Succession to the Crown Bill

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Succession to the Crown Bill
« on: January 24, 2017, 08:40:11 PM »
Succession to the Crown Bill

 Please read and understand what this lady is saying. This is your Constitution, it belongs to you, you own it, not the politicians, it is there for your protection for all time. Ignore it at your peril. Di
January 2017

This article is long and I make no apologies for it being so long at all.  It has taken me quite a while to go through so many papers, and I hope, I hope so much that those I send it to it will inspire them to fight so much harder for this Country's freedom from Foreign Rule.  I have to admit that "Speed Reading" has helped me and it is after-all, YOUR future that is at risk, not mine.  What is the Hurry for this Bill??  There is absolutely no need for any hurry at all.  Already there are two in line for the throne and, THE BABY IS NOT EVEN BORN YET.  It may even by a "BOY" anyway.  SO, WHAT IS THE TRUE HURRY FOR THIS?

You have a choice, you can just simply zap the article away, or you can use any bit of it.  The choice is yours, however it is forwarded on to you in the hope you can use it or any part of it to untangle this YOUR Country from foreign rule.  If my 'grammar' is not quite right etc remember I left school at age 13 and a half-it was bombed! And thus had to work for my keep at age 14, some-time in two jobs-one in the daytime and one at night!  No sympathy required I enjoyed all it all.  Anne PS, Part three first, because it is most important and being put through Parliament at the moment.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Part 3.  What is the REAL Reason for such Constitutional changes?  
This Bill, “The Succession to the Crown Bill”, has already been put to every Realm in the Commonwealth (at the last Commonwealth Meeting at which Mr Cameron and Mr Hague went to) for which Her Majesty is Head of State, with the matter now been debated in the House of Commons which for now lodges temporary Members of Parliament. I understand it is presently in the House of Lords.
I therefore wish to suggest, that as it allegedly proposes changes to the people’s foundational Bill of Rights 1689, that the People of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must be consulted  because of the many proposed changes to this great Statute – for indeed it is their Bill of Rights 1689. The Bill of Rights, as I am sure you are aware, cannot be changed for this proposed Bill, and would require Nine (9) parts of our long standing Common Law Constitution to be changed permanently. There is absolutely no need for any changes to our Constitution at this moment in time for there are two other people in line to the Throne and the next in line has not even been born yet, and of course it might even be a boy anyway. The two codiciles at the end of the Bill of Rights make very clear indeed that no alterations to the Bill may be permitted.
The nine Acts concerned are, The Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937.
This is from the Government’s own Paper, “To bring about changes to the law would be a complex and controversial undertaking, raising major constitutional issues which would involve the amendment or repeal of a number of pieces of related legislation. Legislation that would need to be reviewed includes the Bill of Rights 1689, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Union with Scotland Act 1707, the Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711—I hope no one will intervene on that one—the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910, and the Regency Act 1937. I recognise that my noble friend's Bill deals with obvious aspects of the Union with Scotland Act and, indeed, the parallel Union with England Act of the pre-Union Scottish Parliament, but it has not addressed any of the issues raised by the other Acts to which I have referred.”  The Act of Succession  1543.  The Act of Settlement 1700 and the Act of Unions, all reinforced by the provisions of the Coronation Oath Act 1680 and the Accession Declaration Act 1910. All this allegedly because of the Act of Succession and alleged discrimination re those that have accepted with grace the ancient Common Law Constitution. I add to this that the people of this Country has born the burden of two World Wars to protect our constitution and way of life.  The last war in living memory.
It is also noted that these changes are, or would be in keeping with the EU’s “Equality Act”.  Is that the real Reason for these changes?  Her Majesty has put her Prerogative in the hands of the Government because it is allegedly not in keeping
with Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath. Our Constitution has been ignored because of the EU Treaties ratified in the past, but here, the deliberate changes to our very own long  standing Common Law is a Great Massive Step Too Far and betrays all those that gave their lives in war so that we here in the United Kingdom could be free forever from foreign Rule. It is time to get out of the EU, and I gently remind all, that the Treason laws are there for all time to protect our Constitution and although two Treason Laws were allegedly ‘repealed in full’ instead of just the “death by hanging” clause in the Governments “Crime and Disorder Act”,  and recorded as so repealed, the are indeed ‘live’ because they are there for all time to protect our Constitution and cannot be repealed, and why many died in the last war to protect our Constitution and laws rather than they be destroyed by losing that war.  As the proposed new legislation to change our Constitution has been sent all around the world without the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland being informed and before it was even put to Members of the Houses of Parliament, I submit that the people should indeed have their say. Our Long standing Common law Constitution is indeed the people’s Constitution and is not for temporary  Governments to alter. Many died in the saving of it determined not to be governed by foreign Constitutions. Whether they would agree to all or ANY of the proposed changes to all nine parts of their Constitution is another matter all together, for the People of this Country must be allowed to express their view in this great matter of State. 
However, I will take this a little further, for many changes are indeed being made by this Coalition Government, so much so, that one feels that the death of our Constitution in this Country cannot come quick enough for them.  Just suppose that if a European Union still exists by the time William and Kate’s baby is ready for marriage, what if He/She chooses “same sex Marriage” (See the EU’s Equality Act) End of future Monarchy? Or should provisions be made now to protect the line? Should it be laid down in Law while the Succession to the Crown Bill is going through Parliament? Perhaps it should be the second son or daughter that should become the next Monarch? Sadly, it seems that our present leaders can only see the “TODAY” in what the proposed changes to the Succession to the Crown Bill may bring-they are not looking into the future of this Country-unless I am missing some-thing and there is no “future” for this Country and we will indeed just be REGIONS of the European Union-forever in a Federal State of European Union?  The thought comes to me, would anyone in the EU, TRUST any Government and/or any Parliament that have paid billions to “give” the Governing of their own Country’s away to foreigners-that may well be FOREVER-and doing so deceitfully?
I am aware the Government alone cannot change the Oath of Allegiance, for that would be contrary to the Oaths of Allegiance they make themselves.  In fact all MP’s and Members of Government so swear allegiance to the British Crown before they may take up their seats in parliament even though the people have freely elected them.
I was forgetting that even though some people vote for our MP's and ALL contribute to their pay to govern this Country according to law, their sworn solemn Oath of Allegiance
is indeed to the British Crown, the Crown that represents all the people in this land that they have a duty to protect? The sworn duty and solemn Oath of every MP they make before they may take up their seats and only after the British people have freely elected them, is followed by "ACCORDING TO LAW".  This is the Executive ECHOING the Queen's own Coronation Oath.  There are TWO OATHS operative here, to protect the nation and the people. The Queen's oath, and the oath of her Executive to her. They are interlocking oaths to respect the RULE OF LAW at all times. I repeat here also, regarding the proposed changes in the ‘Succession to the Crown Bill’, “Her Majesty has put her Prerogative in the hands of the Government because it is allegedly not in keeping with Her Majesty’s Coronation Oath”.   Her Majesty, Our Queen has allowed Her Government to use Her Prerogative on this matter-recorded in Hansard- because what is proposed is contrary to the Oath she made at Her Coronation.   No one can alter now any of the Oaths her Majesty made at that time of Her Coronation-for they were for all time of Her Majesty's Reign.  No one can alter what was sworn by Her Majesty on Her Majesty’s Coronation Day nor on Her Majesty’s behalf. Even though Her Majesty has passed Her Prerogative to Her Government for the reason as above, Her Government cannot alter anything that took place on Her Majesty’s Coronation Day either. It has to remain exactly as was repeated by our present Monarch-A true record.  Plus the people are obliged to have these proposals put before them too, for indeed the changes apply to the people also.  However, the people’s Bill of Rights 1689 and certain other ancient documents cannot be altered either for they are for all time the people’s rights.   
Perhaps we should remember too that our entry into what we were told was, “A Common Market” was based on a deliberate lie by one Edward Heath who assured the people that in joining this Common Market, “There would be no loss of essential Sovereignty”.  That lie was admitted on Television many years later.   Could we hold a referendum on whether to remain in the EU, as promised by Mr Cameron IF he wins the 2015 General Election?  He knows from the Oath he made when he became Prime Minister that, our Constitution is not negotiable.  Overthrowing our Constitution by choosing to remain in the EU would be treason. Even conspiring to or contemplating overthrowing our Constitution is treason as is encouraging others to overthrow our Constitution-even through a referendum, would indeed be treason.  
We do not belong in the EU and we certainly cannot alter any part of our Constitution that so many gave their lives for to alter any part of it in order to remain in the European Union.  We should never have joined nor remain in it no matter what stage it eventually develops in to. Had the people been told the truth what joining the EEC was in truth, the people would not have voted to remain in it.  
Therefore no part of what is proposed in the "Succession to the Crown Bill" can go against anything Her Majesty so solemnly swore on Oath by Her Majesty on that very special Coronation Day.  Other words changed/altered now do not allow any alteration to what Her Majesty so swore on that day.   It is the duty of every Subject of the British Crown’s right to fight and protect our Constitution, Our Gracious Queen Elizabeth II and our Country.  It is also all those in both Houses of Parliament to fight for
their Monarch to keep the solemn vows made at Her Majesty’s Coronation.  For many hundreds of years this Country has fought to keep its unique way of life under our Monarchy, this we will continue to do and certainly not alter anything because of anyone or anything outside this Country’s Constitution such as the European Union or any law or Act proposed by them and especially not the EU’s Equality Act or the Court of Human Rights or anything else that would interfere with the British Crown.  The 1939-45 war was fought so that we may keep our own unique way of life and in which our Monarch and family all played their part all throughout that war. Had we not have done, many of those in Parliament ‘today’ might never have been born.
The Government also seems to think the people can continue to pay for two full to the brim Houses in our Magnificent Houses of Parliament that can only obey EU orders like the rest of us. Sadly, as we look at other Countries in the European Union, each and every one except a couple, are experiencing very hard times with very little help from their own Governments or the European Union. This surely is enough ‘proof’ that the people of each Country trapped in the EU cannot continue to pay for this extra Governance that some have never had a “say” on.  
We know-without doubt, a female can become Queen,  for we have had two Queen Elizabeth's and one Queen Victoria. But perhaps the real reason why they are TRYING to alter (Destroy?) our Constitution is to fit in with the EU's Equality Act. However, according to R v Thistlewood 1820  , "To destroy the Constitution is treason".  The Treason Acts are for all time, to protect our Constitution.  That is also why we fought two World Wars, so that our own Constitution remains forever, and that we would never have to submit or be subservient to foreigners or their laws. To try to change nine parts of our land standing Common Law Constitution at the whim of “today’s” foreigners, when others gave their lives to keep it in tact is sheer treachery and a betrayal of all those that gave THEIR lives for all of us.  For those that stand before the Cenotaph each year, remembering the ultimate sacrifice they made for us ALL, and especially YOU to be free to Govern this Country according to our Constitution and our way of life that they too want to live for, is beyond any words I can place here when we realise what indeed you have done between you, in our name. 
Any Politician that tries to destroy their own very long standing Common law Constitution whose total sworn allegiance is to the British Crown, only ends up destroying themselves for many, many men, women, children and babies died in the bombing of this Country in that last war, while many were away fighting to keep their very own Constitution that some in Parliament at present are trying their best to destroy.   The enemy that tried to bomb this Country to bits failed, but the enemy within destroy their own Country and themselves in the end.
I have been looking into what the EU is putting forward for the coming years.  Yes, our Government already knows, and it will end in the complete destruction of our way of life if we continue to remain in the EU-our Government knows this full well. I have a whole list of what the EU proposes-obviously NOT ALL. A great deal however, on the European Defence Agency (EDA) and I have chosen that because being in the last war,
the Defence of our Country means more to me than other matters. What is proposed disgusts me and a feeling of deep shame for those that simply accept.  The EDA 2013 Budget, EDA Work Programme 2013, "Pooling & Sharing. Ministers noted the EDA's progress and intentions for Pooling and Sharing, as articulated in the Agency's report on Pooling and Sharing.  The list is endless just for the EDA alone, and what concerned me and should concern many others, was that The Report gave a progress update of ongoing activity such as the Helicopter Training Programme and Maritime Surveillance Networking, proposed new opportunities for Pooling and Sharing which include Cyber Defence and Route Clearance Counter IED, and included the Code of Conduct for Pooling and Sharing which Ministers agreed to adopt. The Code is allegedly, a voluntary, non-binding agreement that aims to "mainstream" Pooling and Sharing in Member States' national planning and decision making processes in order to support co-operative efforts to develop defence capabilities. The Code has been prepared with Member States' input and the UK was content to endorse it".
However, one reason why we have not known too much of a great many of these “happenings” here in the UK, is because, “"Such documents remain Limité until a request is received to make them Public. This is done on a case-by-case basis. The originator may also decide to make them Public regardless of whether a request has been made or not. But this would need to take into account the views of all Member States”. So much for “open and transparent Governance”!
I name just this one item, mainly because I am old enough to have been bombed out of our home twice, a brother that had to wait to join the Air-Force until after the war-because his firm could not release him (A design engineer) and to realise that this Country WAS NOT PREPARED FOR THE COMING WAR-FULL SCALE WAR at that time, and here we have politicians making sure history is repeating itself.
When our Government suggests that our forces should be cut down, (because we cannot afford financially to keep them), and the same Government that is cutting down our own Forces yet continues to contribute financially (and I see also sharing equipment with foreigners) to a Foreign Organisation-the European Defence Agency, what does that suggest to the innocent people that are contributing to the defence of this Country? It is    sheer treachery and a terrible, terrible great betrayal of all the people in this Country.
How about, "BUILDING TRUST IN EU-WIDE JUSTICE, A NEW DIMENSION TO EUROPEAN JUDICIAL TRAINING". COM(2011) 551 final? "Improving judicial training is essential to build a European judicial area to the benefit of people and businesses. The European Commission wants to take European judicial training to a new dimension by building on current proven activities and the possibilities of the Lisbon Treaty."
The whole aim being at the end of it all is not a United STATES of Europe, but just one State of European Union. If that is what you want, then there is absolutely no point in having anyone in those once proud Houses of Parliament at all. 
From the Bill of Rights. II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by _non obstante_ of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament. 
III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made. Anne Palmer, 4.3.2013.
Below are just a few-not all of the Documents I have come across and gone through
Minister’s letters
9 EU Budget
13 Working of the internal energy market
Action Plan for Europe
14 European carbon market
15 Aviation and the EU Emissions Trading System
We thank the Minister for his letter and welcome the efforts made to strengthen the provisions on Europol access to EURODAC data by aligning them more closely with those applicable to national law enforcement authorities. Nevertheless, as our earlier Reports have made clear, we do not accept that there is a compelling case for extending access to EURODAC data for law enforcement purposes. Indeed, the fact that the Minister anticipates that there will be no significant operational impact for UK law enforcement authorities if they are unable to satisfy the conditions for requesting access to EURODAC data tends to reinforce our view. We are therefore disappointed that the Government appears to be unwilling to take a more robust stance on this issue. As, however, negotiations are expected to conclude shortly and there is broad support amongst Member States for the inclusion of provisions on law enforcement access, we agree to release the draft Regulation from scrutiny.
18 Aviation policy
19 Financial services: undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities
20 Financial services: key information for retail investors
21 Documents not raising questions of sufficient legal or political importance to warrant a substantive report to the House
CONTENTS=The people of this Country never will never forgive them for what those we elected in good faith are doing to our Country.
The European Parliament's right of inquiry
Common European Sales Law
Preparation of the 2013 EU Budget  (There is a great deal on the MFF.)
9.2 The context for the DB is determined by the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF), which sets out annual ceilings for the six headings of budget expenditure: 
Sustainable growth;  Preservation and management of natural resources; 
Citizenship, freedom, security and justice; EU as a global player; (Speaking for all it’s Member states?)  Administration; and Compensation (temporary measures for Bulgaria and Romania in their first years of accession, no longer applicable after 2009). 
9.3 With the DB for 2013, document (a), the Commission proposed commitment appropriations[30] of €150,932 million (£122,708 million). This is 1.13% of EU Gross National Income (GNI) and an increase of €3,031 million (£2,464 million) or 2.0% above 2012 levels. For payment appropriations,[31] the Commission proposed €137,924 million (£112,132 million) or 1.03% of EU GNI. This represents an increase of €8,818 million (£7,169 million) or 6.8% compared to the 2012 budget. The margin[32] under the MFF ceiling was €2,420 million (£1,967 million) for commitment appropriations and €6,182 million (£5,026 million) for payment appropriations. 
9.4 When we considered this document in June we heard that:  the Government was very clear that, at a time of ongoing economic fragility in the EU, with countries across the area taking difficult decisions to reduce public spending, a 6.8% increase in EU spending in 2013 is unacceptable; and  its key objective was to limit the size of the 2013 EU Budget. Too many points-this should be read in full-remember it is all of YOU that are contributing to this The Stockholm Programme.  This too comes into play and must not be missed.
In a joint session with Justice Ministers, the presidency introduced its review of progress on the Stockholm programme—the five-year programme for Justice and Home Affairs—and handed over to both Commissioners (Reding and Malmström) who summarised achievements to date. The UK noted that the Stockholm programme had been agreed under the previous Government, and that the present Government did not endorse it all. The UK welcomed the progress report, but remained concerned about the missing elements in the paper; PNR needed to be a priority in order to effectively tackle terrorism and serious crime, and it was important to continue tackling abuse of free movement,
something to which the JHA Council had committed itself under the road map on migratory pressures. The UK could not entirely agree with the focus on bringing forward a proposal on the European public prosecutor (EPP), and had limited appetite for giving extra powers to Eurojust, but instead could see that the EU’s energies could be better focused on ensuring the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) was well equipped to support member states in implementing the asylum legislation and helping those under asylum pressure. In the UK’s view the Council conclusions on solidarity adopted earlier this year provided the right blueprint for priorities across the asylum and migration area for the coming year.
There will be a joint Justice and Home Affairs session on Thursday afternoon which will start with a mid-term review of the Stockholm programme. The presidency will present its own assessment of progress under the Stockholm programme, the EU’s five-year Justice and Home Affairs work programme, which was agreed in 2009. The presidency’s paper will be used as a basis for discussion, providing an opportunity to take stock of JHA work completed in the last three years and discuss priorities for work to be taken forward until the end of the programme in 2014. While the Government do not agree with the programme in its entirety, the UK supports stronger action against abuse of free movement rights, closer practical co-operation on migration and asylum, and attaches importance to agreeing the passenger name records directive.
This will be followed by items on the data protection framework. There will be an orientation debate on the regulation and a state of play update provided on the directive. The UK is participating in both these measures having decided not to exercise the opt out under the Schengen protocol in relation to the proposed directive.
The justice day will begin with the presidency aiming to agree a general approach on the proposal for a directive on the confiscation of criminal assets. The confiscation directive will create minimum standards for laws on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime. The UK is still seeking changes to the text, particularly with regard to the non-conviction-based confiscation measure, which creates risks for our domestic civil recovery regime. The UK has not opted in to this directive.
2 Jun 2010 : Column 20WS Council conclusions on the Stockholm programme action plan are on the A points list for agreement without discussion, unless any member state intervenes. The conclusions emphasise that the Stockholm programme sets the agenda, note that there are inconsistencies between the action plan and the programme and urge the Commission to bring forward only those actions that are in full conformity with the programme.  Her Majesty's Government do not support every aspect of the Stockholm programme action plan and while we will support the Council conclusions I will make it clear that this does not imply our backing for the entirety of the Stockholm programme, in particular the idea of a European public prosecutor and a common asylum policy. The UK will consider whether or not to opt in to new legislative proposals resulting from the Stockholm programme on a case-by-case basis. (More of interest on
12 European Defence Agency
European Gendarmerie Force  7 Jan 2008 : Column 93W
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to raise at the European Council with colleagues from member states contributing to the European Gendarmerie Force the prospects for its future deployment; and if he will make a statement. [174807]
Mr. Jim Murphy: The European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) is not an EU proposal or agency. The primary purpose of the EGF is to assist in crisis management operations in post-conflict situations. The UK does not have a Gendarmerie style paramilitary police force and therefore does not participate in the EGF. (My Comment: Are we reassured by that  stahement?)
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with colleagues at the European Council the conditions that will be applied to any use of the European Gendarmerie Force if placed at the disposal of the European Union, in relation to its (a) uniforms and emblems, (b) recruitment, (c) training and (d) weaponry; and if he will make a statement. [174808]
Mr. Jim Murphy: The primary purpose of the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) is to assist in crisis management operations in post-conflict situations. The UK does not have a Gendarmerie style paramilitary police force and therefore does not participate in the EGF.  The EGF is not an EU proposal or agency. While it may be put at the disposal of the EU, it has been established outside of EU structures, and may equally be made available to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the UN, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and other international organisations or an ad hoc coalition. It would be for each respective organisation or coalition and the requesting state to determine which conditions, if any, they thought most appropriate for the requested mission.
In addition, Article 16 of the Treaty Establishing the EGF states:
1. EUROGENDFOR Personnel shall wear their uniform in accordance with their respective national rules. The EGF Commander may establish specific procedures where appropriate.
2. EUROGENDFOR Personnel may possess, carry and transport arms, ammunitions, other weapon systems and explosives on the conditions that they are authorised to do so by their orders and that they do so in accordance with the laws of the Host State and the Receiving State.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to those governments contributing to the European Gendarmerie Force that it should not be deployed on the territory of another member state of the European Union. [174809]
Mr. Jim Murphy: The European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) is not an EU proposal or agency. The primary purpose of the EGF is to assist in crisis management operations in post-conflict situations and it is therefore extremely unlikely to deploy in an EU country. Deployment of the force is a matter between the governments contributing to the EGF and the requesting state in need of assistance. (Question.  Will we always have a NATIONAL Government when or if the EU becomes the one state of European Union
they are aiming for?) The UK does not have a Gendarmerie style paramilitary police force and therefore does not participate in the EGF.
Memorandum submitted by the delegation of the UK Independence Party in the EU-Assembly-separate paper to read. Dated  16 April 2007 but still a good read!
Memorandum submitted by Open Europe
All evidence
Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 128:   14 May 2008 : Column 1104
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—“Deployment of European Gendarmerie Force: parliamentary approval Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68), nothing in this Act or the Treaty of Lisbon shall be taken as requiring the United Kingdom Government to permit the deployment of the European Gendarmerie Force in the United Kingdom without the consent of the United Kingdom Parliament.”  The noble Lord said: We come to three separate amendments, which look further into the future that may arise from the treaty and our membership of the European Union. Amendment No. 128 looks at the EU gendarmerie force. In Amendment No. 129 we look at xenophobia and in Amendment No. 130 we look at the question of the EU having powers over direct taxation.
I fear that some of your Lordships may not be fully au fait with the EU gendarmerie force. What is it? By way of answering that question, I tabled a Written Question on 19 February 2007, in which I asked Her Majesty's Government: “What is the proposed strength of the European Gendarmerie Force; what is its intended purpose; how is it being financed; and how much will it cost”?
The Minister replied:  “The European Gendarmerie Force ... is an initiative of five ... member states (France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain). The UK is not a member of the EGF and therefore does not have detailed information about the force. I understand that the purpose of the EGF is to make available rapidly deployable paramilitary police units able to perform a variety of policing roles, primarily in support of EU crisis management operations. It has a permanent headquarters ... of 30 staff based at the Centre of Excellence for Stability Police Units, in Vicenza, Italy. The HQ consists of a multinational core that can be reinforced as needed by agreement of the contributing states”.—[Official Report, 19/2/07; col. WA 179.]
This is, then, a body set up to deal with EU crisis management operations, and I submit that we must think: what are those likely to be? Friends of mine—in the UK Independence Party and others, in Brussels—tried to find out. They went to Vicenza, where I have to tell your Lordships that they were not all that well received.
Noble Lords: Ha!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps that was not surprising, so, on 4 February this year I tabled another Question, because a rumour was going around that this wonderful new European military police force was going to be deployed in 2012 in this country, at the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Noble Lords: Ha!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Well, one point about the European Union is that whenever we hear of a plan that it appears to be hatching, one always thinks, “That’s so absurd: it couldn’t possibly happen. It wouldn’t dare do that, would it?” We thought that about corpus juris, social policy and many things, yet history has shown that it always dares to do it.  If I may continue, then, without ridicule from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I will reveal to the Committee that on 4 February I asked Her Majesty’s Government:
“Whether the European ... Gendarmerie Force will assist with the 2012 Olympic Games in the United Kingdom; and what role they foresee for this force in the United Kingdom”.
I received an Answer from the Government, in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, which read: “The Government have not received any proposals on the use of non-UK police forces in support of security of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic  Games. We will consider any such proposals carefully”.
In government-speak that, as we all know, means, “We think that it may happen”. His reply continued:  “Policing in the UK is carried out with the consent and co-operation of the community”—but which community? 
Then: “We would not want to interfere with these long-established policing traditions of which we are justly proud”.—[Official Report, 4/2/08; col. WA 157.]
It must be said that the EGF, if I may refer to it as such to spare the Committee my deplorable French, was not validated until 8 October 2007 under the Treaty of Velsen—the same day that the Lisbon treaty   14 May 2008 : Column 1105 was signed, as it turned out. In that treaty, the EGF is allowed to recruit from candidate countries, and I understand that Turkey is particularly interested in joining in.
Can this thing be used here, and are the Government thinking of allowing the EGF in? Of course, it is quite a clever arrangement; I have given the Committee the countries that make it up, and in that sense it resembles the Farnborough agreement to which I referred on defence matters. It is just a few countries, but it can easily be turned into an EU initiative.
19 Jan 2011 : Column 779W  European Gendarmerie Force/
Mr Nuttall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether personnel of the European Gendarmerie Force have been deployed in the UK. [
James Brokenshire: There have been no European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) personnel deployed in the UK and the Government currently sees no circumstances in which it would consent to an EGF operation in the UK.
The EGF is a multinational initiative of six countries (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Romania) aimed at improving crisis management capability in sensitive areas and supporting peacekeeping missions around the world. The UK does not participate in this initiative.
21 Nov 2011 : Column WA187 Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the purpose and latest position of the European Union Gendarmerie Force; how many police are in training, from which countries, and where; and whether they will authorise the use of its services in the United Kingdom.[HL13292] The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley): There have been no European
Gendarmerie Force (EGF) personnel deployed in the UK and the Government currently see no circumstances in which they would consent to an EGF operation in the UK. The EGF is a multinational initiative of six countries (France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Romania) aimed at improving crisis management capability in sensitive areas and supporting peacekeeping missions around the world. The UK does not participate in this initiative. future of EU internal security after 2014: Will the UK remain a major player?
It’s for the UK to decide its future in the EU, also in relation to Europol, but I can show that it would miss something, at least, by no longer being an active part of our agency.  How much that matters in the end is for others to decide. - See more at:
Publication date: Jun 8, 2012 11:54:35 AM 
Start: Jun 8, 2012 12:00:00 AM  End: Jul 8, 2012 12:00:00 AM 
Rob Wainwright, Director of Europol, May 2012 * See more at:

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk