Jack Straw and Tony Blair ‘dishonestly’ concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public, it has been claimed.
The allegation was made after a former Labour adviser said the Government opened up UK borders partly to humiliate Right-wing opponents of immigration.
Andrew Neather, who worked for Mr Straw when he was Home Secretary, and as a speech writer for Mr Blair, claimed a secret Government report in 2000 called for mass immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up forever.
Mr Neather said there was a ‘driving political purpose’ behind Labour’s decision to allow in hundreds of thousands of migrants to plug gaps in the labour market.
He said the stance was foreshadowed by a report by Mr Blair’s Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) think-tank, which said the nation would benefit from more migrants.
Mr Neather claimed that earlier, unpublished versions of the report made clear that one aim was to make Britain more multi-cultural for political reasons.
‘I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date,’ he said.’
‘Say you are a frequent flier and you check in faster than most people. A network of advanced cameras at the airport can measure your speed and alert the control room. The system knows terrorists tend to be nervous and almost never stop for coffee. This makes a speedy traveller a suspicious traveller.
You may also want to think twice about using the airport bathroom more than once. There is a good chance you will be picked out for an extensive security check.
These are some of the things being studied by an EU-funded project for detecting suspicious behaviour, Adabts (Automatic Detection of Abnormal Behaviour and Threats in Crowded Spaces.)’
The document, marked “in strictest confidence” and dated way back to 24 September, shows there is no deal possible, RM plans to go for nothing less than 100% of its demands, imposing cuts “with or without union engagement” and making a “demonstration of resolve through dispute – strikes don’t work.”
Postal bosses shed crocodile tears for the cameras about how the strikes would hurt the public and lose Royal Mail business. The leaked doc showed they’re perfectly happy to let the dispute rip: “demonstration of commercial impact of dispute – strikes make things worse – the more we can demonstrate this to our people the better.”
And when it comes to valuing its workers, the doc states that if the CWU doesn’t agree “a deal on our terms” then a “programme of reducing relationship with union” (ie derecognising it) is on the cards. One tactic is to withdraw agreed facility time for union area reps and fulltime officials, to try to cripple the running of the strike.
Then the real bombshell: if the CWU refuses to agree “we have positioned things in such a way as there is shareholder, customer and internal support for implementation of change without agreement.” Of course the only shareholder is the Labour government! Predictably Royal Mail bosses and Labour have said they know nothing about it.
‘People throughout Europe are rejecting the H1N1 vaccine en mass, despite huge campaigns by their governments to get them to take the shot when it becomes available within the next week.
In Germany uproar continues to grow concerning the fact that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and government ministers, as well as the armed forces there, will receive a special, additive-free H1N1 vaccine.’
‘THE state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland is planning to hand out record bonuses of up to £5m each in a snub to struggling taxpayers. The average employee in its high-risk investment banking arm is likely to take home £240,000, with the top 20 staff in line for payments of between £1m and £5m.
The payouts by the investment banking division — from a total pay and bonus pot of £4 billion — would top the deals awarded at the peak of the financial boom in 2007 and are 66% higher than those paid last year. RBS, then headed by Sir Fred Goodwin, had to be rescued from collapse by the Treasury last October with an initial injection of £20 billion. The taxpayer now has a 70% stake in the bank.’
Spiegel Online is reporting that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and government ministers will receive a special, additive-free H1N1 vaccine. “The Vakzin [vaccine] does not contain disputed additives — contrary to the vaccine for the remainder of the population,” reports the newspaper.
“Critics argue that Adjuvantien [adjuvants in the vaccine] could lead to increased inoculation reactions such as headache or fever.” The German government elite and the armed forces will receive Celvapan, an adjuvant-free vaccine manufactured by Baxter. The German public will receive a vaccine produced by GlaxoSmithKline with adjuvants.
Employees of the Paul Ehrlich Institute will also get the adjuvant-free vaccine. Johannes Löwer, president of the institute, said in August that the vaccine causes worse side effects than the virus. Löwer’s comment came after German lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg said the vaccine increases the risk of cancer. The nutrient solution for the vaccine consists of cancerous cells from animals.
‘Leaders of the centre-right EPP grouping in the European Parliament say there should be compulsory classes for 14-year-olds in all member states. The calls are being led by Mario David, a Portuguese MEP who was chief of staff to European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso when he was the country’s prime minister.
He claimed the controversy surrounding the Lisbon Treaty demonstrated their was widespread ignorance of the EU’s work. “All the debates about the constitution and then the Lisbon Treaty showed a great deal of lying, cheating and mistrust about the EU,” he said.
IRISH ELECTORAL LAW FLOUTED, CANCELLING OUT THE RESULT
BLATANT AMERICAN INTERFERENCE IN IRELAND’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS
ILLEGAL BLUEPRINT FOR THE INTENDED EUROPEAN GESTAPO
NOTORIOUS IRISH EUROPHILE HINTS AT THIS WEBSITE
YES, THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
PLUS: REPEAT OF THE UPDATE APPENDED TO THE REPORT OF 2ND OCTOBER
• BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION MORE EFFICIENT THAN BLITZKRIEG
• SUBVERSION OF EUROPEAN NATIONS, SUBVERSION OF THE UNITED STATES
IRISH ELECTORAL LAW FLOUTED, CANCELLING OUT THE RESULT
Our published information that the Irish Referendum on the dictatorial Lisbon Treaty was rigged, is ACCURATE. However at the time of the Update to the report dated 2nd October (see below) we hadn’t yet obtained details of the WAY the Referendum was rigged and influenced in favour of the treacherous YES lobby. We now have this information.
This is how the Irish were ‘persuaded’ to change their minds:
(1): Ballot boxes may have been stuffed prior to the Referendum polling booths opening.
• Under Irish law, ballot boxes are required to be delivered by members of the garda (police) to the polling stations at 7:00 am on the date the election takes place.
• This legal requirement applies to ALL polling in Ireland, whether elections or referenda.
• On this occasion, however, the ballot boxes were delivered to the private residences of the polling/Returning Officers, 48 hours prior to the Referendum.
• A number of honest Returning Officers formally objected to this BREACH OF PROCEDURE, and to the concomitant prospective breach of security, let alone of the electoral legislation.
• We understand that such objections were officially dismissed out of hand on the spurious and diversionary grounds that the ballot boxes possessed no commercial value, so it would be in nobody’s commercial interest to steal them.
• The central issue – that since the Irish ballot boxes were delivered 48 hours early they could be ‘stuffed’ with YES votes, as routinely happens in places like the former Soviet Republic of Georgia – was of course not addressed.
• It follows that, given that the local electoral law was flouted, THE OUTCOME OF THE IRISH REFERENDUM IS FRAUDULENT AND MUST IMMEDIATELY BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.
• Furthermore, the following questions NEED TO BE ANSWERED IMMEDIATELY:
ONE: What is the total number of registered voters in Ireland?
TWO: How many voters voted in the Referendum?
THREE: Was the total vote tally greater than #One above?
• Any operation to steamroller the Lisbon Treaty (after the Polish and Czech Governments have been bribed by the Germans) will accordingly be FRAUDULENT on this basis alone.
• It will therefore follow that ALL MEASURES taken under the Lisbon Treaty will likewise be illegal – not that this is anything new, as the European Union Collective is itself blatantly illegal, not least because the Treaty of Rome documents were never properly signed (given that several attendees signed blank sheets of paper because their translations were not available at the time of signing).
Video taken at Cork City hall Ireland during Irish Referendum ballot box deliveries to the central ballot count center showing a man removing a ballot box from where they were to be stored to be ready for the referendum count next morning
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Avenue
Thursday 24 September 2009
Dear Mr Justice Clarke
May I enclose for your information a copy of the new edition of the Lisbon Treaty: The Readable Version, the first edition of which I sent you and your Referendum Commission colleagues some time ago. I also enclose a document which describes the main changes the Lisbon Treaty would make.
May I take the opportunity of saying that the current Lisbon referendum, as I presume you have noted, has been characterized by monstrous illegality on the part of several key parties, as follows:-
1. The intervention of the European Commission, which is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;
2. The part-funding of the posters and press advertisements of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and when, under EU law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid direct partisan advocacy. I read that the Green Party has refused such funding from its sister party in the European Parliament on the ground that it is advised that this is illegal under European law (Later comment on this latter point inserted by A.Coughlan: Presumably this scrupulousness is because Green Party Local Government Minister John Gormley, as Minister responsible for running the referendum, cannot afford to have the political party he belongs to flout the law!)
3. The Government’s unlawful use of public funds
in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called ‘assurances’ from the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty - both steps being in breach of the Supreme Court’s 1995 judgement in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public money to seek to procure a particular result in a referendum;
4. The failure of your own Referendum Commission to carry out its statutory function under the 1998 and 2001 Referendum Acts of preparing for citizens a statement or statements ‘containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal (viz. the proposal to amend the Constitution) and of the text thereof in the relevant Bill’, namely the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2009.
May I make some points to you and your Referendum Commission colleagues regarding this.
The Lisbon Treaty-Your Guide which you have circulated to voters makes no attempt to inform them about the proposed Constitutional Amendment, despite that being your prime statutory duty and that of your Referendum Commission colleagues under the Referendum Acts.
The leaflet and other material which you have made available do not tell citizen-voters that the new first sentence of the proposed Amendment we shall be voting on provides that the State ‘confirms its commitment to the European Union’ which would be established by the Lisbon Treaty - a sentence, incidentally, that was not in the Constitutional Amendment in last year’s referendum - and you give voters no idea that this is the case or what such a commitment might entail.
You do not inform voters that the second and third sentences of the proposed Amendment make clear that ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would abolish the European Community which Ireland joined in 1973 and would establish in its place a new European Union on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty which would be constitutionally very different from the European Union that we are currently members of, or what that difference might be.Nowhere in the Referendum Commission’s information material that you have sent to voters do you advert to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty would confer on Irish citizens an ‘additional citizenship of the post-Lisbon European Union, with associated citizens’ rights and duties vis- a -vis that Union, and what the implications of such a change might be.
One would think that there could be few things more constitutionally important for citizens than being endowed with an additional citizenship. Yet you and your Commission say absolutely nothing about it in the ‘information’ material you have circulated - in violation of the provisions of the Act which gives you your authority.
You say nothing about how the rights and duties that we would have as real citizens of the constitutionally new European Union which the Lisbon Treaty would establish would relate to our rights and duties as Irish citizens in the event of any conflicts arising between the two; or how the ‘additional’ citizenship that Lisbon would endow us with differs from our essentially notional and symbolical EU ‘citizenship’ of today.
It is clear that such a dereliction of duty on your part and that of your fellow Commissioners amounts to constitutional delinquency of a high order, as well as being a gross misuse of the e4 million of public money that you have been entrusted with. It will be interesting to see how future historians assess your actions.
As for yourself personally, instead of doing the job which the Referendum Acts impose on you, you have arrogated to yourself the task of answering questions on the Lisbon Treaty on the radio and in the press, in which you give your personal opinions and judgements, whereas all statements by the Commission should be collectively agreed by its members, as the Referendum Acts clearly envisage.
In no way do the Referendum Acts authorise you to do the ’solo runs’ on radio and in the press that you have undertaken. Your predecessor, retired Chief Justice TA Finlay, who was an exemplary chairman of the Referendum Commission between 1998 and 2002, would never have permitted this. Some of the oral statements you have made, moreover, have been either false or misleading. From several examples I could give, I quote two.
A fortnight ago you accepted in response to a question on Morning Ireland that the right of Member State governments to ‘propose’ and decide their National Commissioner would be changed by the Lisbon Treaty into a right to make ’suggestions’ only, effectively for the incoming Commission President to decide - that key person’s appointment being in the gift of the Big States.You added the rider however that you did not think this change was of much consequence. You must be aware from previous private correspondence that I had with the Referendum Commission on behalf of my colleagues in our EU Research and Information Centre that many people on the No-side consider this be a Lisbon Treaty amendment of considerable consequence. One way or another, its consequences are clearly a matter of political judgement which it is not your job as Referendum Commission chairman to make.
Last Friday I heard you state on Morning Ireland that the difference between the ‘additional’ citizenship that we would have of the post-Lisbon European Union and the notional or symbolical ‘complementary’ EU citizenship we are said to have today was ‘of no great consequence’ either, or words to that effect. Yet the most cursory acquaintance with the constitutional changes which the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitutional Amendment to ratify it would bring about, shows that this is just not true. Lisbon is the old Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe after all which the French and Dutch rejected in 2005, even if it implements that Constitution for Europe indirectly rather than directly.
You and your Referendum Commission colleagues still have some time left in which to fulfil your statutory function under the Referendum Acts that set you up. You still have a few days in which to do your duty to the Irish people whom you are profoundly failing at present, as they face their historic decision of next Friday with virtually nothing from you and your Referendum Commission colleagues which might give them
‘the general explanation of the subject matter’ of the Constitutional Amendment ‘and of its text’, on which they will be voting, as the Referendum Act requires.
On behalf of citizens all over the country who are deeply disquieted by the Referendum Commission’s failure to provide information on how the Lisbon Treaty would affect the Consitution, may I appeal to you to do that duty still and to carry out your statutory function under the Referendum Acts. Yours sincerely
President, Foundation for EU Democracy, Brussels
PS. I intend to release this letter to the media this weekend and to circulate it widely to Irish opinion-leaders
The UK has promised an extra $11bn of standby finance for the IMF, which will be used to support countries that are struggling in the face of the economic crisis.
This sum, on top of the initial $15bn pledged in spring could be drawn on within months since the IMF’s original war chest is understood to be close to running dry after it has had to come to the rescue of various countries, including Iceland and Pakistan.
‘Have we really become “We the sheeple,” or are we still human beings? The planet is dying under the thrall of a small minority of men who think of the rest of the human race as “cattle,” livestock for them to buy and sell.The ruling class behaves much like a spoiled child, if they don’t get to have everything their way all of the time, they throw this massive temper tantrum and threaten to upset the whole game.
They have gotten their way in everything for so long that they have fallen under the spell of their own propaganda. They believe that we are sub-human animals, who should be herded into the best outcome possible. But, have the rest of us begun to accept this as well?’
The agenda to eliminate cash is real and it’s coming to a store near you. The perils of a cashless society make the valueless currency system we have now appear a panacea. Already many must pay extra fees in order to pay their bills in cash. The day is not so far off when even going to the store for a soda will be an entirely electronic transaction. There will be no buying and selling permitted that is not electronic.
As things stand today if there is a problem with a person’s credit card/PIN card they can always pay the bill in cash, or can they?
It was my recent experience while travelling in one of my favourite cities that having cash was not enough to buy food at the market of my choice. I came across what looked like quite a nice supermarket on a street I had never ridden my bike down before and decided to buy some food for breakfast the next day. When I entered what I saw was perhaps the nicest selection and quality of food I had ever seen in the city of Amsterdam, excepting one organic open market (only open Saturdays.) I proceeded to do my shopping with great joy, looking forward to sampling the beautiful organic products on sale. Awaiting me at the counter however was a shock, cash is not accepted at this store. I would have to pay for my food electronically if I wanted it. Normally on principle I would not have bought the food but, as I happened to have a credit card with me, (which is rare,) I decided to see for myself if it was really better quality than what I could buy with cash. The sad truth is yes, it was better than much of what is available for cash and is amongst the best food for sale in Holland.
Considering the fact that I have travelled to almost 100 cities in more than 25 countries, on 5 continents the cashier’s contention that the company she worked for was cashless to prevent armed hold-ups is laughable. There were only some 200 incidents of cash theft including snatch and grab as well as hold-ups in the Dutch supermarkets last year. In a country with thousands of supermarkets which cater to a population of over 16 million, that is a very low percentage of armed robbery. I have seen violent places and central Amsterdam is not one of them. This is not the sort of business located in the red light district or even open late. The fact is this business is located in a very affluent area of Amsterdam which I would consider safe at any hour of the day or night.
Under the guise of protecting people, what this cashless rule does very well is keep quality food out of the hands of the poor and the illegal immigrants. It also allows the company, the bank and the government to know just what it is you buy every day.
Supermarkets in the Netherlands planning on eliminating cash transactions by 2014. What happens on the day markets around the world sell only electronically? What happens on that day when your card is declined? How many more rights will people concede for the perception of security? A cashless society does not equal security, it is slavery. Those who control the electronic money will then effectively control every aspect of a person’s physical survival including where a person may live, who eats and who does not. A cashless society will allow those who control the electronic monetary system to decide weather you live or die. At least with the current system when the when the money is devalued to less than the cost of the paper it is printed on you can still use it as tinder.
Electronic money is an even bigger scam than the paper money backed by nothing which we currently have. Say no to having every aspect of your daily life electronically recorded. Say no to a society run on electronic money by refusing to support stores which do not accept cash. Say no by using cash or better yet bartering when and where possible. If we just go along with the new electronic monetary system the consequences will likely be disastrous. The time to choose what sort of economic system you want to live under is today, before the choice is made for you. Act now and make your voice heard.
Instead of the usual footnotes I am listing all the researchers, filmmakers and authors who pointed me in the direction of the information above and not only those whose work would normally be referenced in direct conjunction with the information in this article. These footnotes are not only an acknowledgment of the scholarship of the people listed below but are also a sincere thanks for their contributions towards the education of all humanity.
Max Igan, David Icke, Aaron Russo, Ben Stewart, Anthony J Hilder
Special thanks to my friend Jonathan at KnowTheLies.com, who helped me edit this essay.
The last time the government embarked on a major vaccine campaign against a new swine flu, thousands filed claims contending they suffered side effects from the shots. This time, the government has already taken steps to head that off.
Vaccine makers and federal officials will be immune from lawsuits that result from any new swine flu vaccine, under a document signed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, government health officials said Friday.
Since the 1980s, the government has protected vaccine makers against lawsuits over the use of childhood vaccines. Instead, a federal court handles claims and decides who will be paid from a special fund.
The document signed by Sebelius last month grants immunity to those making a swine flu vaccine, under the provisions of a 2006 law for public health emergencies. It allows for a compensation fund, if needed.
The government takes such steps to encourage drug companies to make vaccines, and it’s worked. Federal officials have contracted with five manufacturers to make a swine flu vaccine. First identified in April, swine flu has so far caused about 263 deaths, according to numbers released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday.
The CDC said more than 40,000 Americans have had confirmed or probable cases, but those are people who sought health care. It’s likely that more than 1 million Americans have been sickened by the flu, many with mild cases.
The virus hits younger people harder that seasonal flu, but so far hasn’t been much more deadly than the strains seen every fall and winter. But health officials believe the virus could mutate to a more dangerous form, or at least contribute to a potentially heavier flu season than usual.
”We do expect there to be an increase in influenza this fall,” with a bump in cases perhaps beginning earlier than normal, said Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.
On Friday, the Food and Drug Administration approved the regular winter flu vaccine, a final step before shipments to clinics and other vaccination sites could begin.
The last time the government faced a new swine flu virus was in 1976. Cases of swine flu in soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J., including one death, made health officials worried they might be facing a deadly pandemic like the one that killed millions around the world in 1918 and 1919.
Federal officials vaccinated 40 million Americans during a national campaign. A pandemic never materialized, but thousands who got the shots filed injury claims, saying they suffered a paralyzing condition called Guillain-Barre Syndrome or other side effects.
”The government paid out quite a bit of money,” said Stephen Sugarman, a law professor who specializes in product liability at the University of California at Berkeley.
Vaccines aren’t as profitable as other drugs for manufacturers, and without protection against lawsuits “they’re saying, ‘Do we need this?’” Sugarman said.
The move to protect makers of a swine flu didn’t go over well with Paul Pennock, a prominent New York plaintiffs attorney on medical liability cases. The government will likely call on millions of Americans to get the vaccinations to prevent the disease from spreading, he noted.
”If you’re going to ask people to do this for the common good, then let’s make sure for the common good that these people will be taken care of if something goes wrong,” Pennock said.