Tory MEP’s Withering Attack on Devalued Brown Becomes Huge Internet Hit

CONSERVATIVE MEP has launched a spectacular attack on Gordon Brown - branding him 'devalued' and 'wooden' in front of a stunned European Parliament.

Daniel Hannan, the Conservative MEP for South East England, claimed the Prime Minister had lost all moral authority and even labelled him a 'Brezhnev apparatchik'.

The 37-year-old's speech on Tuesday, which prompted spontaneous applause in the Strasbourg chamber, has become a massive internet hit - with more than 700,000 views on YouTube in less than 24 hours.

Nearly 5,000 people have already posted comments under the video praising Hannan as 'powerful and courageous'. One American web user even begged Hannan to become THEIR president, adding 'We need people like him in America."

During the three-and-a-half minute speech, Hannan - Britain's youngest ever MEP - mocked Gordon Brown directly for his role in the global financial crisis.

He said: "Within a few days of the Irish saying no to the Lisbon Treaty - you rammed it through British parliament and did it breaking a specific manifesto pledge that you would give the British people a referendum on the constitutional treaty.

"You have devalued the democracy in our country you have devalued the trust that voters have got in you as a British Prime Minister. And we know the reason why is because we would have voted no.

"You cannot continue against public opinion to build this European Union. If you do it against the will of the people you are storing up enormous social and political problems for the future. Please please let the peoples of Europe decide their destiny don't have it done in parliaments like this and Westminster - it won't work."

The attack did not end there, as Mr Farrage moved on to the subject of the economy. Visibly incensed, he almost shouted at the Prime Minister, who sat smirking as he listened to the onslaught.

Blasting Gordon Brown's handling of the economic crisis, he said: "You've destroyed our private pensions system, you've took away from the Bank of England its ability to regulate the banks and given it to the tick-box bureaucrats at the FSA in Canary Wharf.

"And we haven't heard heard an apology. Your government has apologised for the Emirates Sar massacre, you've apologised for slavery, you've apologised for virtually everything. Will you please apologise for what you did as British Chancellor and then perhaps we might just listen to you."

Source: thetruthseeker.co.uk

Watch:
Farrage speech here
Hannan’s Speech here

And now for a world government

One of the elite’s journalistic lackeys – and they are many – argues for global governance. What's more, his overlords expect you to register for this indoctrination

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

Source: thetruthseeker.co.uk

The Truth about the EU

Amid the silly soap opera that now passes for British politics, in which we are supposed to care more about hairstyles and mannerisms than about the country, there was one moment last week when a decent man said something important. The brief flash of truth shone out like a gold coin on a dunghill.

The man was Peter Lilley, older and wiser than when he used to sing daft songs to Tory conferences. Mr Lilley looks to me as if, like several others, he is trapped in the Unconservative Party and would blossom like an irrigated desert if only he could escape from it.

Because what he said was important, there have been far too few reports of it. Hansard for Tuesday, June 3, at 3.35pm, will give you the details, if you want them.

But his clear, hard message was that 80 per cent of our laws are now made in Brussels, and Parliament has no power to reject or amend them.

If you wonder why our Post Offices are all closing, it’s thanks to an EU directive. So is the increasingly hated Data Protection Act. So are Home Improvement Packs and fortnightly bin collections.

In 15 years’ time our Parliament will have only two functions left – to raise taxes and declare war – admittedly things that our current politicians are rather keen on.

Mr Lilley’s mischievous suggestion is that MPs’ pay should be cut each time they hand over authority to others. Incredibly, many MPs don’t know what is going on. If they ended up on the wages paid to district councillors – which is all they really are now – they might care more.

His own stark words cannot be improved upon: ‘Few voters, or even members of this house, fully realise how many powers have been, or are about to be, transferred elsewhere. There are three reasons for this. The first is that governments of all persuasions deny that any significant powers are being transferred.

The second is that, once powers have been transferred, Ministers engage in a charade of pretence that they still retain those powers. Even when introducing measures that they are obliged to bring in as a result of an EU directive they behave as though the initiative were their own.

‘Indeed, Ministers often end up nobly accepting responsibility for laws that they actually opposed when they were being negotiated in Brussels.’

So now you know. Not since Dunkirk, 68 years ago, has our national independence been so imperilled. But back then, we could see the danger. Now most of us pretend it isn’t there.

Source: Dailymail.co.uk

The End Of The Nation States Of Europe

'Europe's nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation'.
Jean Monnet (Founding Father Of The EU).

On June 12th 2008, the fate of nearly 500 million people will be decided by a country whose population totals only 4.2 million. The people of the Republic Of Ireland will be the only `citizens` of the European Union given the opportunity to have their say on what is potentially the most fundamental piece of legislation in the history of the `Old Continent`. All the other member states have simply ignored the wishes of their people and left ratification to be `rubber stamped` by their respective parliaments. However, it is necessary for all twenty seven member states to complete ratification before the `Treaty` becomes legally binding.

So, if the Irish vote is `NO` then the treaty will not be able to be implemented, at least for the present. But, if the Irish people swallow the massive `Pro Treaty` propaganda and vote `Yes`, then the fate of, and inevitable demise of the Nation States of Europe will be sealed. There will be no more serious obstacles left to Federalisation. The long dreamed of (by the Federalists that is) United States Of Europe will become a reality.

Many, if not the majority of people on both sides of the Atlantic have been `duped` for decades into believing that the EEC/EU is about a `free trade` zone. This is not at all the case, as the above quote by Monsieur Monet illustrates very clearly. So what are the ramifications of a `Yes` vote by the Irish.

The European Union was founded on lies and deceit at the very highest levels of government. This trail of deception has continued since, and on Thursday 13th December 2007 stopped momentarily in Lisbon Portugal, where the `dignitaries` of the member states of this `trading bloc` signed the `EU Reform Treaty`.

This `Treaty` replaces the EU Constitution rejected in 2005 by both France and the Netherlands. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and the former French President `Giscard D`Estaing are among many European ministers who have confirmed that the `Treaty` is but the Constitution by another name. The only differentials being the dropping from the new document those articles relating to the EU Flag, Anthem and Motto. Yet only two days prior to the `Historic event` in Lisbon, sixteen member states `broke cover` and called for an amendment to the `Treaty `and the reinstatement of these three articles, thereby transforming the `Treaty` into the original Constitution. They also want to impose the `single currency` on all those member states still retaining their `indigenous` currencies and are suggesting that a `Europe Day` become a holiday for celebration.

The leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party `Nigel Farage` said, "The full treachery being imposed is at last fully out in the open. The pathetic attempts claiming this wasn't the Constitution are now blown out of the water. Back comes the flag, the anthem and the motto. It means that what was 96% of the original constitution is now 100%. Let's not hear anymore of the `Reform Treaty`. This is the rejected EU Constitution brought back in all it's pomp'.

The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen has decided against any referendum on the Treaty, leaving it's ratification to Danish MPs. He told reporters that the `Treaty` was 'Good For Denmark'. Denmark had planned to hold a referendum on the Constitution back in 2005, but following the `NO` votes in France and Holland, the vote was dropped. The Danish Justice Ministry have concluded that the `Treaty` does not threaten Danish Sovereignty. Mr Rasmussen is quoted as saying "When sovereignty is relinquished, a referendum is needed, but when no sovereignty is relinquished, Parliament will ratify the text'. He also confirmed plans to hold another referendum on the `Single Currency` (EURO) and whether to end the `opt outs` agreed at Maastricht relating to defence, justice and home affairs.

So, no threat to sovereignty ? Well let's consider the implications; If a Sovereign Nation State no longer controls it's own Economy, Defence, Justice System and Home Affairs, can it truly be called a `Sovereign Nation State` any longer ? The answer is quite simply NO.

The Political and Financial Elite of Europe have been working towards this moment since the end of World War Two. In every member state, the personalities might differ, but the rhetoric is always the same; `No Loss Of Sovereignty, good for the people, good for the economy and so on`.

Alright' let us take a look at what this `Treaty` is really about. What is the difference between this document and the original Constitution ? German Lawyer, Klaus Heeger, a researcher and legal advisor to the Independent Democratic group in the EU Parliament has drawn the following conclusions regarding the two documents:

According to his analysis, the Constitution granted the EU 105 new `competences`. The `Treaty` also grants 105 new areas of competence. Out goes the EU symbols (Flag, Anthem, Motto) in comes Climate Change. The remaining 104 areas remain the same.

Decision making by qualified majority replaces `unanimity` in 62 new areas in the Reform Treaty. One more than in the Constitution. Out goes `Intellectual property rights`, in comes energy and climate change. The other 60 stay the same.

His conclusion; The EU Constitution by another name.

This sixth and final `Treaty` is the `death knell` for the sovereignty of the member states of the EU. Do not be mistaken about this, and no matter what your `elected` leaders are telling you to the contrary, this is it. This is the culmination of years of plotting, deception and conspiring against the people of Europe. So what's the big deal many will ask ? Read on and find out.

This `Treaty` is the EU's most secret and quickest drafted document yet. Opposition to and recognition that the EU is a Police State in the making is growing and they (the conspirators) know that speed is vital. Tony Blair agreed to it in June 2007 as his final `Stab in Britains Back`. Foreign Ministers agreed it's terms in September 2007 and on 13th December two months later, the representatives of each member state signed the document, and now, all that remains is ratification, and the deed will be done.

So, if the result of the Irish vote is a `Yes`and all other member states do as indicated, ratify this treasonous piece of infamy, how will our lives be affected ?

Our National Parliaments will become redundant as all power that still remains will transfer to Brussels. It will mean the formal end of those Historic Nations of Europe who are member states of the EU. National Embassies around the world will come under the auspicies of EU beauracrats. The ancient counties and provinces will be merged and combined into `EU Administrative Regions`. (The recent amalgamations of Kommunes in Denmark is a premptive example of this, along with the `devolved` parliaments of Scotland and Wales, to be soon joined by the eradication of `England` and the setting up of similar regional assemblies there).

The EU will take ownership of Police, Military, Nuclear Weapons, Currency Reserves and North Sea Oil as outlined in the Treaty document. Serving members of our Police and Armed Forces will be required to take an oath of loyalty to the EU. Refusal will result in dismissal. The EU will have complete control of all military matters, equipment and facililties.

Political parties will be abolished, phased out or realigned. Only Pan European parties will be allowed. Independence parties will effectively be outlawed as under the 1999 ruling of the European Court Of Justice (case 274/99), it is illegal to criticize the EU. (Even before the Irish Vote, News from Brussels indicates that plans are afoot already to eliminate any `Eurosceptic groups within the EU Parliament). The EU will have the legal right to close National Parliaments and Assemblies.

Many people will be made unemployed as the EU rule of `retraining` at a citizens own expense becomes universal (including the purchase of a Certificate confirming said retraining). Hundreds of thousands of small businesses will be forced to close due to the enforcement of endless numbers of impracticable and unworkable EU regulations.

Around 107,000 EU laws will criminalise many, as adherence to this amount of legislation is impossible. We will be subject to frequent fines and even arrest as a result of what will be our inevitable ignorance. Take the following as examples: From January 2006, it became illegal to repair your own domestic plumbing, electricals or even your own car. If you buy a boat over six feet long, built after 1999, you will be required to pay the equivalent in Euros of £4000, or face six months in prison. As the EU `Police State` flexes it's muscles ever more, each of us will live under the fear and threat of arrest or prosecution for any one of a myriad of offences, even minor ones.

The Large Corporations will do well of course, utilising massive immigration from within and without the EU, paying minimum wages to immigrants at the expense of the indigenous population, thus forcing salaries downwards. Futhermore, these Corporations will have a near Monopoly on employment (along with Government), and will be able to dictate conditions and terms of employment withour fear of contradiction.

Top Government Jobs and the inevitable corruption which will accomapany this monopoly, will create a new `Class Divide` ensuring the rich and their `fellow travellers` get richer, whilst the majority decline into poverty. Taxes will increase in order to pay for the massive growth in beaurocracy.

There will be no `redress of grievance` through local `democratic` channels because there won't be any local democracy. Or any democracy at all for that matter. The `EU Administrative Regional Governments` will be unelected (See the EU Regionalisation plan on the EU Website). Our only vote will be to the powerless EU Parliament. We will be ruled by the unelected EU Commisioners, who have no `accountability to the people` at any level.

If we demonstrate or protest, we can be seized and relocated to another EU Region. The EU Arrest Warrant and the various legislation introduced across the EU since 9/11 will give the Authorities absolute power over us. The shootings of innocents `Philip Prout` and `Jean de Menezes` were entirely legal under EU Law. The intimidation and growing `Anti Muslim` vitriol across the EU is becoming reminiscent of the treatment of Jews in pre war Germany. A Federal European State will become a very unpleasant place to be.

Following Federation, in and around 15 years hence, Europe could collapse under the weight of it's own Beaurocracy and Corruption. There will be so little production, that no amount of taxation will be able to support the vast, inept, corrupt and wasteful government machinery. Many will be reduced to poverty on the brink of starvation. The complete lack of any `checks and balances` will leave the door open for any would be dictatorship.

The EU as monstrous as it is, is nothing more than a `stepping stone` to `World Government`. Before you dismiss this article as `Scare Mongering` or `Conspiracy Theory`, find out how many of your own country's leading politicians are members of such `Secret Organisations` as the Biderbergers, Trilateral Commission, Club Of Rome, and the Royal Institute For International Affairs.

Each and every one of the above are totally dedicated to a `One World` Government and see a Federal Europe as a necessary evolution towards that goal. Their memberships read like a who's who of the planet's `power players`. Danish readers for example, might be very surprised to discover which of their country's Political and Financial Elites attend the Bilderberger meetings, which has been in the forefront of machinations to further European Federalisation. To find out which of your elected representatives are members of any of the above groups, just type in the organisation's name on any recognised search engine. Then sit back and prepare to be shocked.

We live in an age where people seem to have abdicated all responsibilty for their own lives to Government. This has been going on since the end of World War Two, but has accelerated markedly since the 1980's. This `social irresponsibilty` led us to Lisbon on 13th December 2007, where our so called leaders signed away our ancient rights and freedoms in the name of their `great plan`. If we sit back and do nothing, the rest of our lives will become a nightmare of our own making, because in the final analysis, it is we who will have handed over our rights and liberties into the hands of `wolves`.

The future well being of a whole continent lies in the hands of the Irish people. They need our support. They need to know they are not alone. It's time to start writing to your `elected` representatives, time to find the time to research what this EU thing is really about. Time to switch off the TV and pick up a book about the EU, or check out the many internet sites relating to this `Superstate in the making`. Do something, speak to your friends, neighbours, family. Just do something. Before it is too late, and it almost is.

Sign the petition here: Irish-friends-vote-no-for-me.org

Source: Thetruthseeker.co.uk

We Are Change UK - 9/11 Questioned in European Parliament

The tide of change is turning. Now the European Parliament challenges the official 9/11 account.



Source: We are change.org.uk