germans dont want a European superstate and that the
euro wont lead to one. How can you justiy that in light of these quotes:

A previous President of the EU, Jacques Delors, said: 'Yes, we have to have
transfers of sovereignty to achieve economic and monetary union.'

More recently, the new President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi,
told the European Parliament: 'We must now face the difficult task of moving
towards a single economy, a single political unity.'

Wim Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, said: 'The process
of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political
integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and was always meant to
be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe.'

Hans Tietmeyer, former President of the German Central Bank, said: 'A
country that merges its currency with that of another currency cannot be
politically independent.'

Gerhard Schroeder, the new Chancellor of Germany, said: 'The introduction of
the euro is probably the most important integrating step since the beginning
of the unification process...it is certain that the times of independent
nation states are definitely over...the internal market and the common
currency demand joint co-ordinating action.'

-You say that Britain can veto any decisions on Europe. I don't think so now
that Blair has given up the following 39 at Nice:
1. appointment of foreign policy supremo
2. Foreign, Justice and Home affairs:
3. anti-discrimination measures
4. freer movement inside EU
5* checks at external borders
6* travel conditions by non-EU nationals
7* common rules on asylum
8* protection of refugees
9* rules between EU members on refugees
10* illegal immigration measures
11* cross border exchange of documents
12* measures towards compatability of legislation by members
13* efficient functioning of civil proceedings
14* cooperation in justice and home affairs
15 Emergency aid to member states
16 Emergency financial assistance to member states
17 External representation of the European Monetary Union at world level
18 rules re Council of central Bank
19  Measures regarding the introduction of the euro
20 International agreements on trade and intellectual property
21 industrial policy
22 Actions for social/economic cohesion outside structural funds
23 structural fund rules
24 Cohesion fund
25 environmental measures
26 economic/technical cooperation with third countries
27 MEPs statute
28 Regulations for European political parties
29 Secretary General of the Council
30 Deputy ditto
31 procedure of the Court of Justice
32      "     "   "   "    of First instance
33 Members of the Court of auditors
34 Rules of court of auditors
35 Members of the Economic and Social Committee
36  Members of the committee of the Regions
37 Financial regulations of EU budget
38 Rules for financial controllers
39 Commission president

-You call us euro-sceptics "anti-Europeans". We are not. We have nothing
against the people of Europe. hat we are opposed to is the EU.

-You say "Europe" when the proper phrase is "EU". Britain cannot leave
Europe. Britain can leave the EU.

-You say our world role is boosted by the membership of the EU. What has
more of a world role? California, a state of a federation, or Australia, a
free, independent country?

-You say action is being taken against France for their ban on British beef.
Nothing has come of this action so far. British beef is still banned in
France and our government haven't got the guts to follow public opinion and
ban French beef.

-You talk about the anti-euro campaign being in disarray. This is quite
amusing as Britain in Europe has agreed to keep quiet until after the next
election about the euro and Blair is planning to not use the euro as a major
issue in his election campaign.

Why? Because Blair is too scared of losing the election as 71% of British
people want to keep the pound and 47% want to leave the EU altogether.
(according to recent polls)

- I would also like you to consider this:

Imagine for a moment a world in which the United States speaks French, the
majority language in Canada is French, the people of Australia and New
Zealand speak French, the government and business of the 850 million people
of the world's largest democracy (India) are largely conducted in French,
100 million people in China are learning French, most international business
including that in the fastest growing region of the world (the Pacific Rim)
is conducted in French, the language of international travel is French, 80%
of all Internet communications are in French and more books are sold in
French than the rest of the Western languages put together.

Let us further imagine that at the conclusion of the Second World War, 52
years ago, two French generals received the two largest German capitulations
in the field, while at the other end of the world, the fall of Rangoon to
French forces completed the destruction of the Japanese Army at the end of
the heaviest continuous land campaign in its history. Between 1945 and today
imagine that France had peacefully transformed history's largest empire into
a Commonwealth of 53 nations among whom 16 share a common head of state with
herself; that in Malaya French armed forces were victorious in the only
prolonged (nine years!) war against communist terrorist forces actually won
by the West, and that in the Falklands, French forces were victorious in the
only war since 1945 against a power equipped with the full range of modern
weapons.

Again let us imagine that France's external investments are second only to
those of the United States, that three of the world's twelve largest
industrial corporations by capital value are French, and France with one
percent of the world's population has in the thirty years of Japan's rise to
world economic power, been responsible by Japan's own reckoning for about a
quarter of the most important innovations in the period, at the same time
winning about a quarter of the Nobel prizes for science.

In this imagined scenario, could anyone anywhere believe that the French
government of today, or of any time, would ever contemplate, let alone plan,
that France be subject to the decisions of fourteen other countries through
an organization whose official language was English, whose plans over the
next five years contemplate the abolition of France's currency and by which
French citizens would be subject to an as yet unknown range of duties
specified by this organization?

Of course this imagined scenario does not exist - but its mirror image does.
Interchange English for French and Britain for France in this scenario and
you have the exact situation in which the people of Britain find themselves
today. How has this come about? How can it be that a country of such
achievement in the recent, not distant past, has progressively surrendered
the right to govern itself- not to overwhelming military might - but to a
bureaucracy whose only real weapons are words and regulations?

From

John Bull

Top