We can look at the text from any angle. We can prowl about it,
searching for a more flattering light. But we keep coming back to an
unavoidable truth: this is the constitution on which all three parties
– indeed, 98.8 per cent of MPs – promised a referendum, and now WE DEMAND A REFERENDUM.

Daniel Hannan writes in the Daily Telegraph:

Suppose – and you might not find this easy – that you
were a committed Euro-federalist. Imagine that you wanted the EU to go
the whole hog, totus porcus, toward statehood. What would you have most
wanted to get out of the recent Brussels summit?

In
fact, much of your work would already have been done. The EU currently
possesses many of the attributes and trappings of nationhood: a
parliament, a supreme court, a passport, a currency, a national anthem,
a flag, external borders. There are, though, four more pieces to slot
into the jigsaw before the EU can properly call itself a sovereign
polity.

First, a head of state. Second, a foreign policy,
complete with a foreign minister, a diplomatic corps and accredited
embassies. Third, a system of criminal justice, including a European
Public Prosecutor and a police force. Fourth, the “legal personality”
of an independent government, which confers treaty-making powers and
the right to sit in international associations.

All
these things are in the draft “Reform Treaty” – along with the Charter
of Fundamental Rights, the abolition of some 40 national vetoes, new
powers for the European Parliament and a 30 per cent reduction in
Britain’s ability to block new initiatives.

The purpose of the Brussels summit was to allow the seven EU leaders
who had promised a plebiscite to tiptoe away from their pledges.
The people of Ireland and Denmark are lucky enough to have rules that trigger a vote
whenever any constitutional change is proposed. But the other leaders
have joined hands and sworn a terrible oath: no referendums anywhere,
in case the sight of one country voting should prompt demand in others.
We don’t want the voters picking up any ideas, hein?

The UK Government PROMISED a referendum.
Brown doesn't have to start his premiership as big a liar as Blair.

“The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained,” says
Angela Merkel.
“The great part of the European Constitution is in the
new treaty,” agrees José Luis Zapatero.
“Thankfully they haven’t
changed the substance; 90 per cent of it is still there,” echoes Bertie
Ahern.

WE NOW DEMAND A REFERENDUM.

add your name to the Telegraph petition.

British troops are facing road side bombs (IED's) every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have consistently been pleading calling for vehicles that are better armoured. Please send us more of those armoured Mastiff's they say, they seem to work well.

This is the MOD response…..

It is, we are told, the British-made, Supacat Weapons Mounted
Installation Kit which “boasts awesome firepower which will be
unleashed early next year,”  130 of these contraptions are to be sent to Afghanistan, where mines are the biggest killer, with reports of yet another fatality today.

We can only assume that the HSE has had a hand in this, to ensure that our soldiers don't get hurt by flying glass or vehicle shrapnel, they have removed it altogether.

Our troops deserve better than this, much better. They are being betrayed by the Government and the MOD.

The next time a senior General or a government minister visits Afghanistan, make sure they travel around in one of these. (Sorry sir, its the only vehicle available, but the MOD assure us it will save lives).

NuLab – Destroying Britain from the inside out.

(HatTip EU Referendum)

British troops are facing road side bombs (IED's) every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have consistently been pleading calling for vehicles that are better armoured. Please send us more of those armoured Mastiff's they say, they seem to work well.

This is the MOD response…..

It is, we are told, the British-made, Supacat Weapons Mounted
Installation Kit which “boasts awesome firepower which will be
unleashed early next year,”  130 of these contraptions are to be sent to Afghanistan, where mines are the biggest killer, with reports of yet another fatality today.

We can only assume that the HSE has had a hand in this, to ensure that our soldiers don't get hurt by flying glass or vehicle shrapnel, they have removed it altogether.

Our troops deserve better than this, much better. They are being betrayed by the Government and the MOD.

The next time a senior General or a government minister visits Afghanistan, make sure they travel around in one of these. (Sorry sir, its the only vehicle available, but the MOD assure us it will save lives).

NuLab – Destroying Britain from the inside out.

(HatTip EU Referendum)

In a disgusting display of police arrogance, North Wales Police showed how real people will suffer when Police computer systems hold erroneous data.

A pregnant woman says she was left sobbing in the rain after police stopped her car and towed it away.

Helen Parry said North Wales Police wrongly thought she
had no insurance on her father's car, and gave her a £200 penalty with
six points on her licence.

Clwyd West MP David Jones, who says he has seen a valid insurance document, is to raise the issue in the Commons.

Ms Parry, 29, of Llandudno, has made an official complaint to the police, who said she could take the case to court.

Student nurse Mrs Parry, who is 20 weeks pregnant, said
police officers had stopped her in a roadside check in Deganwy, Conwy,
about 2.5 miles (4km) from her home.

The Daily Post newspaper said police would not accept she had valid insurance to drive her father's car.

She told the newspaper that police refused to take her back to her home even though she had told them she was pregnant.

The newspaper said she had to phone her mother Maureen Smith about five miles (8km) away in Rhos on Sea to fetch her.

Mrs Parry told the newspaper she was “hysterical” when the police took her car keys away.

“I was getting so cross. They just weren't listening to me,” she added.


When her mother arrived, they both watched in disbelief as the car was put on a pick-up truck and taken away.

Mrs Smith later had to pay £105 to get the car back.

Her MP said it was an example of how people were
having to prove their innocence against the sometimes erroneous word of
a computer.

He has written to chief constable Richard Brunstrom
seeking an explanation about the treatment of Mrs Parry and the
distress caused to her and her parents.

Mr Jones said he wanted to know why Mrs Parry's mother
had to pay for the recovery of the family car, which was being used
quite legally.

Mrs Smith said she had sent an official complaint to North Wales Police and wanted the chief constable to apologise.

In a statement North Wales Police said; “We can confirm that the vehicle was seized. “The driver of the vehicle can elect to have the case heard in court should they wish to dispute the matter.”

(source)

It seems that the need to obtain 'detections' and meet 'targets' above all else overrides the welfare of the public (I refuse to use the Orwellian term 'Citizen').

The NuLab policing policy – guilty until proven innocent. No apology, No Interest. Just meet targets.

NuLab – Destroyed Britain from the inside out.


The Government should drop its plan to
restrict access to freedom of information because it could allow public
bodies to dodge difficult or embarrassing questions, MPs said.

The
Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, wants to limit the Freedom
of Information (FoI) Act in a bid to stop MPs and journalists getting
hold of Government secrets.

But an
all-party Commons committee criticised ministers' failure to produce
any proof the changes were necessary. The Constitutional Affairs Select
Committee described the proposals as “unnecessary, unpopular and
undesirable”.

“We conclude that the
proposed regime could result in public authorities avoiding answers to
embarrassing, contentious or high-profile cases,” the report said. “No
clear evidence to support the (department's) decision that a change to
the charging regime was necessary has been published.”

An analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed limits was incomplete, it added.

The committee also criticised a Private
Member's Bill which seeks to exempt MPs from FoI rules. Committee
chairman Alan Beith said: “The FoI Act works. It enhances the rights of
the public. Neither the Government nor MPs should be seeking to limit
its effectiveness, and there is no evidence here to support either the
Government's proposals on fees or the Bill. I am hopeful that both will
now be dropped.”

At present,
Government departments usually have to answer requests that cost them
less than £600 to process. But Lord Falconer proposed including within
the £600 limit the time taken by officials to consider each request – a
move which would massively increase the number of applications turned
down on cost grounds.

A series
of requests from the same company, organisation or individual – even if
the requests are on different topics – could also be lumped together
and refused.

Director of the
Campaign for Freedom of Information, Maurice Frankel, said: “The
Government has been trying to sabotage the Freedom of Information Act
by restricting the right of access and supporting David Maclean's Bill
to exempt Parliament.

“Gordon
Brown should kill off both sets of malodorous proposals. He should tell
ministers to stop gnashing their teeth and demonstrate that they are
committed to and proud of their legislation.”

(source)