Unions handing over your jobs….you pay your union dues for this! Involvement of Trades Unions in EU lawmakingPosted on September 6, 2010 byIan Parker-Joseph Yesterday the TPA released their latest report into the abysmal use of taxpayers funds by bodies and organisations that should not be in receipt of your hard earned cash. The report gave a detailed breakdown on the huge amounts being granted by government departments and NGO’s to Public Sector Trades Unions, both in direct grants and in paid time off for union ‘duties’. Trade unions received £85.8 million from public sector organisations in 2009-10, made up of £18.3 million in direct payments from public sector organisations and an estimated £67.5 million in paid staff time. You can read the full TPA report here. The biggest of the Unions involved in this skimming of taxpayer funds, Unison, were not slow to issue a press release slamming the report itself as a waste of taxpayers money by utilising the Freedom of Information Act to gather the information together. Of course Unison is not the only Union benefiting from this use of taxpayers funds, nor is it limited to the public sector although the TPA report only included public sector Unions. Most British Trades Unions cash in on grants and paid time brought in under rules produced by the Labour government of the past 13 years. Most members of the public would expect Unions to finance their own staff, so that organisers, activists, negotiators and shop stewards etc are paid for out of Union membership subs, whilst the political activities of these Unions are paid for by the political levy placed upon their membership. The use of taxpayers money to subsidise the political activities of Unions is anathema to most British taxpayers. But what both sides have failed to mention are the uses that this money and paid time off gained by the Unions is put to, beyond political lobbying and campaigning in the UK. Further research by the Albion Alliance, all in the public domain at no cost to the taxpayer, shows us that British Trades Unions are heavily involved in the basics of the formulation of EU laws, many of which are introduced into UK law without recourse to our parliament. This involvement in the key committees of the various EU instutions, agencies and plenary bodies is something that Unions in general keep very quiet about and Unison in particular fails to disclose at all on its website and to its membership. The quantity and types of laws, both Directives and Regulations, coming out of Brussels that Unions have been instrumental in formulating are varied, but tend to be of the kind that force social change, curtail basic human rights in favour of communal ones, and in the main are the laws which involve the heaviest financial burden on the public. Through their membership of advisory and policy committees in such institutions as the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the little known Assembly of European Regions (AER). For example these committees have been responsible for input into the Europe Wide Smoking Ban, Minimum Pricing on Alcohol and the European Land Fill regulations which have directly resulted in disruption to bin collections, introduction of compulsory recycling projects and bin taxes, and many of the worst hair brained eco projects. Unions are not only responsible for the formulation but also the implementation of these adopted policies through the creation of EU projects via UK Regionalstructures, the European Federation of Local Government Chief Executives and the Local Government Association (LGA). You have to ask a couple of questions at this stage. Like who pays for each and every participant in these organisations? The answer of course is you, the taxpayer. This is why your taxes are already so high. A second question would be, who gave the permission for these people to act and make policy, as it sure as hell wasn’t the voters. So when our government is looking at cuts, or reforms, what they will be doing as I have explained before, is undermining and removing the British institutions and British law, and replacing them slowly and deceptively with EU institutions and EU law, slice by slice selling our national soul to the beast of empire. Its all important stuff because it affects you directly. 50 per cent of regulation affecting local government already originates from EU legislation and other international agreements, the Local Government Association’s European and International Unit says on its website. If we look at the members of the European Economic and Social Committee, we see the various committees that formulate policy recommendations which are then presented to the European Commission to create regulation. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) is a consultative body that gives representatives of Europe’s socio-occupational interest groups, and others, a formal platform to express their points of views on EU issues. Its opinions are forwarded to the larger institutions – the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. It thus has a key role to play in the Union’s decision-making process. So here are the UK members of the EESC. All pro-EU, and I suspect all in it for what they can get out of it, and not one of them elected. (click on their names to see what they have been involved with). How many of them are being paid for by British Taxpayers? Unknown but researching. Heck, the whole damn edifice is taxpayer funded, so whether its direct or indirect taxation, you pay for it. How many decisions/recommendations will be paid for by British Taxpayers? All of them as they are introduced here in the UK. Just who are all these self appointed people? They are not elected. You can look at all the documentation of the EESC here, so you can see just how much damage to your life the Unions have done by influencing the plethora of rules and regulations coming out of Brussels. As I said right at the beginning, this is not confined to public sector unions, nearly all UK Unions are involved in the EU at this level, even if they deny it, nor its not confined to one EU institution, you can find a list of all the EU institutions here, either in the top tab or in the sidebar, you can dig for yourselves and find Union involvement in all these repressive laws coming out of Brussels.. you know, the ones that they claim to oppose at home. Happy hunting… EVER BEEN HAD? Extradition Treaties – More EU deceit from UK GovernmentPosted onSeptember 4, 2010 by Ian Parker-Joseph The Home Office is to announce a review of UK extradition agreements with other countries, including the controversial and some say unbalanced agreement with the United States. This represents a provisional success for campaigners against certain extradition agreements. According to reports, the review will include the Extradition Act 2003 which implemented into law the UK-United States extradition treaty. It will also consider the European Arrest Warrant, which was used for 50% more arrests last year. The review fulfils the pledge made in the coalition’s program for government to ”review the operation of the Extradition Act – and the US/UK extradition treaty – to make sure it is even-handed”. BULLSHIT – it has even fooled the author of the UK Human Rights Blog from whom the above paragraphs are extracted. What the Home Office will be doing is seeing how much of this can be removed from the UK statute book, to be replaced by an all encompassing set of treaties drawn up by the EU, which will become UK law without debate or intervention by the UK parliament. Statewatch clearly sets out the documentation that is already in place to allow such negotiations to begin. There are currently six EU-US agreements covering justice and home affairs issues: 1. Europol (exchange of data); 2. Extradition; 3. Mutual assistance; 4. PNR (passenger name record); 5. SWIFT (all financial transactions, commercial and personal); 6. Container Security Initiative (CSI). Getting agreement on many of them has proved controversial and time-consuming (now the European Parliament has a say) so now the EU and the USA want to conclude a long-term general agreement covering all future exchanges of personal data concerning any criminal offence however minor. The EU’s negotiating mandate, drawn up by the European Commission and now to be agreed to by the Council of the European Union: a) Explanatory Memorandum and proposed Recommendation (COM 252-10):Proposal for a Council Recommendation to authorise the opening of negotiations for an agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on protection of personal data when transferred and processed for the purpose of preventing, investigating, detecting or prosecuting criminal offences, including terrorism, in the framework of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters b) Mandate: Negotiating Directives (pdf) Background: see: Reports by the High Level Contact Group (HLCG) on information sharing and privacy and personal data protection (EU doc no: 15851/09, pdf) “The European Union would apply these principles for “law enforcement purposes”, meaning use for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of any criminal offense.” while: “The United States would apply these principles for ‘law enforcement purposes’, meaning for the prevention, detection, suppression, investigation, or prosecution of any criminal offense or violation of law related to border enforcement, public security, and national security, as well as for non-criminal judicial or administrative proceedings related directly to such offenses or violations.”(emphasis added) See also Council Presidency to Justice and Home Affairs Counsellors: EU-US High Level Contact Group on data protection and data sharing (HLCG) (EU doc no: 14574/09, pdf): This records that: 1) the US Privacy Act only applies to US citizens and further that extensive exceptions are allowed for law enforcement agencies; 2) in the EU “every individual has a fundamental right to effective judicial remedy” but “In the US no comparable general rule exists”; and 3) “It is clear that the EU cannot accept a principle that does not provide for an unconditional right to judicial redress. That, on the other hand, is unacceptable to the US” so the EU Council Presidency has proposed: “that any possible gap in the US redress framework which is unacceptable to the EU, cannot be fixed in the redress principle, but must, if necessary, be addressed in a possible future agreement.” The reasoning behind this is very simple. By removing these from the UK Statutes it also removes any rights we have under Common Law, and placing the EU produced laws under the realms of corpus juris, and a European Criminal Code, whereby the assumed guilt and detention of the accused before proof of innocence is legal. Who needs the 90 day detention laws when you have this? The art of doublespeak is still alive and well in Westminster. Yet again we see a British Government making way for the EU empire by lying to the British people with their treacherous actions. The British people have been had again…. Still want to believe a British Government wouldn’t act against their own people? Tory and LibDem politicians need to hang their heads in shame. http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/extradition-treaties-more-bull-from-uk-government/Involvement of Trades Unions in EU lawmaking
Adams, Richard
Consultant in social, environmental and ethical business and project development
Group III (Various Interests) Blower, Christine
Acting General Secretary, National Union of Teachers (NUT)Group II (Employees) Boyle, Sandy
Former President UNI Finance and Uni-Europa Finance; Past President Scottish TUCGroup II (Employees) Burns, Brendan
Director of Burns, Burns and Burns – Former Vice Chairman and Policy Chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)Group I (Employers) Cassidy, Bryan
Former Member of the European Parliament (1984-1999)Group I (Employers) Coldrick, Peter
Head of Brussels Office of the Trades Union Congress (TUC)Group II (Employees) Crook, Nicholas
International Officer, public sector union UNISONGroup II (Employees) Curtis, Brian
Regional Organiser, Wales and the West of England, National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT)Group II (Employees) D’Sa, Rose
Consultant in EU, Commonwealth and International Law – Consultant in Legal Education/Distance LearningGroup III (Various Interests) Fraser, Kenneth
Corporate adviserGroup I (Employers) Jones, Tom
Legal Services Commissioner – Vice-president of the Wales Council for voluntary action (WCVA) – farmerGroup III (Various Interests) King, Brenda
Chief Executive, African & Caribbean Diversity – Commissioner, Women’s National Commission (WNC) – Advisory Board, Hays Executive – Advisory Board, Voluntary Services Overseas (VSO)Group I (Employers) McKnight, Judy
Former General Secretary, National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO)Group II (Employees) Morgan, Peter
Partner, P.W.L. Morgan & Associates; Director of a portfolio of companies; Former Director General, Institute of DirectorsGroup I (Employers) Morrice, Jane
Communications Consultant – Director, Photographic and Media Production Company, former member Northern Ireland Assembly and Deputy Speaker, former Head EC Office Northern Ireland, former BBC correspondentGroup III (Various Interests) O’Neill, Maureen
Associate Mowat Research Board; Member, Scottish Social Services Council; Development Director, Faith in Older People; Consultant in Charity Governance (NHS QIS)Group III (Various Interests) Osborn, Frederic Adrian
Chair, Stakeholder Forum for our Common FutureGroup III (Various Interests) Peel, Jonathan
Business and Trade ConsultantGroup I (Employers) Sears, David
Former Deputy Director-General, British Chambers of Commerce (BCC)Group I (Employers) Sharma, Madi
Entrepreneur with businesses in import-export, education and property. Consultant in the fields of entrepreneurship, education, corporate social responsibility, gender equality, diversity and social inclusionGroup I (Employers) Sharma, Sukhdev
Chairman Southwest Yorkshire Mental Health NHS TrustGroup III (Various Interests) Smyth, Michael
Economist – University of Ulster , Belfast; Economic Adviser to the Northern Ireland AssemblyGroup III (Various Interests) Taylor, Monica
Executive Council Member, Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU)Group II (Employees) Weimann, Dörthe
Research Officer – Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT)Group II (Employees) ONE RESPONSE TO INVOLVEMENT OF TRADES UNIONS IN EU LAWMAKING
Thursday 4 November 2010
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Posts
The reasoning behind this is very simple. By removing these from the UK Statutes it also removes any rights we have under Common Law, and placing the EU produced laws under the realms of corpus juris, and a European Criminal Code, whereby the assumed guilt and detention of the accused before proof of innocence is legal. Who needs the 90 day detention laws when you have this?
FREEDOM IN JEOPARDY:
THE CASE AGAINST THE EU AND SUPRANATIONALISM
BY D. ANDREWS
NOTE: The extensive end notes are not merely to reference sources but also contain much supplemental and elaborative material. Please stop and read the end notes as they are referenced in the main text.
“Show me a patriot and I will show you a true lover of humanity. Show me a man who says he loves all equally and I will show you a man who lacks discernment and loves none but himself.”
~ Fletcher of Saltoun, Scot Patriot, 1653-1716.
READ CAREFULLY
Common Law versus Corpus Juris
Common Law is a body of concepts and laws in harmony with natural rights and justice. Corpus Juris (Latin for “body of laws”) is a system of judicial laws or tenets rooted in Civil Law and thus based on privilege and the whims of rulers. The following table contrasts the practises (in theory) of the two systems. I have added explanatory notes in the first column in an attempt to highlight the importance of each point and its relationship to and/or effect upon natural rights.
Table 1.0 Common Law versus Corpus Juris
Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter, went as far as to write:
“To say that the European Union was based on the Nazi version of Europe or that there are parallels would be an understatement. The entire ‘European’ enterprise since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 (and given an enormous boost by the Maastricht Treaty on European Union) is an exact replica of the Nazi’s ideas for Europe…”[20]
However, it should be noted that the idea of a single Europe pre-dates Hitler’s Nazism,[21] though this is not to say that the same hidden interests[22] were not supportive of both Nazism and the European movement, perhaps supporting the former to facilitate the latter. But it was Monnet, at least visibly, who was to found and develop the structural beginnings of the EU and to be accredited as “the Father of Europe”.
Table 2.0 Comparison of Nazi ideas for Europe with modern policies of the EU. Taken from pages 124-125 of “Treason at Maastricht” (see “Suggestions for Further Study” at the end of this article).
The Powers Behind the Scenes
There are two contending schools of thought on history. The first, and by far the most popular, is “The Accidental View of History” which holds that history is largely a series of unrelated events or events which are related only by accident or simple cause and effect; the second school of thought is “The Conspiratorial View of History” which holds that superintending forces have directed many of the important events of history.[23]
Is there evidence to suggest that there are “powers behind the scenes” which have supported and financed the organizations and individuals that have promoted the move toward modern European union? This question can undoubtedly be answered in the affirmative.
In September 2000, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, EU reporter for The Telegraph, wrote a story reporting on recently declassified US government documents showing “that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.”
Mr. Evans-Pritchard wrote:
“Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe [ACUE], created in 1948. The chairman was [William] Donovan [head of the American wartime "Office of Strategic Services", which was later to become the CIA], ostensibly a private lawyer by then.
The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds.
The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington…”[24]
Donovan, Smith, and Dulles were all members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a group that along with its British sister-organization, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and the Bilderbergers, has strongly but secretively supported and financed globalist movements – including National Socialism (Nazism), and International Socialism/Communism – with a view to establishing a “New World Order”.[25]
Joseph Retinger, another of the founding fathers of the EU, was a polish socialist who, though having no visible means of support, travelled between the US, Mexico and Europe during the 1920s and 30s. It was he who recruited the ex-SS Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to establish the secretive Bilderberg Group. In his diary Retinger wrote:
“In November 1946, I had a very long talk with Mr. Averell Harriman, American Ambassador in London…. Averell Harriman was my sponsor and arranged my visit [to the U.S.]…. At the time (the end of 1946) I found in America a unanimous approval for our ideas among financiers, businessmen and politicians. Mr. Leffingwell, senior partner in J.P. Morgan’s, Nelson and David Rockefeller, Alfred Sloan, Chairman of the Dodge Motor Company … George Franklin, and especially my old friend, Adolf Berle Jr., were all in favor, and Berle agreed to lead the American Section. John Foster Dulles also agreed to help us…. Later on, whenever we needed any assistance for the European Movement, Dulles was among those in America who helped us most.”[26]
All of those men mentioned in this entry were members of the CFR.
The Grand Design of the EU
Paul-Henri Spaak encourage his fellow EU founders that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic cooperation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market’” (emphasis added) and Jean Monnet supported this dishonest approach.[27]
In the closing words of his memoirs, Monnet wrote:
“The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present: they cannot ensure their own progress or control their own future. And the Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organised world of tomorrow.” (emphasis added).
And in a communiqué of 22 August 1962 this same man spelled out the grand design of Europe when he wrote:
“It is impossible to solve problems between European States who preserve full sovereignty. We are convinced that our times must see the creation of vast units like the United States and the USSR, and to establish a [world-wide] organisation to ensure co-operation between all those vast units. It is this organization which will create the new world order.” (emphasis added)
It seems beyond doubt now that regionalisation, despite initial promises to the contrary, was and is about the elimination of national sovereignty – and is itself a pre-planned stage toward globalisation (the joining together of regionalised blocs into a world government). The true story behind Europe can be ignored no longer.[28]
A Resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire?
WAKE UP FOLKS OR LIVE UNDER TYRANNY!
http://www.freedom-central.net/euandbritain.html