The EU & British Insanity

If you wonder why Labour's poll numbers are at the lowest at any time since polling began, two stories illustrate the problem. The first concerns how insane EU laws are causing a complete breakdown in Britain's ability to perform its most basic functions - control of its borders and security of the populace. Since Labour adopted EU Human Rights law at the turn of the millenium, British courts interpreting EU law have prevented the deportation of a single foreign terrorist. And within days, bin Laden's "right hand man in Europe," Salafi cleric Abu Qatada, will be set free amongst the British population - and begin life on the public dole. The second article is an exceptional review of just how anti-democratic and opaque the EU really is. And yet, Labour is determined to transfer British sovereignty without any say of the British citizens. If Britain's latest election results show a populace fed up with this insanity, it comes not a moment too soon.

________________________________________________________

I earlier posted on the ramifications of a British Court's refusal to allow the Labour government to deport Abu Qatada:

A British Court, interpreting EU law, has refused Britain the right to deport thirteen terrorists, including Salafi cleric Abu Qatada, "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe." He now, as one UK reporter puts it, gets to "prepare for a life on handouts" under Britain's generous welfare system.

Read the entire post. Now this today from the Daily Mail:

Abu Qatada, one of the world's most dangerous terror suspects, was last night granted bail to return to Britain's streets.

The fanatical cleric, described as Osama bin Laden's ambassador in Europe, will be placed under a 22-hour curfew expected to cost the taxpayer £500,000 a year.

. . . The Jordanian cleric was granted bail by panel chairman Justice Mitting at a hearing of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission yesterday.

It followed a human rights decision last month by the Appeal Court stating Qatada could not be deported to Jordan, where he is wanted on suspicion of plotting terrorist atrocities.

The judges said that – even though the Home Office had an agreement Qatada himself would not be harmed – some of the evidence used against him may have been obtained by torture.

Justice Mitting said that, since the Government had lost last month's case for removing the cleric, bail should be granted pending an appeal to the Lords.

Qatada is understood to favour a return to his family's London home, where he previously claimed £1,000 a month in benefits for a wife and five children.

. . . Born in Bethlehem, the 44-year-old Qatada arrived in Britain more than 14 years ago on a forged United Arab Emirates passport.

He claimed asylum and, within a year, was granted refugee status. He has also had links to bin Laden's number two, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the now dead Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, and Rachid Ramda, extradited to France for involvement in the 1995 Paris Metro bombing.

Videos of his sermons were found in the Hamburg flat of Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers.

He was the most-high profile target of Tony Blair's "rules of the game have changed" promise to deport foreign nationals in the wake of the July 7 attacks, but has used human rights law to repeatedly thwart removal.

If the Home Office's appeal to the Lords fails later this year, he cannot even be held on bail. . . .

Read the entire article. To call this an absurdity would be an understatement.

Then there is the EU itself. There is an exceptional article in the Telegraph today by Bruno Waterfield describing just how anti-democratic and byzantine this super-government is:

None (that’s N, O, N, E) of the executive bodies of the EU, European Council, Councils of ministers, Coreper, the Commission, all bodies that exercise power over us, we the people, keep a proper public record of their debates or decisions.

Most of the documents related to the exercise of, allegedly, public authority here in Brussels belong to the closed, private world of bureaucrats and diplomats. Requests for access are invariably countered with contemptuously smooth refusals in order “to protect the decision-making process”. From who? From us, the public.

At the moment, for example, there is an intense debate on the creation of an EU president and a euro-diplomatic corp. Everybody is talking about it and there are plenty of (secret) documents. But where’s the public record?

At some point, in December probably, “Council Conclusions” will emerge recording the fact of a decision, post festum. But there will be no record of the debates, who said what or the alternatives that were on offer.

If an authority is public surely the creation of an office, such as the Council President or the building of new Foreign Service or legislation, should be a matter of record? Not here. None of the institutions above publish minutes that are a public record of who said or argued what or when.

Not one of us can read minutes of Coreper, the EU executive body comprised of unelected and mostly unknown national bureaucrats (known as “permanent representatives”, in contrast to elected ones, for god’s sake). It pre-cooks 90 per cent of Brussels legislation and prepares the agenda for the EU’s highest and most secret plenary body, the European Council.

Nobody takes any official record of the quarterly European Council, otherwise known in the media as EU summits. The only record that exists (there are rumours of a tape) are completely secret diplomatic notes (taken by officials known as Antici, people named for a deservedly obscure Italian bureaucrat).

Councils of Ministers do publish “minutes” and voting records (most are a unanimous ‘yes’ after the real decision was taken in Coreper). These “records” are instructive, go see them here. Minutes? I think not, minimal is the word that springs to mind.

Many of the bodies, committees and working groups of the Council and Commission do not even publish who sits on them.

Authority as exercised by the EU is not res publica. It should be. If you think authority can be exercised another way you are no democrat.

. . . These same MEPS on April 21 voted to keep secret a report detailing problems with their expenses. They also voted against any revelation of who gets a generous second publicly funded pension (one is not enough for many Euro-MPs but is twice the provision many of their voters can expect).

Is hypocrisy too strong or too weak a word? Why should lobbyists “disclose” their financial interests, a private matter, when MEPs will not even tell us how they spend our, that is public, money? . . .

Read the entire article. (H/T EU Referendum) The EU is a giant leap forward along the course mapped over a century ago by Karl Marx. As a socialist construct, it is not meant to be democratic, and it places no trust in the people. Therefore, there is no need for the public - or proletariat, take your pick - to access the sage thoughts of those making the decisions that will effect their lives. Nor is there reason for the government body to reveal reports on graft and corruption within the EU.

I view this as a race. Will the people of Britain force their government out of the EU before their government and the EU wholly destroy Britain. Until this latest election, I had pretty much given up any hope, believing the blood of Churchill, Nelson and William the bastard simply too watered down in a progeny suffering under the curse of Marx - and said as much in a post here. But perhaps not. Time will tell.