THE EU

Below is a copy of a letter from today's Independent:

Independent.ie
We need Lisbon Treaty facts now

I have to question the silence of this paper on the fact that in the European Parliament's vote on the Lisbon Treaty in February 499 MEPs, including Proinsias De Rossa, voted not to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum. Further, that silence continued when Pierre Jonckheer, Vice-President of the European Green Party in the European Parliament, spoke on March 6 in Galway and said that it was irrelevant what the Irish do in their referendum.

If the result was a no to the Lisbon Treaty, Europe would ignore it and carry on with the Treaty.

This silence continued when Senator Dan Boyle, Chairman of the Irish Green Party, defended Mr Jonckheer's assertion.

Let's first clear the air.

The Lisbon Treaty must be ratified by all 27 member states or it can not go ahead.

This means that an Irish no vote is an automatic veto of the Treaty binding the entire EU.

Any country is entitled to use a veto and no country can be punished for using it.

The fact that the Irish people are being given their democratic right to vote on this Treaty means that we have an obligation to the entire EU to have all the facts of the debate, including that the European Parliament voted not to respect our referendum.

It is disappointing that this paper did not report this fact to the Irish people.

If the EU is, as Mr Jonckheer seems to think, so desperate to get this Treaty and the additional powers it bestows on it, that it is willing to break its own laws, then we must ask where the EU is heading.

I trust that the law will be respected and an Irish no will mean no and send the Treaty back for serious revision, because otherwise the "rule of law" that the EU says it stands for is a sham.

KATHY SINNOTT MEP

BALLINHASSIG, CO CORK

VOTE RIGGING

Below are 3 items from The Times which show the extent of the outright vote rigging now endemic in the UK. The Tories seem to have responded by trying to out vote rig Labour rather than demanding the return of the ballot box.

From The Times
March 19, 2008
State of denial allowed voting cheats to prosper
Dominic Kennedy

It is hardly as if he didn’t warn them. As Tony Blair shone his shoes before visiting the Queen to call the May 2005 general election, a judge planted a bombshell under Britain’s proud electoral system.

Richard Mawrey, QC, finally lost his temper with ministers’ arrogance as he ruled that Labour had organised a conspiracy across Birmingham to win the local elections by rigging postal votes. His trial found “fraud that would disgrace a banana republic”, while ministers were in “a state not simply of complacency but of denial”.

After The Times disclosed vote rigging in Yorkshire and the North West in the 2004 local elections, ministers dug in their heels. Chris Leslie, the Constitutional Affairs Minister, disregarded it all in the Commons as hearsay, rumour and misconceptions. The denial only ended when a Labour councillor in Jack Straw’s Blackburn constituency was jailed for voterigging. Mr Blair agreed to an electoral reform Bill.

Labour switched tactics, bringing in cosmetic changes in the Electoral Administration Act. In January investigators from the Council of Europe condemned British elections as “childishly simple” to rig.

The Conservatives have exploited the new rules eagerly, using technology to trick electors into sending their ballots to Tory-controlled addresses. The seats with most postal votes in the last general election showed bigger swings to the Conservatives. This conspiracy goes a lot wider than Birmingham, Slough or Labour.

From The Times
March 19, 2008
Army of ghost voters who won an election but wrecked career of Eshaq Khan
A Conservative councillor has been found guilty of corruption after a botched cover-up and now faces a police inquiry

Greg Hurst

When the Conservative candidate Eshaq Khan unexpectedly unseated a long-serving Labour councillor in local elections last May, it seemed to be the high point of a long career of public service.

He already held senior posts in charitable and cultural groups and was a respected figure in the tight-knit Kashmiri community in Slough, Berkshire, where he ran a carpet and furniture business.

But within days of his triumph, his victory began to unravel amid a welter of allegations of a crude campaign of vote-rigging and, ultimately, forgery and intimidation of a witness.

It ended in disgrace yesterday when Khan was found guilty at a special High Court election hearing in Slough council chamber of corrupt and illegal practices to secure his election. He was stripped of his seat and banned from standing for office for five years. He now faces a police inquiry.

Khan, 50, won his marginal seat in Central Ward after his team registered hundreds of “ghost voters” in the month before the election and cast votes using fraudulent postal ballots.

He and his team compounded the fraud with a botched cover-up that included poorly forged tenancy agreements and statements from bogus voters, and an attempt to intimidate a witness. Thames Valley Police said that it would widen its inquiry into the case in light of the judge’s accusations of perjury and attempts to pervert the court of justice by supporters of Khan.

Three people have been arrested in connection with the case. Police have interviewed another three. The Times understands that they include Khan and a leading figure in his campaign, Mohammed Basharat Khan.

The election team registered fictitious voters at derelict houses and claimed that as many as 12 voters were living at two-bedroom flats or three-bedroom houses. Khan beat Lydia Simmons, his Labour opponent, by 120 votes but Labour contested the result by bringing an election petition to overturn the result after almost 450 voters were added to the electoral register in the final weeks before the poll, almost all of whom voted by post for the Conservatives.

Labour succeeded in striking 145 “ghost voters” from the electoral roll. The judge accepted that the true figure was likely to run into hundreds.

Witnesses included a handwriting expert, Kim Hughes, who said that 198 of the postal ballot forms were filled in by Mohammed Basharat Khan, described by the judge as “a serial forger”, and another 79 were in the handwriting of the candidate.

Once Labour began to identify ghost voters, Khan and his team produced forged tenancy agreements. Ten of these were produced on the same computer. Khan’s team also produced 46 statements by individuals claiming that they lived at the disputed properties.

Two Polish women were accused of lying by Khan’s allies when they said that they knew nothing of the six and seven Kasmiri voters registered at each of their homes. One witness, Nighat Khan, who was due to give evidence that the five Kashmiris registered at her flat were fictitious, received a visit from a man claiming to be a lawyer. He produced a typed letter that he asked her to sign,saying that she would then not have to attend the hearing. The court received a letter allegedly from Ms Khan claiming that she was too ill to attend.

Khan will be forced to repay to Slough Borough Council all the expenses for council duties he claimed since his election and was told to pay aggravated legal costs, although local Conservatives said that some of these may be covered by insurance.

From The Times
March 19, 2008
Vote Rigging: a Banana Republic
The Government must cease its complacency over postal vote corruption

Four years ago, this newspaper uncovered widespread intimidation and postal voting fraud in local elections around the country. Ten months later, ruling on the scandal in Birmingham, Richard Mawrey, QC, presiding over an election court,found six Labour councillors guilty of corruption that would, he said, “disgrace a banana republic”. He declared that the Government's introduction of postal voting on demand was “an open invitation to fraud”. Yet the Government was reluctant to act. The reforms that it eventually made, after the 2005 general election, have now been shown to be utterly inadequate.

Eshaq Khan, a Conservative councillor in Slough, was found guilty yesterday of using bogus postal votes to beat his Labour rival. The 2006 introduction of a requirement for double signatures, one on the application for a postal ballot and another on the ballot itself, proved no deterrent to his creation of hundreds of fake voters. In his judgment yesterday, Mr Mawrey stated that “the opportunities for easy and effective fraud remain substantially as they were in 2005”. The deception was uncovered only because of the incompetence of those involved and the blatant nature of the frauds. The fake ballot papers had been filled out in the same handwriting, and more than half of the Tory votes had arrived by post.

Individual instances of tampering may sound ludicrous, but they are potentially lethal to democracy. Britain used to have one of the most robust, respected voting systems in the world. But in 2001 the Government abolished the requirement to show good cause for needing a postal vote, such as being abroad on business. Anyone could apply for a postal vote, to be sent to any address.

The aim was to raise voter turnout: but the method was reckless. The main victims of the policy have been Asian voters, particularly women, who have had their votes stolen by aspiring politicians who have predominantly been of Asian origin. Other law-abiding citizens have also found that their votes no longer count.

All three main parties have now been tainted by these corrupt practices. This should enable them to move beyond mudslinging, to agree that there must be far tighter controls. In Northern Ireland, postal votes are available only to the sick, infirm or those working abroad. All postal ballot papers are scanned in Northern Ireland to compare them with voters' signatures. This system provides a template for serious consideration by ministers.

The electoral register also needs an overhaul. It contains far too many “ghosts” who have died or gone abroad. The Electoral Commission has rightly called for individual registration to replace the current system, which expects householders to keep forms up to date.

The irony is that the bloated nature of the electoral register means that turnout has not actually been as low as politicians have thought - making their rush to loosen the rules look even more naive. Ministers must realise that high turnout is not always a measure of faith in politics, and must act to ensure that the result of the next general election is not open to question. The Council of Europe is already threatening to monitor British elections. It would be disgraceful if international observers felt the need to intervene to ensure that British elections are free and fair.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

The latest victim of the British Inquisition is no other than Basil Brush!

Apparantly, the puppet’s show had a gypsy character selling pegs and heather, which led to gypsies complaining to the Northamptonshire Police Force alleging racial abuse.

This is despite the fact that the episode is 6 years old and has been shown 8 times without complaint.

Apparantly, gypsies no longer sell heather and pegs.

PC Plod from the Northamptonshire Police Force have launched an investigation.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

‘Politicians on both sides, furious about the “river of blood” speech in 1968, claimed then – and some still do – that Powell’s speech hindered reform. It was so extreme, you see, that it made it difficult for us moderate men to do something about immigration, which we obviously had intended to do when the occasion was suitable, when the time was right, at the appropriate juncture, etc.

I promise you as God is my witness that what the two frontbenches wanted to do was nothing, nil, zero, rien and nicht. It was this conspiracy of silence and inertia which enraged Powell and much of the public. It is understandable why he became hated by Labour figures like Roy Hattersley, interviewed on the programme. For it meant that he and his fellow socialists had been found out.’

Andrew Alexander, writing in the Daily Mail.

THE NEED FOR AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

Below is an extract of an item which recently appeared on the politics.co.uk website:

CEP: Barnett Formula under fire at Liberal Democrat Spring Conference
Monday, 10 Mar 2008 08:52

Mr David Wildgoose, representing the Campaign for an English Parliament at the meeting, gave precise information how the Formula worked to the advantage of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over England. 'The Barnett Formula', he informed the meeting, 'is based upon Nationality and not upon public expenditure need.' He provided the details '.

First, 'While last year's government spending in England per head of population was £7,121, in Wales it was £8,139 (14% more), in Scotland £8,623 (21% more) and in Northern Ireland £9,385 (32% more).'

Second, 'In addition every extra pound spent in England automatically triggers an additional 10.66% payout to Scotland, a 6.02% payout to Wales and a 2.87% payout to Northern Ireland. This means that any capital projects taking place in England are automatically made a total of 20% expensive, because they instantly trigger extra Barnett Formula funding.'

Third, 'As an example, this is why the proposed CrossRail project means a financial bonanza in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland got an extra £500 million payment from that project.'

Fourth, 'However, it is a one-way process. Capital projects elsewhere in the UK don't result in a single penny of extra funding for England.'

Fifth, 'One of Gordon Brown's last actions as Chancellor of the Exchequer was to slash the English NHS capital budget by a third. £2.1 billion taken from the English NHS whilst the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish budgets were left untouched. And of course, any steps taken to return that money to the English NHS will trigger automatic payouts to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.'

Mr Wildgoose concluded: 'This injustice applies across the whole spectrum of Government Services. For example, the people of the North-East are on average 13% poorer than the people of Scotland, but despite this they receive less government spending. Remember, the Barnett Formula is based upon Nationality, not Need. The Barnett Formula isn't just fuelling resentment in England, it is also funding separation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Because unequal, assymetric devolution that deliberately ignores England is all about Separation'.

UK DK

Below is an article which recently appeared in the Daily Telegraph:

Britain 'a soft touch for home grown terrorists'
By Robert Winnett Deputy Political Editor
Last Updated: 3:20am GMT 26/02/2008

Britain has become a "soft touch" for home grown terrorists because ministers have failed to tackle immigrant communities that refuse to integrate, warns a report released today.

The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a body of the country's leading military and diplomatic figures, says the loss of British values and national identity caused by "flabby and bogus" Government thinking has made the country vulnerable to attack from Islamic extremists.

MI5 estimates that there are currently about 2,000 active terror supporters in Britain

"Misplaced" policies on multiculturalism have failed to "lay down the line" to immigrants, leading to a fragmented society opposed by "implacable" terrorist enemies, the report says.

The stark warning - which comes just days after the Archbishop of Canterbury was plunged into a row over the adoption of sharia, or Islamic law, in Britain - will embarrass the Government.

RUSI, whose patron is the Queen, is one of the most respected and long-established defence research organisations in the world.

Gordon Brown, who is due to unveil his national security policy next week, has described the think-tank as "leading the debate about homeland security and global terrorism".

Its analysis represents the views of senior defence experts including Lord Inge, the former chief of the defence staff, Vice Adml Sir Jeremy Blackham, Gen Sir Rupert Smith and Baroness Park, a former senior officer with MI6.

It was written by the Marquess of Salisbury and Professor Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics.

advertisementIn addition to raising concerns over the threat from home-grown terrorists, the report warns that:

• The military is not receiving adequate funding and the Armed Forces are in a state of "chronic disrepair".

• Competition for energy, water and food from China and India raises significant questions for security policy.

• British reliance on a weakening UN, Nato and EU could leave this country vulnerable to emerging terrorist threats.

However, it is the vulnerable state of British society that attracts the most criticism.

"The UK presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society," the report says, and is "increasingly divided" on its history, national aims, values and political identity.

"That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate."

The report places most of the blame for this on a "lack of leadership from the majority, which, in misplaced deference to 'multiculturalism', failed to lay down the line to immigrant communities, thus undercutting those within them trying to fight extremism".

"The country's lack of self-confidence is in stark contrast to the implacability of its Islamist terrorist enemy, within and without.

"We look like a soft touch. We are indeed a soft touch, from within and without."

The report also accuses ministers of "flabby and bogus strategic thinking" which has led to public money being spent in "perverse ways".

"All this has contributed to a more severe erosion of the links of confidence and support between the British people, their government and Britain's security and defence forces, than for many years," it says.

Citing the creation of the independent monetary policy committee at the Bank of England, RUSI concludes that the situation is so serious that "moves are needed to take defence and security, as far as possible, back out of the arena of short-term party politics".

"The range of threats and risks facing the UK, together with the experience of the past few years, suggest that measures to achieve that should go beyond changes in policy. Institutional changes are needed."

Last night, the report was welcomed by Baroness Neville-Jones, the shadow security minister and former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who said it showed how multiculturalism had been a "disaster" for Britain.

She said: "This report sends a powerful message to the Government that leadership is badly lacking at a time of significant threat to our country.

"The Conservatives agree that multiculturalism has been a disaster for national cohesion and has increased our vulnerability to the terrorist threat."

RUSI's report is the latest indication of the growing unease about Labour's counter-terrorism policies, which many believe have failed to stem the growth of home-grown terrorists.

The multiculturalist approach has been condemned by a wide array of figures from Trevor Phillips, the equalities watchdog, to John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York.

The debate was re-ignited last week after Dr Rowan Williams said that adoption of parts of Sharia, or Islamic, law in Britain was "'unavoidable"' - a suggestion condemned across the political spectrum.

MI5 estimates that there are about 2,000 active terror supporters in Britain and claims that schoolchildren are being recruited by al-Qa'eda. RUSI formed the private seminar group to discuss Britain's security in the wake of the 7/7 London bombings in 2005 and the botched 21/7 terrorist attempt.

The report also draws attention to the "narrowly pre-empted attack on planes in 2006" and last year's car bomb attacks at Glasgow airport and London's West end.

"A declaration of war is almost inconceivable today, and yet both our defence and security services are in action against active forces, abroad and at home, at this moment," the report says.

RUSI, which is thought to represent the views of many current senior members of the Armed Forces, issues a call to Britons to re-establish a sense of identity.

It states: "The deep guarantee of real strength is our knowledge of who we are. Our loss of cultural self-confidence weakens our ability to develop new means to provide for our security in the face of new risks. Our uncertainty incubates the embryonic threats these risks represent."