THE BRITISH INQUISITION

Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Labour’s favourite cop, has been found guilty of ‘hanging three white detectives out to dry’ in order to prove his own anti-racist credentials. Or, to put it another way, Sir Ian Blair has been found guilty of anti-English racism.

This stems from a complaint by an Asian police officer who complained that the detectives had used inappropriate language, such as to refer to Muslim headwear as ‘tea cosies’. When a misconduct panel decided that no further action be taken against the detectives, Sir Ian Blair intervened and claimed to have been shocked at the finding, even though he admitted he had never even read it. At the time Sir Ian Blair was in charge of discipline and diversity.

The three detectives were forced to take their case to an employment tribunal, which found that Sir Ian Blair had wanted to make an example of the men. The tribunal also criticised senior officers’ unquestioning acceptance of the allegations made against the detectives.

Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, has called for an end to the ‘culture of hysteria’ regarding race rows in the police.

Meanwhile, Sir Ian Blair has called for 2,000 extra Muslim police officers in an interview with Muslim News: ‘If something like one in nine Londoners is a Muslim then I want one in nine police officers to be a Muslim. Which means that we are currently 2,000 short’.

In other words, it is business as usual. Sir Ian Blair is not known as ‘Britain’s most politically correct copper’ for nothing.

MORE WELSH DEVOLUTION

A government white paper has proposed to give more powers to the Welsh assembly and ‘streamlines’ Westminster’s role. It states that a referendum would be needed before the assembly is given full lawmaking powers (as the Scottish parliament has).

However, Peter Hain, the Welsh Secretary, has said that there would need to be a bedding down period for the new system before any referendum would go ahead. Mr Hain has said that: ‘These enhanced, streamlined powers for the Assembly are adaptations of the current devolution settlement and, although they need the new Government of Wales Bill which we will introduce this winter, the (UK) Government believes that they do not require a referendum’.

Plaid Cymru has dismissed the white paper as ‘a major disappointment’, and the proposals have also been criticised by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The Welsh Conservative leader said that: ‘The people of Wales deserve a clear way forward. A multi-option referendum would enable everyone in Wales to voice their opinion’.

Rhodri Morgan, the Welsh Labour leader, supported the white paper and said: ‘It is time to develop the devolution settlement further so that we can deliver yet more effectively for the people of Wales. This white paper shows devolution keeping pace with what is needed to do the job effectively. This is all about bringing democratic government and legislation closer to Wales and closer to the people’.

This is all very well, but what about the English? What about the effect of this further devolution on the governance of England? What is wrong about bringing democratic government closer to England?

Instead, we are apparently supposed to just sit back and continue to watch a troop of Welsh and Scottish MPs keep a minority Labour government in office in England (Labour has a majority of 66 after the recent by-election, and this includes 70 Scottish and Welsh MPs). This illegitimate Labour government has absolutely no intention of re-establishing proper democratic rule in England.

The English Rights Campaign believes that any new Government of Wales Bill be amended to include a referendum on the introduction of an English parliament, and that such a referendum be held in 2007 along with the elections to the Scottish and Welsh parliaments - at the very latest.

IMMIGRATION

According to The Times, the government has ordered immigration officers to halt deportations of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe. This decision comes in the midst of strong criticism of such deportations in the last few days, and comes despite a denial from both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister that the government would alter its policy.

There have been claims that those returned have been tortured or murdered, although the government claims that there are no substantiated reports of mistreatment.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that he is ‘amazed’ that the government has continued to send failed asylum seekers back to Zimbabwe and condemned the government’s policy as being ‘deeply immoral’. He further stated that: ‘You are often dealing with people who have been here for many years and have roots in the country and are suddenly, without warning, taken into the system’.

The problem with this controversy is that it ducks the real issue. It is not the administration of the asylum system that is at fault, but the whole concept of asylum seeking that is at fault.

Those presently complaining of potentially being returned to Zimbabwe or Malawi includes one, Crispen Kulunji, who claims to have bribed officials to give him a Malawian passport. But instead of settling in Malawi, he decided that he would prefer to live in the UK and so legged it across the entire African continent and Europe before using the magic words ‘I claim asylum’ once he got to the UK. He is now on hunger strike. The Home Office does not accept his story and insist he is a Malawian.

Another, Patson Muzuwa, has been given permission to stay in Britain, but is complaining that he now wants to bring his wife and children too. He left them behind when he fled Zimbabwe.

Another on Channel 4 News revealed that he had already been deported from the UK once when his claim for asylum was refused, but had merely legged it across Africa and Europe again and made yet another claim for asylum. Now he is complaining that he might be deported again!

More than 15,000 Zimbabweans have claimed asylum in the last 4 years. Only a few hundred of those claims have resulted in asylum status being given. The cost of processing an asylum seeker is roughly £20,000 per asylum seeker. The long term costs of housing and education etc are far higher. But at £20,000 for only 15,000 asylum seekers works out at £300million.

The estimates of the economic situation in Zimbabwe vary, as is to be expected given the type of regime in place, its unreliability and the economic situation. But a report from the Havard University based Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in December 2002 made the following analysis:

‘In three years, Zimbabwe's GDP per capita has fallen by 30 percent. Government budget deficits are the highest in the world, over 20 percent of GDP. Zimbabwe's annual per capita GDP has fallen from well over $ 600 per person in 1998 to $ 300 this year. Inflation, running at 38 percent last year, is now a punishing 200 percent. One US dollar, six months ago capable of buying 150 Zimbabwe dollars, can now purchase 2,000 Zimbabwe dollars on the black market. About 60 percent of adult Zimbabweans have no jobs and no prospects now that commercial farming has been shut down and mining and manufacturing are slumping.’

The Zimbabwean economy has continued to contract, but even taking the per capita GDP as being US $300, then at an exchange rate of roughly $1.8 to £1, this means that the average per capita GDP is only £167.

In other words, the £300million that the UK has spent on 15,000 asylum seekers in the last 4 years is the equivalent to the average per capita GDP for roughly 450,000 Zimbabweans over the same 4 year period.

In deciding the merits of immigration, there are 2 main aspects to consider. What is in the interests of this country? And, given that there are despotic regimes and natural disasters around the world, how can we most effectively help genuine refugees?

No one has argued, and it is obviously not the case, that it is in this country’s interests to be spending £300million on dealing with 15,000 asylum seekers - especially when only a fraction of those claiming asylum have any legitimate basis to do so (even by the UK’s easygoing standards).

It is therefore the second question that is the crux of the present controversy. How can we best help genuine refugees? This is not being considered at all. What is happening is that people are pointing to Robert Mugabe and his various pogroms, and are then condemning anyone who advocates the deportation of failed asylum seekers as lacking in compassion, or possibly even being racist.

That is not good enough.

The best way to help the genuine refugees, who are not the fit young men who are paying organised crime rackets to smuggle them across 2 entire continents to get here, is to help them in Zimbabwe itself or neighbouring countries. To be spending £300million on 15,000 asylum seekers when that same money could provide an average income for 450,000 people is obscene. In reality, that same money would help very many more as refugees for obvious reasons would have a much less than average income.

Further, the UK should stop all economic assistance to Zimbabwe and those African countries that are supporting Mugabe. For example, President Mkapa of Tanzania has been quoted as saying: ‘I see no dispute to the elections in March. These are just attempts to discredit the Government. I have no doubts about the legitimacy of the Government of Zimbabwe’, and also: ‘The history of our countries is different and, therefore, the path to restoring the voice and ownership of the countries will be different between Tanzania and Zimbabwe. As African leaders, we are trying to explain to the Western countries the peculiarities of the Zimbabwean situation, but they have decided to hold on to their old prejudices.’

South Africa and many other African countries are also supportive of Mugabe despite his vote rigging and human rights abuses. One should not forget that only recently the UN has re-elected Zimbabwe to its Human Rights Commission! This was as a result of African support for Mugabe.

There is no hope for Zimbabwe so long as the West in general, and Britain in particular, continues to patronise communist and other despots in Africa. Instead the West needs to take those measures necessary to eject Mugabe from office.

Allowing the continuation of the present farce of asylum seeking is neither in the interests of this country or Zimbabwe.

EU FLANNEL

Tony Blair’s recent speech to the EU parliament has certainly stirred up a strong reaction from virtually all sections of the political spectrum. What is astounding is the totally diverse interpretation of the speech and the fact that many have hailed it as being eurosceptic, when in fact it is the opposite.

Even the allegedly anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) has offered its support for Tony Blair’s agenda.

‘If you can reform the European Union, Mr Blair, then I may even change my mind, I may even think it’s worth us staying a member,’ swooned Nigel Farage MEP, the UKIP leader in the EU parliament. Mr Farage hailed Mr Blair as being ‘the only European leader who understands why France and Holland voted no’ to the EU constitution!

UKIP’s support for Mr Blair at this critical juncture should not be underestimated, as it gives credence to Labour’s EU policy as the UK assumes the presidency and in the aftermath of the rejection of the constitution by France and Holland. Apparently, Labour’s EU policy is such a wonder to behold that UKIP might even reverse its policy that the UK should leave the EU.

So what was it in Phony Tony’s speech that had UKIP gushing and may even lead to that party abandoning its principles? Below are a handful of extracts which reveal the true nature of Mr Blair’s agenda:

‘This is a union of values, of solidarity between nations and people, of not just a common market in which we trade but a common political space in which we live as citizens.

It always will be.

I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply an economic market.’

The language is as plain as its message. Mr Blair intends to continue to promote the creation of a political EU and not just a free-trade zone. He is opposed to the EU being only a free-trade zone.

‘There are two possible explanations. One is that people studied the Constitution and disagreed with its precise articles. I doubt that was the basis of the majority 'no'. This was not an issue of bad drafting or specific textual disagreement.

The other explanation is that the Constitution became merely the vehicle for the people to register a wider and deeper discontent with the state of affairs in Europe. I believe this to be the correct analysis.
If so, it is not a crisis of political institutions, it is a crisis of political leadership. People in Europe are posing hard questions to us. They worry about globalisation, job security, about pensions and living standards. They see not just their economy but their society changing around them. Traditional communities are broken up, ethnic patterns change, family life is under strain as families struggle to balance work and home.’

The people of Europe are not ‘posing hard questions’. They are telling the ruling classes that they do not want the political EU which is being rammed down their throats. They do not want the EU constitution. This is a ‘specific textual disagreement’.

Mr Blair refers to a whole raft of issues, none of which are the EU’s business. The EU should not be meddling with matters such as pensions. Far from understanding the reasons for the rejection of the constitution, Mr Blair is trying to reinterpret those rejections to suit his own political agenda.

‘What would a different policy agenda for Europe look like?

First, it would modernise our social model. Again some have suggested I want to abandon Europe's social model. But tell me: what type of social model is it that has 20m unemployed in Europe, productivity rates falling behind those of the USA; that is allowing more science graduates to be produced by India than by Europe; and that, on any relative index of a modern economy - skills, R&D, patents, IT, is going down not up. India will expand its biotechnology sector fivefold in the next five years. China has trebled its spending on R&D in the last five.

Of the top 20 universities in the world today, only two are now in Europe.

The purpose of our social model should be to enhance our ability to compete, to help our people cope with globalisation, to let them embrace its opportunities and avoid its dangers. Of course we need a social Europe. But it must be a social Europe that works.’

Once again, Mr Blair is openly setting out his determination that the EU should remain committed to a political agenda, and not become a free-trade zone. His rhetoric betrays a socialist viewpoint, as he sees EU quangos and EU-wide government as a solution to individual countries’ lack of competitiveness. The EU is too diverse and it is absurd to expect the comparatively backward former communist countries of eastern Europe to have the same economic policies as western Europe.

By the term ‘social Europe’, Mr Blair really means a socialist Europe.

‘Migration has doubled in the past 20 years. Much of the migration is healthy and welcome. But it must he managed. Illegal immigration is an issue for all our nations, and a human tragedy for many thousands of people. It is estimated that 70 per cent of illegal immigrants have their passage facilitated by organised crime groups. Then there is the repugnant practice of human trafficking whereby organised gangs move people from one region to another with the intention of exploiting them when they arrive. Between 600,000 and 800,000 people are trafficked globally each year. Every year over 100,000 women are victims of trafficking in the European Union.’

Mr Blair is not opposing mass immigration, although he is presenting illegal immigrants as if they are the victims of organised crime rackets, when in fact the majority of them are exploiting those rackets in order to gain entry into the EU, and into the UK in particular.

It is to be expected that UKIP would support this stance, given that it too believes in mass immigration.

The solution to the UK’s immigration problems can and should be solved by the UK government. This is not a matter for the EU, which has proved itself so abysmally incompetent anyway. Britain is an island and it is therefore different to the continental countries many of which, such as France, have been happy to allow illegal immigrants to pass through their territories on their way to the UK.

When 70% of immigrants have used organised crime rackets, then the solution is to close down those crime rackets by cutting off the supply of money to them - ie by ending mass immigration and ending so-called asylum seeking.

‘A strong Europe would be an active player in foreign policy, a good partner of course to the US but also capable of demonstrating its own capacity to shape and move the world forward.’

Mr Blair is openly setting out his support for the EU developing its own foreign policy, which the constitution envisaged involving a new diplomatic service and a foreign minister.

The electors have rejected this and Mr Blair should respect their wishes. The British people should be allowed their own referendum before Labour commits the UK to any of this.

‘It would be a Europe confident enough to see enlargement not as a threat, as if membership were a zero sum game in which old members lose as new members gain, but an extraordinary, historic opportunity to build a greater and more powerful union. Because be under no illusion: if we stop enlargement or shut out its natural consequences, it wouldn't, in the end, save one job, keep one firm in business, prevent one delocalisation. For a time it might but not for long. And in the meantime Europe will become more narrow, more introspective and those who garner support will be those not in the traditions of European idealism but in those of outdated nationalism and xenophobia. But I tell you in all frankness: it is a contradiction to be in favour of liberalising Europe's membership but against opening up its economy.’

One of the main reasons why the people of France and Holland rejected the constitution was their opposition to further enlargement. In particular, they did not wish to see Turkey admitted into the EU. Mr Blair does not intend to take any notice at all of this fact. He intends to ram on with the admission of Turkey whether the people like it or not.

How anyone can laud this speech as being eurosceptic, or setting out a reform agenda, is beyond comprehension. Politicians and journalists have presumably fallen for the behind the scenes hype rather than using their own critical faculties.

The Times had a double page spread entitled ‘Britain is blowing a wind of change across Europe’. Since it is a matter of fact that all proposed legislation and reform must be initiated by the Brussels Commission and not the EU parliament nor ministers, Britain is not in a position to bring about sweeping changes. The Times is merely parroting Labour propaganda.

If Mr Blair’s speech to the EU parliament was insufficiently clear to the more excitable, then there is also the interview he gave to Le Monde last Thursday. Regarding the constitution he said:

‘I continue to think that the Constitution is a set of rules perfectly apt for Europe to function better. We will have to reflect on it again. The problem is that the people have said to the politicians: we will not let you adopt this text until you begin to respond to our daily problems. They did not vote 'no' because of this or that article (in the constitution).’

Once again, the language is as clear as the message. Mr Blair rejects the notion that the voters of France and Holland voted against the constitution. It is also clear that he intends to press on with the provisions of the constitution - one way or another.

‘Some German politicians are claiming that I want a Europe that is only about free-trade. I want the very opposite. I support a political dimension to Europe.’

Again, the language is as plain as the message. Mr Blair is fully committed to the UK being ruled by the EU. This should not come as a shock. He is a socialist and believes in big government. He has consistently increased taxes and government spending in the UK to such an extent that according to the OECD, UK public spending will have increased from 37.5% of GDP in 2000 to a whopping 45.2% next year. This increase will have brought public spending from being 9.6% below the Euro-zone average to being only 2.2% below next year.

Mr Blair is not a reformer, or a free-trader, or a free market liberal. He is a socialist and he will not reform the EU. He will simply repackage the EU agenda.

What is needed is a campaign to get the UK out of the EU. The opportunity offered by the rejection of the constitutional proposals is being squandered. This was not a time for UKIP to be gushing over Labour’s pro-EU, pro-euro, and pro-constitutional manoeuvring.

UKIP has betrayed those who voted for it and has betrayed this country.

Thankfully, UKIP does not have a monopoly on a policy of withdrawal from the EU. The English Democrats Party also believes in withdrawal.

What we want is to be able to trade with the EU and not be ruled by the EU.

THE LOONY LEFT

The re-enactment of the Battle of Trafalgar next week will skip the fact that the British won. This decision has been endorsed by First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West of the Royal Navy. There will be no celebration of the British victory and the Franco-Spanish defeat.

The First Sea Lord believed it would be wrong to be ‘triumphalist’: ‘Trafalgar is a fact of history, and Nelson is a figure who is known and respected around the world. This re-enactment will include vignettes from Trafalgar, in keeping with the Nelson theme, but I didn’t want to go in for some great triumphalist gesture’.

Instead the display will be presented as a battle between a ‘red fleet’ and a ‘blue fleet’, although an actor will playing the role of Nelson dying at the end.

Apparently, this is all to avoid offending the French and Spanish.

PHONY TONY

‘The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away - period.’

Tony Blair, 8 June

‘The rebate exists because otherwise there would be this quite unfair proportion of British contribution.’

Tony Blair, 9 June

‘We cannot discuss the existence of the British rebate unless we discuss the whole of the financing of the European Union.’

Tony Blair, 13 June

‘The rebate is an anomaly that has to go.’

Tony Blair, 21 June

THE EU

The EU continues to stagger from crisis to crisis as the chickens keep coming home to roost. Now professor Ronald McKinnon has shocked a European Central Bank conference in Frankfurt when he said: ‘There is some credence to the view that maybe Italy should be split off and have its own currency, even if we know it would all go wrong’.

Professor McKinnon has previously been described as the ‘godfather’ of the euro.

The comments came as supporters of the return of the Italian lira continued to demand for a vote to abandon the euro. Roberto Calderoli, a minister, has described the euro as the ‘plaything of madmen’ and that: ‘The moment has come for us to flee before the whole edifice comes crashing down’, and predicted that: ‘The euro will soon be waste paper’.

Meanwhile, the EU development commissioner, Louis Michel (a former Belgian foreign minister), threatened on RTBF radio that: ‘The British Prime Minister has the upper hand, but to run a good presidency, it’s necessary that everyone else helps...We’ll help him, but on the condition that it’s all heading in the direction of more Europe’, and that if the British presidency was to be only about ‘constructing, or cementing a Europe that is just a free market, then it is going to be difficult for him’.

Mr Michel dismissed Mr Blair’s concept of the EU as being ‘manifestly that of an economic free trade zone, where, rather stupidly, countries still give in to internal competition’.

Meanwhile, the German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, in a major speech, made the following point: ‘The core question is: which Europe do we want? Do we want a united Europe capable of acting, a real political union...or do we want to limit ourselves to being a large free-trade zone?’ His own view was that: ‘I’m convinced...we need a political union. Only a political union is able to practice solidarity’.

Meanwhile, Luxembourg has announced that it will proceed with its referendum on the EU constitution.

In the face of all this, Tony Blair is still dangling the £3billion British rebate as something he might consider negotiating about provided that there are reforms to the EU budget.

The fact is that back in 1975 the British people voted to join a common market. That is what they were told it was. Now it has evolved into something the people did not vote for and do not want. Instead of trying to negotiate the terms of a political union, the government should be prepared to disengage the UK from that political union and revert our relationship with the EU to one of free trade only. What those who decide to stay in the political union do afterwards is their own business.

Alternatively, the British people should be allowed a referendum on the future relationship of the UK with the EU.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH (bonus)

‘Britain is engaged in a full-scale war with the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Yet hundreds of our own citizens, young British Muslims born and bred here, have volunteered to fight for our enemy.

Already, it has been reported that six have been killed, and according to the hardline group Al-Muhajiroun there are ‘thousands’ more willing to die for the cause of Islam in the battle against the Allies.

And regardless of such militants, there also appears to be little support for the anti-Taliban campaign among the younger generation of Muslims who have been educated here and who choose Britain as their home.

Indeed, an opinion poll by an Asian radio station, Sunrise, showed yesterday that 98% of Muslims in London under the age of 45 would not fight for Britain, while 48% said they would take up arms for Osama Bin Laden.

This anti-British mindset carries with it two deeply depressing conclusions.

First, it gives the widespread impression that all Muslims are hotheads and could create a backlash against the majority who certainly do not share the anti-British view of this minority.

Second, it is a terrible indictment of the policy of multiculturalism, which has allowed extremism to flourish and which has failed to generate any feelings of national allegiance among some of our biggest ethnic minorities.’

Manzoor Moghal, writing in October 2001

The Sunrise opinion poll was not the only one at that time (just after 9/11) which highlighted the extent of the anti-British hostility in the Muslim population. An opinion poll in the Sunday Times revealed that 40% of Muslims believed that Bin Laden was justified in fighting a war against the USA, and a similar percentage believed that those British Muslims who chose to fight with the Taliban were right to do so.

A subsequent opinion poll by ICM revealed that 57% of Muslims disagreed with Tony Blair’s assertion that the war was not a war against Islam and 80% opposed the war in Afghanistan.

Such anti-British views were not confined to the opinion polls. One extremist, Abdul Haq, who was speaking on behalf of the Al-Muhajiroun organisation on the Jimmy Young Show, stated that: ‘When you are bombing the people of Afghanistan, you are attacking my land and my brothers and my sisters. If I was capable of fighting I would like to go.’ He further stated: ‘What the West have failed to realise is that our identities are not based on nationality, they are based on belief.’ He dismissed democracy as ‘just the civilised face of dictatorship’.

Haq was quite open that his aim was to bring about a world Islamic state and he intended seeing the Islamic flag flying over Downing Street.

Few could forget the shameful Question Time programme immediately after the 9/11 attacks. It was so bad that the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation was forced to issue an apology. The panel consisted of Lord Ashdown (the former Lib Dem leader), Phil Lader (a former US ambassador), Tam Dalyell (a Labour MP) and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (a Marxist). Tory and Labour frontbench MPs were disallowed, and the audience had been selected as a result of replies to questions as to their opinions about the USA rather than being a randomly selected. The programme attracted widespread criticism, although Yasmin Alibhai-Brown described it as ‘a really good, thoughtful programme’.

It was not only idle talk and bravado that blighted the UK at that time. 10 days after the 9/11 attacks, 17 year old Ross Parker was attacked and killed by 3 Asian thugs in Peterborough, for no other reason than he was white. He was unknown to his attackers. The ringleader, having attacked Ross Parker so violently that he had almost been decapitated, then held up the knife and said: ‘Look at this. Cherish the blood.’ The 3 Asians were convicted of murder. Peterborough, like Oldham, has anti-white no-go areas.

There have been other anti-white racist attacks and killings since, but these are not as dramatically nor persistently reported as the Stephen Lawrence murder. One cannot imagine why.

This last week Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed has urged Muslims to kill kaffirs (non-Muslims). In reference to the US embassy he said: ‘We’re going to incite people to do jihad, incite people to hate the new pharaoh (President Bush). Why not do more? Maybe take over the embassy’.

In reference to kaffirs, Bakri said: ‘Wherever they are killed I feel happy’.

It is against this background that Labour has decided to press ahead with its new law outlawing incitement to religious hatred. This law had been promised to the Muslim pressure groups before the election in an attempt to get votes from those Muslims disenchanted with Labour as a result of the Iraq war.

Muslim pressure groups have been very adept at taking on the role of victims since 9/11, claiming that Muslims are victims of ‘Islamophobia’. Labour is now making good its shoddy promise. Those convicted of inciting religious hatred can expect to be jailed for up to 7 years. The proposals have attracted widespread denunciation.

Be there no doubt, the law is designed to appease Muslim pressure groups. There is no call for it from anyone else. It is, and is intended to be, an erosion of free speech. The recently knighted Sir Iqbal Sacranie, in reference to any discussion as to the number of Muslims in the UK who support Islamic terrorism, has stated: ‘There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision’.

This new law is another perfect example of the underlying neo-communist nature of political correctness. It portrays the Muslims as victims, it feeds Muslim antagonism against the host population, it undermines English culture, and completely debunks Christianity.

It is one thing for a Christian society to tolerate and respect minority religions, it is quite another to equate religions as being equally valid. Muslims account for only 3% of the population. Those who are genuine Christians believe that Christianity is the truth. The truth cannot be equated with untruths.

The new law treats Christianity the same as Rastafarianism, Satanism, devil-worship, witchcraft, paganism, agnostics, atheists, and presumably Jedi knights - as well as any and every other religion conceivable.

Even without this law, there has already been convictions for ‘religiously aggravated threatening behaviour’, under the provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. Not long after the 9/11 attacks, 2 neighbours got into an argument in Exeter. One of those, Alistair Scott was arrested, charged and convicted on 3 counts of religiously aggravated threatening behaviour as a result of a complaint from Mohammed Hudaib. Both men had been abusive and Mr Hudaib had shouted that 9/11 had been a great day, that Osama Bin Laden was a great man and all Americans deserved to die. Mr Hudaib admitted that he ‘could have said that Osama Bin Laden was a great man and that all Americans deserved to die and are stupid’. Mr Hudaib was neither arrested nor charged.

One of the most outrageous examples of the British Inquisition was the arrest of Robin Page who made the following remark at a country fair: ‘If there is a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged, lesbian lorry driver present, then you may be offended at what I am going to say, as I want the same rights that you have got already’. For daring to make this joke, the police even advertised that they would ‘like to hear from anyone who was upset by the commentary’. In this case, the charges were ultimately dropped.

Be there no mistake, if this new law is introduced then there will be an increase in similar arrests and even convictions. The British Inquisition has acquired far too much power and momentum. The history of multiculturalism and of Labour’s race war politics speaks for itself.

This illegitimate Labour government is pouring fuel onto the flames of Islamic extremism.

RACE WAR POLITICS

Labour’s latest move to legitimise mass immigration into the UK involves the introduction of a citizenship test. This test does not require immigrants to understand British history.

However, it does require immigrants to understand their ‘rights’. These rights include sex discrimination laws, race discrimination laws, how to get unemployment benefit, how to get council tax benefit, how to complain about the police, the Human Rights Act, homosexual partnerships, legal aid, and how to get the local council to provide a house.

Apparently, knowing how to allege that a police officer is a racist is more important than understanding Britain’s past and hence its culture.

David Davis, the Tory shadow Home Secretary, has said: ‘These citizenship tests must not become another costly New Labour gimmick. It is vital that a British citizenship test is about Britain - not how to claim benefits’.

It is to be noted that David Davis does not object to mass immigration, only the manner of it. Nor in his interview with Jonathan Dimbleby last Sunday, did David Davis oppose foursquare the introduction of the proposed new law outlawing incitement to religious hatred. He thought that it would have been better to amend the existing law rather than create a new one.

Also, David Davis has in the past described the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) as ‘an important public institution’. The CRE is certainly a very self-important institution and a very nasty one. The CRE has itself been charged with racial discrimination on many occasions, and even former members have called for its fundamental reform if not abolition.

One former CRE commissioner, Raj Chandran, who had been one of 3 Tories on the commission (all of whom were purged under Labour) wrote in April 2001:

‘My message is that the CRE has grossly exceeded and distorted its mission, which was defined by the 1976 Race Relations Act as being to fight discrimination and to foster good race relations.

Instead, this generously funded and largely unaccountable body has fostered prejudice and self-pity. It devotes its energies to stigmatising the white majority population and stirring up resentment among Britain’s black and Asian minorities.

It attempts to perpetuate two myths: the first is that all racism, prejudice and discrimination is a matter of dominant whites mistreating downtrodden members of ethnic minorities.

The second is that the ethnic minorities are a single group bound together by their experience of prejudice and discrimination.

But this is simply not the case. Last week, parts of Bradford burned during riots which - to simplify greatly - were rooted in bitter conflicts not just between Asians and whites but also between Hindus and Muslims, and within the Muslim community.

In Oldham, Asian youths were attempting to turn their rundown council estates into no-go ghettos from which whites would be excluded for fear of violence.’

Mr Chandran’s comment about ‘dominant whites mistreating downtrodden members of ethnic minorities’ is a description of neo-communism: that there are oppressed groups in society which the neo-communists seek to politicise against the oppressors (in original communism it was the oppressed working class against the bourgeoisie, now it is non-whites, homosexuals, feminists, travellers etc against western society in general and the English in particular).

David Davis is the ‘right wing’ front runner to be the new Tory leader. One shudders to think what the other so-called modernisers (ie lefties and do-gooders) are like. Once again, the Tories have demonstrated that they are not prepared to oppose either political correctness or mass immigration in principle.

For the avoidance of doubt, the English Rights Campaign believes that the CRE should be abolished.

IMMIGRATION

Slovakia has hit upon a new way to solve their unemployment difficulties. They are using EU grants to pay their long term unemployed to emigrate into neighbouring countries.

The scheme, called Jobs Abroad, currently only involves emigration to Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic. However, a spokesman has admitted: ‘If it is a success, we will extend it to other countries further afield - such as the United Kingdom’.

Austria is complaining. The Austrian Chancellor, Wolfgang Schussel said: ‘I thought it was a joke when I was told what they were doing’.

Slovakia has an unemployment rate of 17.5%.

Slovakian officials said that they were responding to foreign firms’ requests for new staff. Anyone who has been unemployed for more than 3 months can apply for a free ticket to another country.

The Austrian Social Democrat MP Doris Bures said: ‘They are just taking a problem they have been unable to solve and shifting the burden of responsibility to another country’.

No doubt there will soon be many more Slovak immigrants heading our way.

THE EU

The Bruges Group have presented a petition to 10 Downing Street, the contents of which are set out below:

Memo to the Rt Hon. Tony Blair, MP:
Nee and Non mean No!
Dear Mr Blair

For your information the Bruges Group would like to translate two important words.

The translation of the Dutch word Nee in English is No. The Dutch use Nee to express refusal or denial or disagreement or especially to emphasize a negative statement. The French word Non has an identical meaning also translated into English as No.

No signifies:
- A negative response; a denial or refusal
- A negative vote or voter

It is used to express strong refusal.

This is what the French and Dutch peoples said to the EU Constitution. But you are still permitting the EU to implement aspects of the EU Constitution including:
- The EU External Action (Diplomatic) Service
- A European President and EU Foreign Minister
- A European Defence Agency
- A European Gendarmerie
- The Rapid Reaction Force
- The Fundamental Rights Agency
- A European Space Policy
- Asylum and immigration policy

Moreover, by not implementing those costly measures, there is less need to surrender any of Britain’s rebate.

If you do not cancel the implementation of those policies then you must honour your election pledge and allow the British people their say on the EU Constitution and the future of Britain’’s relationship with the EU.
Yours sincerely,



John Hayes, MP The Rt Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory, MP

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

One of the problems that has beset the Church of England and has been responsible for its decline, is that it gradually ceased to preach Christianity and instead preferred to preach political correctness and socialism.

Sometimes this can become quite far out, and as ludicrous as the looniest of the Loony Left in London in the 1980s. In particular, the C of E has taken the politically correct line on race. An example of this might be the prayers for asylum seekers, which called for ‘open borders’ and for congregations to carry out ‘acts of solidarity’. The specially written prayer book was launched in 2002 and was supported by the Roman Catholic church.

One of the editors of the book, Richard Solly, claimed: ‘Some refugees are here because of their faith. Churches should advocate for them and speak to those in government who say they are Christian, yet treat them with cold, callous, brutality’.

One asylum prayer reads: ‘Help us to work to create cities...where all cultures and traditions are honoured and celebrated on soulful, carnival streets where gay couples can dance to the beat of their hearts...May differences of language and of culture become more and more a richness to be celebrated rather than a threat to be feared’.

Simon Heffer has recently written an article about the failings of the Church of England in the Daily Mail. That article has provoked responses from 2 clergy. One, Rev Andy Kelso, acknowledged that those who were prepared to defend this country’s Christian heritage ‘are rarely heard’.

The other was from the Rt Rev Peter Prince, who argued that the C of E remains ‘committed to our mission of communicating the Christian Gospel in word and action’, and that it ‘will continue to speak out on issues of vital importance, including abortion, euthanasia, asylum, immigration and community relations’.

Of those issues listed as vitally important, 3 out of 5 involve race.

Further comment is not necessary.

NATIONALISATION OF THE FAMILY

In the latest extension in the nationalisation of the family, Labour is to spend £680million of taxpayers money to subsidise schools to stay open for 10 hours a day. The idea is that parents can then leave their children in school for much longer.

Given that school budgets are already strained trying to educate children, and those children cannot be healthily fed, there is no justification for this expenditure other than socialist ideology.

Those who prefer not to work and to look after their own children full time will not benefit, nor will those who leave their children with other family members. Yet these people are still having to pay the necessary taxation.

Labour is merely trying to bring the raising of children more under the control of the state.

IMMIGRATION

The governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, has spoken out in favour of mass immigration: ‘If the increased demand for labour generates its own supply in the form of migrant labour then the link between demand and prices is broken, or at least altered. Indeed, in an economy that can call on unlimited supplies of migrant labour, the concept of the output gap is meaningless’.

The output gap is a measure of how much spare capacity there is in the economy.

Mervyn King continued: ‘The UK is not in that extreme position, but the inflow of migrant labour, especially in the past year or so from eastern Europe, has probably led to a diminution of inflationary pressure in the labour market relative to previous experience’.

In other words, Mr King believes that immigration allows firms to replace British workers with cheaper foreign workers and so save costs on wages. That might be true, but there will be an increase in government spending to pay for those displaced British workers who are unemployed, and the extra costs (eg housing and transport) caused by the immigration.

This increase in government spending will lead to higher taxes. The displacement of British workers will lead to falling living standards for the British. None of this is in the interests of the British.

We do not wish to see a break in the link between demand and prices. If there is a shortage of nurses (ie the demand for nurses exceeds supply), then the pay rates for nurses will increase. The increase in pay will lead to an increase in supply. Many who are currently unemployed, or (possibly forcibly) retired, or on incapacity benefit for depression and stress, will be attracted to take those jobs. This will save government spending on welfare.

There are approximately 7.85million people of working age who are designated as being ‘economically inactive’. 2.1million of these people say that they want a job.

There are 2.7million people claiming incapacity benefit (1million of whom are doing so citing depression or stress). A government minister has said that two thirds of these could be brought back into the labour market, one third immediately.

The fact is that there is a large reservoir of potential employees who are available to fill any shortage in employment without the need for immigration. The problem is one of training and retraining. There is no justification for these British people to be pushed out of the labour market.

It is in the interests of the economy as a whole that mass immigration is brought to an end. That is before taking into account any of the cultural implications.

It is also to be noted that although there are many corporate businessmen (many of whom are socialists) who favour mass immigration, there seems to be no saving of wage costs at boardroom level. There are no Polish or Lithuanian governors of the Bank of England, for example.

But as we know, with socialism some people are more equal than others.

THE EU AND IMMIGRATION

As the EU lurches from one crisis to the next, with a falling euro, both Italy and Germany considering withdrawing from the euro, the fallout from the Dutch and French referendums, and the attacks on the British rebate, the fundamental difficulties created by the single currency are being ignored.

The EU is not a single country. It has a varied economic and political background. It is unstable in that it has recently admitted a large number of former communist countries from eastern Europe which have much more backward economies and far lower standards of living. There are plans to admit even more countries, including the Muslim Turkey.

It is therefore not surprising that the creation of the single currency has also created widespread unemployment and recession. The re-unification of Germany was sufficient to wreck the ERM. The unification of a large number of countries such as Poland, Lithuania etc into the EU eurozone, is having a similar effect on the euro. This is all predictable.

The present crisis is what happens when economic decisions are taken for political reasons.

One example of the disparity between the different countries in the EU was recently revealed. The average annual income across the EU is 26,850 euro. But this figure is made up of wide differences.

In the UK the annual income is an average of 36,180 euro (albeit in sterling), and the figures for Luxembourg and Germany are 35,010 euro and 34,620 euro respectively. The annual incomes for Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are 4,440 euro, 3,600 euro, and 3,240 euro respectively.

Given such huge differences in incomes, it is a nonsense to talk about a single market. Nor is it any wonder that the UK has witnessed yet another wave of mass immigration from eastern Europe, when people from those countries can earn so much more by coming to the UK and undercutting British wage rates.

Other western EU countries had sufficient sense to maintain restrictions on immigration from eastern Europe.

Many are arguing that the admission of so many eastern European workers is a good thing as there are supposedly skills shortages, and that there are jobs which the idle British are no longer prepared to do at the wages being offered. It is to be noted, that these supposed skills shortages have only occurred after the admission of the eastern European countries into the EU, and have occurred despite the continuing high levels of unemployment and the large number of job losses in manufacturing industry (most recently Rover).

Even if it is the case that the eastern Europeans are undercutting British workers for wages, and that this allows certain businesses and the NHS to save wage costs, this is still not in the national interest. The cost of immigration is not solely the wages which the immigrants are paid. It also is the cost of the extra infrastructure (eg housing and roads), the extra cost on public services (such as the NHS and education), and the extra cost of the failure to employ those British people who cannot get a job.

Yet those businesses which are drawing in the immigrants are not paying these extra costs. They are happy for the taxpayer in general to meet these costs. In other words, such businesses are expecting a freebie.

The employment of 3rd world nurses does not save money overall. The failure to employ British nurses costs the country in benefits, the extra housing and other infrastructure costs, and the extra costs to be born by public services all has to be met from other government and local government departments. All that Labour are doing by importing nurses and doctors from the 3rd world is to switch costs away from the NHS budget and onto other government budgets (eg transport).

This is apart from depriving those 3rd world countries of desperately needed skilled medical staff.

There is no case for mass immigration into the UK, certainly not as a facade of creating a single EU market.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

In the latest attack upon England’s Christian heritage, the Torbay council have ordered that a wooden cross be removed from a crematorium chapel. As always, it has been claimed that this is to avoid offending other faiths.

The 5ft symbol has hung on the wall for 50 years without complaint.

Furthermore, the council has decreed that the chapel must no longer be called a chapel, and must instead be referred to as the ‘ceremony hall’.

Unusually, some Christians are making a stand. Peter Hayward, a chaplain of the Seaman’s Christian Friends Society, has refused to carry out any services until the cross is replaced. He said: ‘It’s a nonsense. They’re putting political correctness before people’. Mr Hayward has been supported by other churchmen, who have suggested that the cross be replaced with a curtain to be pulled across it for non-Christian services.

The Rev Anthony Macey said: ‘I am very angry about this. That cross has been in the chapel at the crematorium for nearly 50 years. And calling the chapel a ceremony hall is just ridiculous’.

Out of a population of 130,000, there are believed to be 1,000 from an ethnic minority, many of whom will of course be Christians.

Councillor Alan Faulkner said: ‘We live in a diverse multi-faith society. Indeed many people have no specific religious beliefs at all. The facility at Torquay Crematorium is not consecrated. The building was designed to be a neutral space for all to use. We have been getting more and more requests to remove the cross from the wall for specific services, and this poses a serious risk to staff who have to keep climbing a ladder to remove and replace it. Whilst I am a Christian, I fully support this decision as I recognise we have a duty as a council to cater for everyone’.

No one has suggested that the council should not cater for everyone. England is a tolerant country and has shown tolerance to those immigrants who do not share England’s Christian heritage. But the existence of non-Christian religions in England does not preclude the English from their own culture.

It is wholly wrong for the politically correct to be citing minority religions as an excuse for their actions.

The destruction of Christianity has always been a goal of political correctness from its very inception. This fact will be dealt by the English Rights Campaign in due course.

THE WAR ON TERROR

As if the situation in the middle east is not complicated enough, it has emerged that British diplomats have been having secret meetings with members of Hamas, a terrorist organisation which has been responsible for suicide terror attacks in Israel.

Hamas has also claimed responsibility for the recent rocket attack which left one woman injured in the Israeli town of Sderot. The organisation is openly committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.

Jack Straw has claimed that the meetings were with elected town mayors of Hamas, and not the leadership. One presumes that he is trying to draw up distinctions between good and bad Hamas members.

An Israeli official has stated: ‘There is no difference between the political and military arms of Hamas. This is a terror organisation. Any attempt to make a distinction is very dangerous because it would mean you legitimise part of the organisation but you don’t stop the terror activity of the other part’.

The talks have also broken the ban on links with a list of British and American proscribed organisations.

Not surprisingly, the Israelis are outraged. By what right has a British government to be sending officials to hob nob with such people at a time when there are signs of progress in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute? We should not be interfering behind the backs of the Israelis in this way, nor bringing to bear our expertise of tolerating terrorism (as we are prepared to tolerate terrorism in Northern Ireland).

LIVE 8

The original Live Aid project was an event which most who were alive at the time can remember. For those who tend to forget, there is the occasional re-release of a single at Christmas to remind people.

It came as a bolt out of the blue, and was organised and carried forward by, mainly, the British music industry, which had been dragooned into it by Bob Geldof and Midge Ure. This is something for which they can be rightly proud.

The pending Live 8 project is, regrettably, unlikely to solve the problem of poverty in Africa, although it may make some progress in achieving the changes in political policy of western countries towards the continent. In particular, there is likely to be some writing off of African debt. Although the USA is taking a different view as to the best way forward.

The problems of Africa are not the responsibility of the west. The corruption and incompetence of African governments is the prime reason. That so many of the decolonised countries rapidly descended into communist dictatorships is a major obstacle. With independence comes responsibility.

Nevertheless, one cannot but admire the determination of those who are once again prepared to organise and stage major concerts as a means of achieving their objectives.

It is therefore a great pity that the Race War Industry has raised its ugly head and started carping about the number of black performers who are taking part. The concert line-up has even been described as ‘hideously white’. There are complaints that there are no African performers.

If these Race zealots are so clever, one wonders why they have not organised their own events before now. Since they have not, perhaps they ought to shut up.

THE NOUVEAU TOFFS

It has now been revealed that Labour has very quietly abolished the Honours Scrutiny Committee which, for the past 83 years, has vetted the appointment of new peers.

Labour has created so many new peers that it is now the largest party in the House of Lords.

Moreover, it has also recently been revealed that 75% of those who have donated more than £50,000 to Labour have received an honour. Every donor who has given more than £1million has been awarded a knighthood or a peerage.

It is truly stomach churning to watch all these nouveau toffs literally lording it over the rest of us, despite their socialist pretensions. But as we know, it has always been a socialist practice that some people are more equal than others.

The Honours Scrutiny Committee had been set up after Lloyd George had been found to have been selling honours.

One solution to the democratic deficit in England, is for the House of Commons to become the English parliament, and for the present House of Lords to be reformed and to assume the role of the British parliament.

Given the ease with which Tony Blair has been packing the House of Lords with his socialist nouveau toffs, then that would certainly be a good solution to more than one problem.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

A decision has been taken to ban the provision of Gideon’s bibles in the 3 main NHS Trust hospitals in Leicester.

The excuse being used is that the hospital managers believe that the bibles, which are provided free by Gideons International, are offensive to other religions, that such provision breaks diversity and equality rules, and with a bit about the MRSA superbug tagged on. It is an attack on a freedom which has been a part of English life for many years, and to deny people that freedom when they are at their most vulnerable.

The decision has led to protests not only from Christians, but also from leaders of other faiths as well. Iqbal Sacranie, of the Muslim Council of Britain, has dismissed the idea as being ‘ridiculous and extreme’.

Ian Mair, the British director of Gideons International, said: ‘I have yet to receive a single letter, email, or phone call form any member of another faith to say that they have been offended by a hospital bible’.

The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust admitted that there had been no complaints about the bibles.

This incident is a perfect example of the true nature of political correctness. It has nothing to do with tolerance or diversity. Those advocating this bible banning are citing other religions as their excuse. That merely sets religious groups against each other.

Those taking the decision are holding themselves out to be morally righteous, when they are being nothing but self-righteous and intolerant.

The decision is snobby, subversive, divides society along religious grounds, and dilutes this country’s culture and Christian heritage. It is a perfect example of neo-communism.

The purpose of what we now call political correctness, from its very outset, was to undermine western society and its values. Despite all the criticism that this insidious creed attracts, it still keeps advancing. To date, there has been no effective opposition.

THE TORY McMAFIA

The recent sacking of the Glasgow born MP for Wiltshire North, James Gray, as shadow Scottish Secretary, highlights yet again not only the Tories’ willingness to sell out English interests, but also the need for both an English parliament and an English party to represent English interests.

James Gray, who had only been in post for 8 days, was sacked for adhering to long-standing personal views that the Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) should be abolished and replaced with the existing Scottish MPs who would sit up in Holyrood (the Edinburgh parliament) for a couple of days a week. That he be sacked, was ‘demanded’ by the ‘furious’ Scottish Tory leader, David McLetchie MSP. The demand was meekly adhered to by Michael Howard.

Other senior Tories are also angry that James Gray had even been appointed, given his views and that he had complained about a ‘tartan mafia’ in the House of Commons last year.

In a recent interview, James Gray had also said that it was ‘difficult to justify’ Scottish MPs heading English departments.

The majority of Tory MSPs are firmly in favour of the constitutional status quo regarding devolution.

The SNP’s response has been to denounce the Tories as being ‘anti-Scottish to the core’. They had tabled a motion in the House of Commons and the party’s constitutional spokesman, Pete Wishart, complained that: ‘These outrageous comments by the shadow Scottish Secretary could normally be dismissed, but this is the man chosen by Michael Howard to represent the Tories on Scottish issues in the House of Commons’. The SNP leader, Alex Salmond, said that the Tories had descended ‘from comedy to farce’ and that: ‘They either want to cut Scottish spending, abolish the Scottish parliament or think Scotland is an unattractive place to live’.

This is despite the sacking and a Tory spokesman emphasising that James Gray’s opinions were not Tory party policy. As usual, the Tories are apologising.

Quite why there should even be a Scottish Secretary (or Welsh one for that matter) given the devolution of power to a Scottish parliament is not explained. There is no English Secretary.

This latest brouhaha follows the failure of the Tories to make any headway in Scotland in the general election (there is only 1 Scottish Tory MP), and the anger of the Tory MSPs concerning Michael Howard’s allegedly tough policy on immigration.

Most immigrants move to London and the south east of England. The ethnic minority population in Scotland is less than 1% compared to around 8% in England. This is another example of “I’m All Right, Jock”.

The so-called Tory modernisers are now calling for the link between the Scottish and UK party to be cut. This call is supported by Murdo Fraser MSP, the man tipped to succeed David McLetchie, who has explained that a split ‘would entail a separate party, separately funded, with separate responsibility for policy. There would be two parties united by conservatism’.

However, Lord Laidlow has threatened to withdraw his financial support if there is any such split. The Scottish Tories are dependent upon that support.

It is also believed that a separate Scottish party would be less right wing than the current English dominated Tory party. The implications of this are far reaching unless there is the creation of an English parliament if, as seems likely, the lefty Scottish Tories would not be willing to support their English counterparts in the current British parliament. This would deny the English Tories of a working majority to govern. It means that England will continue to suffer from Scottish anti-English influence even if the Tories ‘won’ a British general election.

However, David McLetchie is opposed to any such split: ‘It defies belief that a party that regard themselves as the prime unionist party would sue for divorce from their partner’. This view was supported by Sir Malcolm Rifkind who said: ‘Murdo (Fraser) and anyone who feels like him should remember that we are not only a Conservative, but also a unionist party. Any ideas should be framed around that principle’. Sir Malcolm does of course now represent a safe English constituency.

Bruce Mackie and Neil Powrie, the leader and deputy leader of the Conservatives in Dundee, have written to Michael Howard questioning the dismissal of James Gray. They said that the sacking had showed that the Tories were afraid of the ‘Edinburgh political establishment’ and that: ‘Members of the party are frightened to open a debate on the consequences of devolution for fear of incurring the wrath of the assorted bag of passengers on the Holyrood train. The parliament is maintained by and for the Scottish political elite and the Scottish Conservative Party appears to have gone entirely native’.

The problem of the West Lothian Question will continue to fester. As the next elections to the Scottish parliament loom in 2007, the antagonism in England is likely to overshadow those elections, which will undoubtedly lead to yet more Scottish Tory criticism that they are being hamstrung by their association with the UK Conservative Party.

The Tory leadership is trying to appease its Scottish members by selling out the interests of England, yet again. Their proposal about having English days in the current British House of Commons is not a credible policy when the leadership takes its orders from Holyrood and sacks British ministers/shadow ministers on demand. This proposal is a fudge and not a solution (a typical Tory response).

Meanwhile no one is looking at the interests of the English, or how the need for an English parliament can be realised, or what powers that parliament should have and how it should be funded. Alternatively, how should the British parliament be funded given that the English are currently funding everything/everyone. There is no reason for a British prime minister or chancellor to be taking all of England’s tax revenue and then deciding how much of it England might be allowed to have back. It may be better for England to decide how much it will allocate for the expenditure of the British parliament (which would still be responsible for defence and foreign affairs, for example) and keep full control of its own internal tax receipts and responsibility for its own internal expenditure, without any interference from, say, Gordon Brown.

As the next elections to the Scottish parliament are due to take place in 2007, then surely that would be a good opportunity to have a referendum in England on the creation of an English parliament. The arrangements for that English parliament could then be put in place before the next British general election expected in 2009.

The creation of an English parliament should be a positive move to address the West Lothian Question and the democratic deficit in the governance of England. We have just witnessed a rigged general election and the creation of an illegitimate Labour government over England.

The Tories are willing to see the English fobbed off with the leftovers from the dead carcass of a British parliament, after it has been picked over by the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, the politically correct judiciary, the EU, and a whole host of neo-communist quangos.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything’.

Stalin

There are continuing comments that the EU commission and its technocrats, as well as the EU fanatics in general, have not grasped the significance of the recent ‘No’ votes in France and Holland.

It is, however, increasingly obvious that it is the EU sceptics and realists who have lost the plot. It is they who are having trouble grasping reality.

Under an obscure clause in the treaty, Declaration 30, the new EU constitution can be referred back to the European Council for ‘review’ if 20 out of the 25 EU states ratify the treaty. The treaty cannot be killed off by a ‘No’ vote in only 2 countries. That is a fact, and it is one which the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso (le grand fromage himself), has been openly and repeatedly pointing out - as have many other technocrats and EU fanatics.

Past rejections of treaties have been by-passed and the EU technocrats intend to by-pass these latest rejections if they can. They will merely count the number of countries who ratify the treaty, instead of the number of those who rejected the treaty in the recent referendums.

It is therefore becoming increasingly apparent that the UK must be allowed to vote on the constitution itself as soon as possible. The EU sceptics and realists must not be complacent and allow themselves to be outwitted and outmanoeuvred yet again.

THE EU

The euro has now plunged to an 8 month low following not only the rejection of the proposed EU constitution, but also reports that senior German officials had discussed the possible collapse of the single currency.

The report of these discussions was contained in a report from the German magazine Stern, which also called for an admission that the German economy had been seriously harmed by the abolition of the Deutschmark and the adoption of a single currency. The article called ‘Der Euro macht uns Kaputt’ (the euro is destroying us) described monetary union ‘one of the worst economic blunders made by Germany since 1945'.

A poll also revealed that 56% of Germans wanted the return of the Deutschmark.

A leaked internal finance ministry document commented on the ‘brutal divergences’ in the eurozone and that while the southern countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece had enjoyed a windfall of lower interest rates, inflation was now a problem. Meanwhile the German economy had suffered from higher interest rates in an ever deepening recession. The document said that: ‘It is not clear that these problems are going to fade away in the foreseeable future. On the contrary: the gap risks getting wider, increasing the danger of an adjustment crisis’.

This had led Hans Eichel, the finance minister, to call a secret meeting in Berlin last Thursday that was also attended by the head of the Bundesbank. Joachim Fels, Morgan Stanley’s eurozone economist, warned the meeting of a possible ‘meltdown’ and the risk that the eurozone could break up. He said that the high debt states were unlikely to leave the eurozone voluntarily. But that a small group led by Germany might benefit from breaking away.

Mr Fels said yesterday that the EU was now ‘on a slippery slope toward disintegration and instability. The risk of a euro wreckage has risen considerably’.

A spokesman from the German finance ministry admitted that the meeting had taken place, but stated that ‘Mr Eichel believes that monetary union is a success’.

Meanwhile Stern has advised its readers to examine euro notes to see which letter the serial number starts with. German ones start with the letter ‘X’ while Italian ones start with an ‘S’.

Those who can remember the debacle of the UK membership of the ERM, might recall the Tory government trying to blame the Germans for the fiasco of the UK’s exit, when the Germans were not willing to waste their own money trying to support sterling.

People might also remember that it was the reunification of Germany and the rate at which the East German currency was converted that destabilised the ERM.

When push comes to shove, the Germans have a track record of putting their own interests first.

Politicians refuse to accept that the best form of government is the sovereignty of the nation state, and not supranational bureaucracies. Despite what many like to say about the redundancy of the nation state, the 20th century saw the collapse of the European empires and the emergence of a whole host of nation states. More recently we have witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the break up of Yugoslavia. Even Czechoslovakia amicably split into two.

The corporatists and socialists of the EU and the European ruling class have set their faces against reality. This is the age of the nation state.

A one size fits all currency is not working and a one size fits all constitution will not work either.

THE EU

The latest news is that the Dutch have rejected the new EU constitution by a margin of 62% to 38%.

This is a decisive vote which comes closely on the heels of the 55% to 45% rejection by the French.

However, it is quite clear that the EU technocrats are intent on trying to get the treaty implemented, one way or another, and are pressing other countries to continue with the ratification process.

Either this drive to an EU constitution is dead and buried, or else the British should hold their own referendum immediately. We cannot be left in limbo while those committed to the creation of a United States of Europe try to slide the provisions of an EU constitution in by the back door.

Since Dutch unemployment has doubled since 2001 and the country is in a slump, it is hardly surprising that the Dutch are now far more distrustful of the blandishments they are told about the EU. The consequences of the UK’s own entanglement with the ERM should be sufficient in itself to provoke a similar response here.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The residents of the villages of Sandiway and Cuddingham in Cheshire have been refused funding assistance to help build a new village hall by the Big Lottery Fund, on the basis that the village hall would not benefit enough asylum seekers and ethnic minorities.

Since rural communities are predominantly English, and therefore white, with low ethnic minority populations, then the stance by the Big Lottery Fund is to effectively discriminate against the host English community.

Apparently, in England being English is problem for the politically correct.