To describe the examination(?) of the Lisbon Treaty currently taking place in the, ‘House of Commons’, as a debate, would be a misnomer. For few of them can even be bothered to turn up. And those that do are not truly ‘examining’ and amending the bill to incorporate this Treaty into British Law.
Nevertheless, the abrogation of duty by those entrusted with great responsibilities, elected Members of the British Parliament, is without doubt a genuine National Scandal! The Government, might well be hell bent on destroying our Sovereignty, for they are unashamed Traitors to the country and to their oaths of office. But there are over 600 MP’s and collectively, they could force the government to debate such a vital piece of legislation in a proper manner.
But do they? Is Ian Paisley a Catholic??? Of course not. These MP’s too betray their oaths, by not being truly, ‘Honourable Members’! Are they simply lily livered, are they simply not interested, or are they willfully refusing their duty?
An article by Paul Johnson, copied below, gives additional insight into what has been happening within the Palace of Westminster. And what has been happening is quite simply scandalous!
The House of Commons is about one third of the way through its debate on the Treaty of Lisbon. Have you noticed? You could say this is the media’s fault for obsessing about MPs’ expenses and the politics of another country. But the parliamentarians themselves are hardly enamoured of their own discussion.
A glance around the chamber on the fourth day of the 12-day “debate” was to find 30 to 40 MPs at most, with many of the usual suspects in their places. One reason for this is the way the Government has deliberately organised the business in order to diminish its importance and to avoid the procedural trench warfare that characterised the Maastricht debates 15 years ago.
It has achieved it through rewriting the rules that guide the way the Commons deals with legislation. Most people know how a Bill usually progresses through Parliament. It is published (the first reading), the measure’s general intent is debated (the second reading) and then the Bill’s details are considered, line by line, in a standing committee.
When a Bill has constitutional implications - as ratifying the Treaty of Lisbon clearly does - its committee stages are taken in the chamber itself.
The purpose of the committee stage is to test the legislation for flaws and weaknesses; to explore aspects that could cause difficulties for those seeking to implement it or for the courts wishing to interpret it; and, especially where an international treaty is concerned, to ensure it does not disadvantage the United Kingdom and that its consequences are fully understood.
Conventionally, this is done by tabling amendments to specific clauses and debating them in fine detail.
But this is not happening and it is a scandal. It is proof of the supine nature of national parliaments within the EU.
After signing the treaty in December, Gordon Brown said: “Parliament will now have an opportunity to debate this amending treaty in detail and decide whether to implement it. We will ensure that there is sufficient time for debate on the floor of the House, so that the Bill can be examined in the fullest detail and all points of view can be heard.”
As with the referendum, this is another promise Mr Brown has not fulfilled. Instead, 12 days have been allotted for the committee stage and each day has a subject for a four-and-a-half hour general debate decided by ministers.
So far, these topics have included energy policy, the single market and justice and home affairs. The traditional line-by-line scrutiny of the legislation has been squeezed into 90 minutes at the end of each day, so many aspects of the treaty are not being debated.
When Mr Brown was challenged about this in the Commons last week, he said: “We are considering the European Union (Amendment) Bill day by day in the House of Commons in great detail.”
Day by day, but not line by line. The cynicism is breathtaking. During the 2005 general election campaign, the Government deflected any serious debate on the EU constitution by insisting the issue would be discussed fully during the referendum it had promised in its manifesto.
Now it has circumscribed the opportunity that MPs have to debate a matter of the utmost constitutional importance.
But what is public opinion where the “ever closer union” envisaged in the Treaty of Rome is concerned? The people or their representatives are ignored, lied to, treated with contempt and generally considered an irksome impediment to the ambitions of an arrogant political elite.
On Friday, the French parliament ratified the treaty that its own people had emphatically rejected. two years ago. Unlike our government, at least the French concede that the treaty is virtually the same as the old constitution. Only Ireland will now hold a referendum; and if the Irish vote “no” it can be guaranteed they will be marched back to the polling stations, as they were once before, to give the correct answer.
Leaving aside the procedural jiggery-pokery, the treaty’s ramifications would still not be clear even if there were a line-by-line committee stage. Take but one example. Article 61 states: “A standing committee shall be set up within the Council in order to ensure that operational cooperation on internal security is promoted and strengthened within the Union.”
This sounds unexceptionable. Yet what is envisaged here is a powerful new EU interior department, called the Standing Committee on Internal Security (COSI).
When MPs recently debated the treaty’s justice and home affairs provisions, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, did not even mention COSI. She sought to define this aspect of the treaty solely in terms of enhanced cross-border cooperation against crime and terrorism, as though that cannot be achieved without setting up an EU Interior Ministry that will rival, or exceed, her own department in importance.
Internal EU documents uncovered by our Brussels correspondent indicate how COSI might develop. One discussion paper states: “Internal security should at least include… the prevention and combating of crime, the prevention of the terrorist threat, intelligence exchange, public order management, the prevention and combating of criminal offences such as illegal immigration and trafficking in persons, the provision of an integrated management system for external borders and crisis management with cross-border effects within the EU.”
The EU already has an embryonic police force (Europol), a courts arm (Eurojust), a paramilitary riot squad (European Gendarmerie Force), a European Arrest Warrant, and will now, under Lisbon, have a European public prosecutor and what could become an interior ministry (COSI) to pull it all together.
For many years, these matters were regarded as off limits for the EU. Yet with the barest of debate in our supposedly sovereign parliament, and with ministers clinging to the fraying life-line of their negotiated opt-outs, we are about to hand control of our criminal justice system to the European Commission and the European Court of Justice.
Some people have argued against a referendum because we are a parliamentary democracy and the proper place for debating these matters is the Commons. What are they thinking now, or does nobody care any more?
Share this page:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
* This site is best viewed in Internet Explorer version 6 or above. Optimum resolution is 1024 x 768 or above.
| The British National Party Website: Leading the way in British Politics. | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
1st: The British National Party
|
2nd: The Conservatives |
3rd: Labour |
4th: The Liberal Democrats |
5th: UKIP |
| Rank is the popularity of the site from 1st to last. Links in are how many other websites link to us. | ||||
©
2008,
The British National Party News , PO Box 287, Waltham Cross, Herts, EN8 8ZU. Telephone: 0871 050 0232
Tony Bliar made this happen because he changed the places where debates took place from the chamber and other rooms in the House to other buildings.Those members who may want to be in one place are often required to be elsewhere.Bliar never was a Commons man rather as Brown is preferring to be elsewhere instead of answering questions.
The other thing Bliar changed was the times the sittings were held as he disliked staying late or all night so stopped that thus enabling members to travel home each night.Funny how so many of them still needed that second home instead of commuting like us mortals.
There is from my experience around 12 members in the Commons and really need they be there when the treaty is signed.No opposition is being held especially from the party in opposition which 30 years ago lied in collusion with david owen and many others to get us to vote ‘YES’.
Frankly the sooner the day arrives when we can say’NO’ and help those Europeans amongst us to live the wonderful life in Eurograd the better.I fancy rather a lot of people in Europe will be very grateful for causing the House of Cards to fall.
Nobody there cause it was a foregone conclusion, all done and dusted!
There is more wickedness in wilful ignorance than in wilful sin.
The ratification of the EU Constitution is a foregone conclusion. The masters in the Soviet EUnion have ordered it.
Our MPs have more pressing issues to deal with rather than giving their attention to what is the most important issue to face this country - its very governance.
Their expense claims need to be submitted before the weekend so don’t expect to see or hear from them soon.
Individual identity is intrinsically connected with national identity. If you want to lose sense of who you are, do nothing. If you want Great Britain to survive join the only TRUE nationalist party. Winston Churchill said “Action this day.”
“Tony Bliar made this happen because he changed the places where debates took place from the chamber and other rooms in the House to other buildings.Those members who may want to be in one place are often required to be elsewhere.”
I’d bet my last fiver, that most of them are off in meetings about diversity targets, short lists etc.
Is it time for us to campaign alongside others of different political persuasions, in order to save Great Britain and restore our democracy?
Many thanks to Chris Brown, Paul Johnson, David Noakes and several others for disseminating this EU Constitution, which was re-named (with hardly any alterations) as a ‘Treaty’ for the specific intention of conning the public. This Parliamentary debate is probably the most crucial debate since Cromwellian times, and most of our MPs can’t even be bothered to turn up for the debate. Just like those days when Oliver Cromwell and the rest of Britain were ruled by tyrants, most members of Parliament are a lazy bunch of lying, hypocritically debauched scumbags that don’t deserve to be paid £40 a week dole money, let alone £240,000 a year in salary and expenses. Most of them are well aware that the EU is a Marxist organisation, which is intent on creating a 4th Reich to dominate and control our every movement. And, those MPs who are not aware of this have no excuse either, because they have a responsibility to know what is going on, and come British Judgment Day, ignorance will be no excuse. In war time, people behaving in the manner of our MPs would be called fifth columnists (spies) and would be dealt with very severely. Should we be less concerned because we are not (officially) in a wartime situation, but merely under the control of subversives? Of course not. In fact, due to their secret treachery, we should be even more concerned, because our great nation that our fathers fought and died for, is being secretly sold-off by a bunch of greedy self-serving traitors, whose only concern is to line their own pockets, with the vain hope of maintaining their seat on the gravy train when the EU abolishes Westminster, and if they get the sack, they will get an equivalent pension to keep their mouths shut. Gordon Brown, Dave Cameron, Chris Huhn and their bunch of Marxist (or just greedy, stupid followers) have been ordered by Chancellor Merkel not to call a referendum, or a general election, so that our ‘democratic’ rule cannot be extended beyond the life of this Parliamentary term, which ends in May 2010. After this time, the EU can and will abolish all political parties, only pan EU party’s, like the EPP or PES will be allowed, under clause 1.46.4 of the EU Constitution/Treaty. It is illegal to criticise the EU, so I could be arrested for writing this article. Also, if I resisted arrest, they could use their EU Corpus Juris rule to kill me, without any redress whatsoever! This is very serious stuff, and in my view, it is time we arranged an urgent campaign with other anti-EU people, in order to bring this to the attention of the general public. Also, it needs to be done before the Queen signs the ratification of this Constitution, in May or June of this year. After that time, anyone opposing the government, and by association our EU rulers, will be guilty of a serious crime. Given the experience of the French and German referendums, there is probably no point in seeking one of our own, but, we must do something. Surely, by not seeking a referendum and just carrying on as normal, we are implying that we are ‘happy’ to be forced under the complete control of an even worse bunch of unelected despots than the ‘elected’ ones we are currently saddled with. What we really need is a massive non-party demonstration outside Westminster or Buckingham Palace. If thousands of people camp outside their doors, asking for Democracy in Britain, it will draw enough attention to make people turn away from East Enders and Coronation Street and sit up and take notice (at least for a while anyway!) If nothing else, it will show others throughout the world that Great Britain, the so-called exporter of democracy, to countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn’t even have democracy in it’s own country! Make no mistake, if we do nothing, Britain will end up enslaved under a much harsher regime than that of the Roman Empire, which pulled out of Britain c.1600 years ago. Perhaps our BNP leaders could talk to the other anti-EU people to see what can be done….
Here are a couple more questions.-
1. Should the UK be in the EU at all? If so, Why?
2. Should momentous national decisions be entrusted to representatives who are not present at the debates?
3. Have said ‘representatives’ ever heard of Oliver Cromwell?
One more to add to apendragon’s list of three questions above.
Have they heard of Gamlegorm the White?
The Tories have promised a referendum on this Lisbon EU Constitution - haven’t they? I know gormless Gordon promised one as well but his argument for not having one on the thing now, is that this Lisbon thing is a reforming thing and not a Constitution thing - even though the Lisbon thing is 98% of the Constitution thing. I suppose he has 2% of a point and in that sense is 2% correct? When gormless Gordon is 2% right about something, we should at least give him some credit! This anti hero’s judgement and political miscalculations thus far has been zero.
Getting back to the Tory promise of a referendum; can we in the BNP not go one better - in fact much better. Can we not say there is no need for a referendum because we are just going to tear up this EU Constitution (in all but name) the same day we withdraw from the EU on the same day we get elected to properly govern Britain like Churchill last did?
And yes I agree entirely, the (near empty) Commons is a national scandal but should we expect anything less? I also think the notion of a referendum on anything in the future is fanciful - far too risky. They (Tories/LibDummies?) will not take the chance and will merely use it as an elecion ploy and then the argument that people will only use it as means of expressing their displeasure about some other contentious issue.
I think we are stuck with just tearing it up and getting out.
Why this isn’t in all the top tabloids i do not know.
Vote BNP.