It is the EU’s Directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure that is the gravest of all threat to our National Security.
An enquiry was held before the Home Affairs Select Committee (20,1,2009) into the arrest of a Conservative frontbencher in November last year. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith told that the Committee that there were three reasons why the police were asked to get involved in the leak inquiry: systematic leaking was taking place that was having "a detrimental effect" on the work of the department, it was thought the person leaking the information might have access to sensitive material, and there were concerns in relation to national security.
According to Quitin Letts in the Daily Mail, Sir David Normington appearing alongside of Ms Smith and seemed to be trying to persuade the Committee that there had been a genuine threat to national security from the leaks, which betrayed the Government’s lax controls on immigration checks.
So, it was all about a scare re National Security? We do indeed now have a “NATIONAL Security Strategy” and I wrote about this and sent it ‘round’ in August last year. Prime Minister Gordon Brown brought forth this new National Security Strategy on 19th March 2008 and Baroness Ashton of Upholland presented a statement about it in the Lords on July 22nd 2008.
Its main aim, it says, is to safeguard the nation, its citizens, our prosperity and our way of life against a constantly changing security environment. Apparently a number of “Committee’s” will set out to do various tasks that will be specifically to give the public information about risks to the UK from natural disasters, accidents and malicious threats over the next five years so that those who wish to can prepare for the consequences. Will they always know when these ‘natural disasters and accidents are about to take place? What a wonderful idea, and how strange for this Government to actually come up with something positive and all by itself. Why is it talking about some thing over the next five years though when there is to be a general election in between I wonder?
During my perusal through masses of papers, I came across this from the EU paper by David Spence, Political Counsellor of the European Commission. “EU Member States regarded the sensitive areas of foreign, security and defence policy as central to their notion of national sovereignty. (Ah, just a ‘notion’ eh? AP) They resisted the pooling of sovereignty that had long existed within the economic and other internal fields, or in foreign trade. They were particularly allergic to placing any control of the resources devoted to security, or of specific operational decisions, in collective European hands. And this national reticence was compounded by significant differences in foreign policy culture, experience and expectations within member states”.
“The EU Security Strategy (ESS), prepared by the High Representative for CFSP, Javier Solana, and adopted by the European Council in December 2003, was one of the first fruits of this realisation. The strategy document identified terrorism as a key threat to the European Union and a prime field for action. The ESS linked terrorism to other key threats, including state failure, regional conflicts, proliferation and organised crime, all themes further adumbrated in the “Headline Goal 2010, approved by the European Council under the Irish presidency at Dublin on 17/18 June 2004”.
“The Commission is also advocating the establishment of a new coordination mechanism for the exchange of information – a clearing house mechanism – where law enforcement, judicial authorities and intelligence services meet to enhance mutual trust and exchange operational intelligence enabling each to perform its duty properly. (Highlighting mine=AP)
I then found out that it really wasn’t our Prime Minister’s idea because low and behold Germany has a Security Strategy, as has France and other Countries.
I can understand to a certain extent the reason to cooperate as we have done in the past when certain disasters have occurred on foreign shores and places outside of the EU too. But we always ask for permission to fly over other Countries territory or sail in their Sovereign waters or through foreign lands which is as it should always be.
When you can stand with one foot in one Country on the Continent and the other foot in a different Country, it may make a difference, but here in the UK we have a natural obstacle by being surrounded by water. It does indeed make a big difference. Once any information that is proposed by the European Union is given away to foreigners, information that would not even be given to ordinary people in this Country, this Country will never “be safe” again.
A reply from a Government Minister in a debate in the House of Commons was, at point 2.12, “ In relation to the use of Article 308 EC as a legal base for the proposal, the Minister states that the proposal is concerned with protecting critical infrastructure against "manmade, technological and natural disasters, where there is a cross-border dimension, with the threat from terrorism being given priority". The Minister argues that reliance on Article 308 EC is justified for the following reasons:
"Protecting [critical infrastructure] will further a number of Community objectives. [It is about time our own Country was put FIRST. It is after-all where our sworn allegiance lies] Article 2 of the EC Treaty refers to the need to promote the sustainable development of economic activities — such activities could be seriously affected by the disruption or destruction of critical infrastructure. [Not directly and as already stated, this is National Security and it must remain NATIONAL] Article 3 of the Treaty refers to Community policies on the environment, transport and civil protection — again these policy areas could be adversely affected by the disruption or destruction of critical infrastructure through any means. [We get disruptions now, through work and modernisation on going now-we are used to it, no difference-the norm here in the UK] So the proposal can be regarded as being necessary for the attainment of a Community objective, an essential requirement for use of Article 308EC. [An absolute rejection no matter what legal base or Treaty may be used]
"The Community [The Community when our own sovereign and voted for National Government should have “enhanced ship and port facility security” and “Established a specific programme for prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other security related risks’ Government should not need me to point this out, do we not vote and contribute to their pay for doing just that themselves] Government has already taken similar action in relation to certain sectors: see, for example, Regulation (EC) 725/2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security. More recently, the Council adopted Council Decision 2007/124 establishing a specific programme 'prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other security related risks' under Article 308. [Two wrongs do not make it right. If ever our seas and oceans are transferred to the EU as part of the EU’s “Motorway in the sea”, once the people find out that Britannia no longer Rule the Waves, I could not even second guess what they would do. No point in having a British Government or Parliament I guess.]
The ‘Conclusions’ at 2.24 state, “ In our view, the House should be given an early opportunity to debate these proposals. They mark a significant extension of Community competence and of the role of the Commission into the sensitive area of national security, with little or no benefit being obtained from the adoption of a legally binding Directive as opposed to arrangements for voluntary cooperation between Member States. The adoption of such an instrument as a measure of Community law could well lead to unpredictable results”.
At 2.25. “We consider that these issues are of such importance to the fundamental duty of any Government to ensure national security that they ought to be debated on the floor of the House and we so recommend”. END
There is no doubt at all that no debate should have been required because this Directive should have been rejected straight away. No “ifs” no “buts”. Each and every MP should remember where their true allegiance lies. They all swear such allegiance before they can take up Office, even though WE THE PEOPLE have voted for them to serve and speak for us within those hallowed halls, they cannot take up their places until they have sworn that TRUE allegiance.
As far as Ireland is concerned, I only came across an old paper signed by Bertie Ahearn in 2004 in the Irish Times when it reported that, “Last year, the EU drew up a European Security Strategy. "Crucially for Ireland, this strategy backs a strong and effective United Nations. Against this background, I especially welcome the growing UN policy of using regional organisations to assist it in carrying out its peacekeeping and conflict resolution functions."
And, "I want to make it clear today in any consideration of Irish troops acting overseas that this Government will not allow our policy of military neutrality to be eroded. The triple-lock will remain. Ireland will only participate in military activity overseas with Government, Dáil and UN mandate." A ‘Triple-lock’ indeed!
In “The Responsibility to Protect”, one of the core principles is, “State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the State itself”. Even going against the vast majority of the people’s wishes for self Governance, or ignoring them and forcing them into “deeper and more meaningful integration into the European Union”, particularly if in the end it means to force an EU Citizenship on them with certain duties and loyalties to the EU, may result in civil unrest, may perhaps, be cited as not conducive to The Responsibility to Protect.
We then move on to a more up to date article –2008- EU Civilian Headline Goal. Where it states. “In June 1999, the Cologne European Council declared, "the Union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so". Later that year, the European Council (Helsinki, December 1999) emphasized - with explicit reference to the developments in Kosovo earlier that year -the importance of enhancing and better co-ordinating the EU's and Member States' nonmilitary crisis response tools as well. The European Council in Feira in June 2000 followed suit by identifying four priority areas for EU civilian crisis management: Police, Rule of Law, Civilian Administration and Civil Protection. EU POLICE?
Enough of that because as you know-and already sent round previously, an article on the EU’s (and the UK’s) Protection of Critical Infrastructure. The Lisbon Treaty does indeed make clear that the ultimate responsibility for our national security lies with the Nation States. What the Lisbon Treaty did not make clear was that this would come under a binding EU Directive (EU Law). This Directive is now in the Official Journal of the European Union. Dated 23.12.2008 L 345/75.
I started this paper with antics that have gone on under the name of protecting our National Security, and here is a paper that demands notification of all our important and sensitive preparations for use in the event of attack, war, natural disasters or accidents and the whereabouts and quantities held etc. Very sensitive information that is entirely to do with our own NATIONAL SECURITY. Never, in the whole of the history of this Country has any foreigner been allowed to have a hand in our NATIONAL SECURITY.
At the height of the last war when bombs were falling each and every night on the major City’s of this Country, thousands killed, babies and children among them, it would have been TREASON if any person had given such information away. That person may have been lynched before “due process” could have overtaken them. In fact if any British person had given any information away to “the then enemy” it would have been TREASON and a matter of hanging by the neck until dead.
It is the EU’s Directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure that is the gravest of all threat to our National Security.
We here in the UK have seen and felt the draught of different views over many years through the IRA, they even tried to blow up a sitting Government which by any stretch of the imagination was Treason. We have recently seen the differing views of recent conflict between Hamas and Israel, would the information required above (had they been in the EU) be given to one side or another, or both? This can happen between two Countries in the EU perhaps more so at present when there is such anger about being ignored and shortages of jobs and so much debt.
I question the use of article 308 for the legal base. Would this Government really go along with giving away any part of our National Security under Article 308 when all that it should be used for is, in the course of the operation of the common market. These are the words exactly, “If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures.
The Organisation we all thought we had agreed to remain in and what we were told was indeed a Common Market, and that there would be no loss of essential Sovereignty, to what it is now, is made all the more false, disgraceful, a confidence trick of such magnitude even the greatest Conman of all would shirk from using Article 308 as its legal base. However, it has to be said that no Country, no matter what the Treaty or Legal base is, should accept or agree to the proposed EU Directive.
If allowing this to go through is not a great loss of sovereignty, I do not know what is. Anyone giving away where and what our defences are, what we have, equipment, quantities etc would have been classed as a traitor in the last war. Placards warning that, “Careless talk costs lives” were dotted all over this Country. Even names of Railway Stations were no longer in place, yet here is a Government that should be aware that Countries that we think are friends can very quickly become enemies. Look at Russia at the moment, and not so long ago it was going to “nuke” some one, now back as friends again..
Haven’t we seen and watched while obeying EU Orders has ruined our Country? Look around you and add up what we actually own? What Industries do we have left? We can hardly afford to look after ourselves never mind paying BILLIONS of pounds to allow the EU to Govern us, plus we have an extra layer of EU Regional Government that no one wants. EU Competition has destroyed our main industries and has anyone had sight of that damned “Level Playing Field” yet?
Before I go on, I remind you again that in the EU Treaty and elsewhere, it does state that the ultimate responsibility for national security lies with the Nation States. In the Directive it reads at point 6, “The primary and ultimate responsibility for protecting the EUROPEAN Critical Infrastructure (ECI) falls on the Member States and the owners/operators of such infrastructures”. Not quite the same, is it? Member States are looking after the EU’s Critical Infrastructure. This Directive also BINDS the Government, which of course, is against our Constitution. In fact all EU Directives are contrary to our Constitution. Our MP’s, possibly Judges, would say that we can always repeal the European Communities Act 1972 (as per Denning) but should Lisbon be activated, I doubt it would be possible. It is possible before Lisbon, no doubt about that but after? Who knows? We have already seen the EU Navy set sail, the making of an EU Army, and probably an Air Force in the future. Certain members of state already refer to the EU as a whole and ‘it’ speaks with its one voice for all. What on earth do we want National MP’s for if we remain in the EU? The EU is already planning for the next 50 years and there is no expiry date to any EU Treaty. Do our MP’s want to actually Govern, or do they want foreigners to govern this Country forever? Ah, do they still want the pay as if they are doing the job? Who else can pretend to do a job and have such a high “take home pay’ with vast expenses?
At Point 18: “In order to develop European critical infrastructure protection activities in areas which require a degree of confidentiality, it is appropriate to ensure a coherent and secure information exchange in the framework of this Directive. It is important that the rules of confidentiality according to applicable national law or Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) are observed with regard to specific facts about critical infrastructure assets, which could be used to plan and act with a view to causing unacceptable consequences for critical infrastructure installations. Classified information should be protected in accordance with relevant Community and Member State legislation. Each Member State and the Commission should respect the relevant security classification given by the originator of a document.
At point 19: “Information sharing regarding European Critical infrastructures should take place in an environment of trust and security. The sharing of information requires a relationship of trust such that companies and organizations know that their sensitive and confidential data will be sufficiently protected.” I don’t even trust our government anymore and certainly not any ‘Data’ with any of our own people never mind strangers.
If the police was brought into the Houses of Parliament because it was thought the person leaking the information might have access to sensitive material, and there were concerns in relation to national security and an arrest made. What, do you think, the charge could be at the giving away-to all and sundry- of details of our strengths and weaknesses, the location of where certain things are stored, how many ‘planes, ships, members of our services, what we have on our land belonging to other services such as our American friends, and how prepared we are to deal with any danger that might arise, etc, etc.
Never in the whole of the history of this Country has any foreigner been allowed to have a hand in our NATIONAL SECURITY. It is indeed the EU’s Directive on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure that is the gravest of all threat to our National Security.
Anne Palmer 22.1.2009.
Protection of Critical Infrastructure Fifteenth Report
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeuleg/41-xv/4105.htm
Responsibility to Protect
http://www.iciss.ca/pdf/Commission-Report.pdf
EU Reform Treaty Art 4 (2)(Now Treaty of Lisbon Article 3a (2) it says, In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.
Notified today 12.1.2009 of ten pages in the Official Journal of the European Union COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/114/EC 23.12.2008 L 345/75
of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (Text with EEA relevance)
Posts
