The European Union has insisted that David Cameron hand over £1.7 Billion in what is essentially a prosperity penalty.
Britain must pay at least £1.7 Billion to help with recovery, the EU has announced.
The UK was targeted for the bill, due on 1st December, as a result of the country out-performing other economies in Europe since 1995.
The controversial bill includes retroactive payments that the EU assumes Britain owes them based on the country’s success over the last two decades. It does not include the £680 million that will be taken out of British taxpayers’ pockets to support an estimated increase for next year’s EU budget.
This backdated surcharge highlights how the price-tag for EU membership fluctuates depending on how well an economy is doing, with the more prosperous nations paying the most, all calculated depending on gross national income.
News of this pending payment is likely to add to the growth of groups demanding that Britain quit the EU.
Poorer Nations Get Rewarded
Part of the controversy over Britain’s bill is that it runs parallel to a practice of rewarding poorer nations in the EU block. France is getting handed 790 million for having a poorer and much more stagnant economy over the past year.
The Netherlands, which is scheduled pay 642 million for its own success, has highlighted the problem of rewarding the economies of stagnant nations with cash handouts. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, representing both the Dutch and the British, scheduled an emergency meeting to discuss the payment crisis and how it should be dealt with. His concerns were echoed by Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex. “The EU punishes economic success and rewards profligacy and failure”, he said, adding that “Britain is right to support the world’s poorest countries we shouldn’t be supporting some of the richest.”
Illegal Economic Activities Are Include
Not all the money for this bill is coming out of the mainstay economy. Prostitution and illegal drugs make up about 10 million of the British economy and are being calculated in the EU payout. This has been criticized by Tim Worstall at Forbes Magazine who pointed out that “while it might be appropriate to use the total economy, grey and black portions included, as a measure of the economy for some purposes it simply isn’t for the purpose of working out how much should be coughed up to the EU. Quite simply because, by definition, those extra parts of the economy aren’t paying the tax which is what Brussels wants a cut of.”
£1.7 billion would allow us to hire an extra 60,000 nurses and fund their pensions. It’s more than is raised by the bank levy. It represents an extra £65 a year for every family in the direct payments they make to Brussels – on top of the £525 they are already paying.
I say “direct payments” because we are paying far more indirectly, through higher food bills (to subsidise the Common Agricultural Policy), higher fuel bills (to subsidise the EU’s carbon reduction programmes) and higher VAT bills (to subsidise – well, just to subsidise Brussels functionaries in general).
You’ll be lucky to find an elected representative in Britain prepared to defend the EU on this one. The additional £1.7 billion is being sought because, in essence, the UK economy is outperforming the rest of the EU. Several other countries are affected at the margin – bizarrely, debt-stricken Greece is being surcharged while wealthy Germany is getting a rebate – but no one else is being asked to pay anything like so much. Most of the adjustments are in the tens of millions, though the Netherlands is another big loser, and France and Germany are big winners. But the UK is the outlier: our hike would more than pay for the rebates of all 17 net gainers put together.
Why? Because, frankly, we stayed out of the euro and so – despite Gordon Brown’s best efforts to bankrupt us – we were able to recover more swiftly from the downturn than most of the countries that had surrendered their currencies.
The European Commission has made little effort to raise revenue by fining the Eurozone states that breached the Stability and Growth Pact, and thus contributed to the euro crisis in the first place. On the contrary, most of them are being rewarded while we are punished for having had the effrontery to have called monetary union correctly.
A prosperity surcharge is never a good idea. If you tax successful countries in order to subsidise unsuccessful countries, you end up with fewer successful countries and more unsuccessful ones.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Immigration levels are more than twice what David Cameron projected for the last year.
According to an official report released Thursday, immigration into Britain increased by 27% last year.
In fact, net immigration is currently twice Mr Cameron’s target goal of reducing immigration to “tens of thousands.” The results show that a net total of 201,000 EU citizens immigrated to the UK, as compared to the 158,000 immigrants last year.
The already strained relationship between the EU and Britain has been further weakened by these findings, with many people believing that immigration policy will not changeunless Britain secedes from the EU.
In 2013, a total of 526,000 people moved to the UK and 314,000 left, which resulted in the net figure of 212,000 immigrants. This is an increase from the 177,000 immigrants in 2012.
The ONS report further shows that the total number of people coming into the UK increased 5%, with 43,000 more EU citizens and 11,000 fewer non-EU citizens arriving. According to the Office for National Statistics, 125,000 of those immigrants came to find work, up from 95,000 in 2012.
In an Express report, Alan Murad, Deputy Campaign Manager of ‘Get Britain Out’ warned:
‘These figures demonstrate that while we remain in the EU we are completely powerless to control immigration to Britain. Unless Britain leave the EU the Government will continue to have no say on the hundreds of thousands of migrants entering the UK from EU countries every year. This is putting enormous pressure on our public services, presents a real threat to British jobs and is a major risk to our economic recovery.’
UKIP leader Nigel Farage condemnedDavid Cameron for “breaking a solemn promise to the British people to get net annual immigration down to the tens of thousands.” Mr. Farage further commented on immigration, which he called “one of the most important political issues,” saying that Mr Cameron “refuses to take back control of our borders in respect of more than 400 million people from more than two dozen countries on continental Europe.”
Mr Cameron recently “launched a full-blown attack” against Farage, saying that Farage is essentially an elite citizen who seeks to “‘destroy the Conservative party.'”
In addition to the changes mentioned above, there was a 150 percent increase in people coming from Romania and Bulgaria into the UK, even before work restrictions were lifted in January. The numbers increased from just 9,000 in 2012 to 23,000 in 2013. Approximately 70 percent of these immigrants came to find work.
Other increases came from countries like Poland (from 11,000 to 102,000), Italy (from 9,000 to 42,000), and Bulgaria (from 7,000 to 18,000).
Chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Keith Vaz said: “Controlling EU migration is impossible without reform. It is clear that the Government’s aim is unrealistic and unachievable. The Government should drop its target now.”
Interestingly, reports in The Telegraph and BBC News UK say that net migration remains unchanged at 212,000 per quarter, although that number is still twice that of the Government’s target of less than 100,000 immigrants a year.
However, later on in the BBC News article, the reporter mentions the same figures as the other articles: 201,000 EU citizens migrated to the UK as long-term citizens, a statistical increase of 43,000 over the previous year. How does net migration remain the same if it increased by 43,000 people? Apparently the “movements of other categories of people” cancelled this effect, causing the net migration numbers to remain unchanged.
Mr Cameron is now drawing up new immigration laws to counteract UKIP and ameliorate anger over this rise in EU immigrants moving to Britain.
Not even David Cameron can reduce the number of immigrants to Britain, as long as immigration laws in the EU remain unchanged.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
It is coming to something when the Russian Foreign Minister is more believable than your own.
Four days ago, The Rt Hon William Hague, talking about the unrest in Eastern Ukraine, said, ‘There can’t really be any real doubt that this is something that has been planned and brought about by Russia. … violation of the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine … There has to be a clear and united international response.’
Back in March, President Obama said ‘Make no mistake, neither the United States nor Europe has any interest in controlling Ukraine.’ (Was that before or after US officals were overheard discussing who they wanted to install as Ukrainian president?) That video is admittedly published by Russia Today but those are his words.
In contrast, the Russian Foreign Minister has denied that Russia has stoked up the problems. And the truth is, Russia did neither fund nor organise the pro-EU demonstrations and take-over of government in Kiev, ousting pro-Russian President Yanakovich in the process, which started the Ukraine crisis in the first place.
We have already reported how Western NGO’s financed the ‘Maidan Square’ protest movement. But Christian Voice has discovered that millions of dollars have been pouring into Ukrainian NGO’s and ‘civil society’ organisations for the last couple of years. Principal donors include the Open Society Foundation and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.
The Foundation Centre lists over $18 million of grants by US NGO’s to Ukrainian ‘civil society’ recipients. The breakdown can be seen by clicking on each recipient. To take one example, the Open Society Foundation for Ukraine – directly fingered in the pro-EU rioting – received over $535,000 jointly from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy. The Civil Society Institute, an EU sock-puppet, got $450,00 dollars. An Open Society front organisation, the Ukrainian Step by Step Foundation, was given $1,527,000. An organisation called Ednannia was given the most money, $1,550,000.
One grant of $250,000 from Mott to Ednannia was ‘to foster the development of community foundations in Ukraine.’ Indeed, one can read the whole grant profile (three-quarters of the way down this page) and be none the wiser what Ednannia actually do, apart from ‘social action’. The Mott Foundation’s own website says it especially likes ‘the development of community foundations’
What are those? Well, a click on the link reveals that they are ‘Rooted Locally, Growing Globally’ and are favoured for being ‘local leaders of positive change’. Call us cynical, but if positive change involves taking up arms, storming government buildings, ousting elected governments and trying to join the European Union by force, then it looks less than desirable.
Even Chatham House, an elitist body itself, admits that NGO’s in countries like Ukraine are funded entirely from the Western elite and almost entirely disconnected from ordinary people. Pretending to be ‘democratic’, they could not be less empowered with any semblance of a popular mandate.
William Hague said on Monday that the EU summit would focus on “how we support democratic institutions and the elections in Ukraine”. The EU’s idea of doing that is apparently funding exactly those NGO’s Chatham House identifies as the least democratic and overturning elected officials in sovereign states by force. It was Orwellian newspeak from Mr Hague.
The Bible says: Exodus 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
How many of members of the British Establishment would pass that test? Would William Hague?
What a sorry state we are in, when HM Foreign Secretary is the least believable man in Britain.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The Royal Air Force is practising attacking raids as the Ukraine crisis deepens.
Training flights were conducted yesterday across Wales, flying over the Christian Voice office in Carmarthenshire.
The aircraft, which flew at low level over the rolling Welsh hills, were most likely to have been Hawk fighter jets, based at RAF Valley on Anglesey and used by the RAF for twin-seat training.
Similar exercises were carried out before the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan began.
The practice runs come as Ukrainian armed forces have been trying, without success, to retake cities in Eastern Ukraine held by pro-Russian demonstrators.
Three people are reported to have been killed, but their has been no condemnation of Ukraine for ‘firing on its own people’ from either the Rt Hon William Hague MP, Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or US Secretary of State John Kerry.
Meanwhile, the United States is talking about sending ‘non-lethal’ equipment to Kiev, and the European Union is beefing up its armed forces in the Baltic States and Poland.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato Secretary General, said the alliance would be providing “more planes in the air, more ships on the water, and more readiness on land”.
What these would be used for, apart from taking on Russian forces in what could easily become a Third World War, is not very clear.
We join Nigel Farage and John Redwood in calling for Britain to leave the EU
and we are with The Daily Express as it urges Britain to stay out of the Ukrainian conflict.
We need to remember that the problems in Ukraine started when pro-EU NGO’s including the ‘Open Society’ of George Soros, financed trouble-makers in Kiev who took over government buildings when the elected President decided to align the country with Russia rather than with the EU.
Charitably, these actions may be regarded as stupid, and bound to lead to the copycat actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine which came to pass. Uncharitably, Messrs Soros et al foresaw all the Eastern Ukraine trouble in advance and want to start a full-scale war, from which they could benefit financially. (Take what you will from that last link!)
Either way, the Ukrainian conflict is one which Britain must not play any part in. William Hague will never admit that it was pro-EU agitation which started the Ukraine crisis, but at the very least HMG could end the self-defeating sanctions against Russian figures, and stop sabre-rattling.
Email your MP and demand that the UK keeps right out of Ukraine.
Stop Press: The above article was written 17th April 2014.
23rd April 2014: ‘Four RAF Typhoon fighters will next week join Nato warplanes from Poland and Denmark in the Baltic states’. Daily Telegraph
Christian Voice: We have the news before it happens!
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Sock Puppets: The Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum
The 2014 secession vote in Crimea is derided as ‘illegal’ by all but two of the UN Security Council. Now further information has surfaced about European and American funding of the Ukrainian pro-EU ‘Maidan Square’ movement. It was intended to weaken Russian influence. Those behind the unrest will not care it has cost so many lives.
The Policy Association for an Open Society (PASOS) is heavily-EU-slanted. Its website carried an article dated 13th December 2013 deriding the Ukrainian authorities under then President Viktor Yanukovych for identifying certain Western groups as its ‘enemies’. The groups included ‘ three members of the PASOS network of think tanks.’ Imagine that.
‘The memo also targets Europe Without Borders, a Ukrainian NGO which partnered with PASOS on a program to encourage the European Union to remove visa requirements for the Eastern Partnership countries, including Ukraine.’
What a give-away. The ‘Eastern Partnership countries’ is a term coined by Euro-expansionists five years ago. It refers to countries from the former Soviet Union on the EU’s eastern fringe. These include Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. However, the ‘Eastern Partnership’ is now regarded by John Lloyd of Reuters (worth a read) as being in retreat. Nevertheless, the visa proposal from PASOS would have allowed nationals of these states unfettered access to the EU and its labour markets.
George Soros financed Maidan Square activists
PASOS goes on to report without denial the Ukrainian Government memo’s identification of another six US groups financing the Maidan Square activists. In addition, the Soros Open Society offshoot the International Renaissance Fund was fingered:
‘The website published images of the memo, which it said was leaked by a member of the party. According to the report, the Party of Regions blames the current EuroMaidan protests in Ukraine on American donors who have funded pro-democracy programs in Ukraine, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the United States Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of State, the Peace Corps, Freedom House and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.
‘In addition, the memo also blames the eruption of protests on the European Union. The International Renaissance Fund, a Ukrainian NGO founded by George Soros, is likewise identified as an enemy of the party.’
Democratic Principles?
Says PASOS: ‘News of the memo drew a sharp rebuke from PASOS Executive Director Jeff Lovitt.
‘“Our members are not dangerous to anyone who defends democratic principles and the free exchange of ideas,” Lovitt said. “What is dangerous is a political party identifying independent pro-democracy groups as enemies.”’
Calling a bunch of thugs who stormed government offices and removed a democratically-elected president by violent street protests ‘pro-democracy’ beggars belief. So does the use of the expression to refer to unashamed interference and destabilisation of a sovereign state by US NGO’s. Welcome to the world of the Eurocracy. The EU and the US can interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. But woe betide Russia when it defends it interests.
The EU expanding its empire
Jeff Lovitt is also Co-Chair of yet another Pro-EU expansionist body. This is the well-funded ‘Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum.’ This group boasted:
‘Many participants of the EaP Civil Society Forum have been active in various sectors of Euromaidan movement. Several examples below are just a tip of the iceberg of the civic activities that our colleagues from Ukraine have been involved in.’
It then listed a number of groups which helped destabilise Ukraine. These included ‘Euromaidan Council’ and ‘Maidan SOS’. Even the name ‘Euromaidan’ betrays the origin of the driving force.
An Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum webpage lists its Steering Committee. This had the strange give-away picture of what appear to be sock puppets at the top of this page. The picture has now been removed.
‘The Forum was created as part of a European Commission effort “to support the further development of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)” and “to promote contacts among CSOs and facilitate their dialogue with public authorities.”’
Moreover, who funds PASOS, the Policy Association for an Open Society? Any guesses? Does the expression ‘… Open Society’ in its title give any clues?
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Members of the European Parliament are considering setting up a website aimed at presenting children with a “playful” presentation of the EU.
The plan, which would seek to instil in children positive feelings about the EU, was highlighted by the Express today. The paper condemned the project as ‘sinister Soviet-style propaganda.’
EU institutions already spend over £2billion a year on ‘communications’ in a desperate bid to improve their failing public image.
The same paper warned in another article today that “knowing the mindset of the European Union, with its passion for control, for expanding its remit, for trampling on national sensibilities in pursuance of its dream of a superstate, one can guess which way a proposed website for children will lean.”
When asked about these plans to target children, UK Independence Party deputy leader and MEP, Paul Nuttall, said, “Our children need to be protected from this type of political propaganda because they are vulnerable and easily manipulated. Of course, that is the reason they are being cynically targeted by the European Parliament.”
He added “We have seen a profusion of cartoons, comics, schoolbooks and videos from the EU which are aimed at our children and are obvious propaganda.
“People should be aware of this and prevent this stuff coming into their homes and their children’s school. Political propaganda on vulnerable kids is a form of child abuse.”
This is not the first time the EU has targeted children in an attempt to preserve its declining public image.
We warned last year about EU attempts to indoctrinate school children after EU official, Judith Schilling, said, “everybody has now picked up the idea that we will never succeed in convincing people about the value of being a member of the European Union if we do not start early enough with the young people, before they form prejudices and are misinformed by other sources.”
Meanwhile, the issue of EU membership is becoming so contentious that it could split the Tory party. It emerged yesterday that Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister and a Europhile, is saying that giving the people of Britain an ‘In-out’ referendum would be “madness” even though the Lib Dem general election manifesto had promised an in-or-out EU referendum. (See picture below.)
An EU report due to be voted through the EU Parliament later this year, they say, would see all marriages and civil contracts conducted in any EU country become legally binding in all other member states. Under the Berlinguer Report, a couple who are not permitted to marry in their home country could travel to another member state in order to wed, knowing that on their return home they would have to be regarded as married.
Paragraph 40 of the Report would mean that any member state would have to grant ‘all social benefits and other legal effects’ such as legal recognition, tax breaks and benefit entitlements to a married couple, even if such a marriage did not exist in their own legal system.
Mr Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, said: “Now we know why David Cameron has launched this highly contentious and disruptive legislation, apparently out of the blue.
“If a couple were to marry in Belgium, Spain, Portugal or Sweden where same-sex marriage is possible, the EU will say that they have to be given the same legal rights in whichever member state they then chose to live – even if that state itself opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage. In essence the Berlinguer Report seeks to establish an EU-wide right to same-sex marriage.
“It’s no surprise that the Prime Minister has kept quiet about this, even at the expense of cohesion in his own party. He has a hard enough time trying to force his own backbenchers to swallow both his dedication to keeping Britain in the EU and his wish for the state to interfere in the definition of marriage. To suggest that the two issues are in fact interconnected would have caused complete uproar.”
However, according to one website, the Berlinguer Report has already been voted on by the European Parliament, in November 2010, and has no legislative status. It is still part of the continuing libertarian process, of course. However, another document, a two-and-a-half-page ‘roadmap,’ will be adopted in November 2013. In dry language it speaks of ‘the importance of facilitating mutual recognition of civil status’ across the EU. It is this document, itself building on the Berlinguer Report, which will lead to a legislative initiative from the EU Commission, the seat of power. If David Cameron has already redefined marriage by that time, he will no doubt be all for other states recognising Britain’s sham ‘gay marriages’.
Christian Voice views the European Union as a godless, corrupt, pretentious, expensive, bureaucratic, oligarchic expression of Antichrist. But it has tried to end the misery of bent cucumber phobia, a dibillatating disorder which affects dozens of people every year…
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
David Cameron. Counting votes, or mis-counting the public sector defecit?
David Cameron has taken a gamble with his EU referendum promise but today stands accused of lying on the extent of the public debt.
The Prime Minister yesterday said he would seek to renegotiate the United Kingdom’s position in the European Union and put the results to the people with an ‘In with revised terms’ or ‘Out’ question by 2017 – assuming he is re-elected.
However, in answer to a question from the BBC’s Nick Robinson, Mr Cameron was somewhat hazy on what would happen if his re-negotiations did not reach his aspirations. Indeed, no-one knows what criteria he has set down by which to measure success.
Christian Voice believes Britain’s membership of the EU to be incompatible with her majesty’s coronation oath and the UK’s consequent constitutional position as a nation under Almighty God in Jesus Christ. We also see the EU as expensive, meddling, bureaucratic, oligarchical, corrupt, inefficient and pretentious. So we shall watch the political debate with interest.
Following Mr Cameron’s speech, the Conservative Party ran a party political broadcast last night in which Mr Cameron said: ‘So though this government has had to make some difficult decisions, we are making progress. We’re paying down Britain’s debts.’
‘David Cameron’s policy is to increase Britain’s debt by 60 per cent, more than any European country. To increase it more over five years than Labour did over 13 years. Just yesterday, we learned the national debt had hit £1,111 billion and it’s heading to £1,400 billion.
‘By no stretch of the English language can this be described as “paying down Britain’s debts.” What Cameron said is not an exaggeration. It’s a straight falsehood, and one that demeans his office. He has previously used different language, saying that he is “dealing with the debt”.’
Mr Nelson says that people interviewed for the broadcast were asked to guess ‘how much the deficit is going down by’. He says: ‘They guess low figures – 2 per cent, etc – and are then told that it’s actually 25 per cent. Then they say how impressed they are with the Tories. Have you spotted the trick? No normal person knows what “deficit” means, nor should they.’
‘Public sector current budget deficit was £15.8 billion in November 2012; this is a £1.0 billion higher deficit than in November 2011, when there was a deficit of £14.8 billion.’
Figures like that do not seem to imply a 25% reduction.
The Public Sector Finances for the end of December 2012 were released by the ONS two days ago (22/01/2012). They reveal that Government borrowing under the Coalition is rising year-on-year by every indicator:
• Public sector net borrowing was £15.4 billion in December 2012; this is £0.6 billion higher net borrowing than in December 2011, when net borrowing was £14.8 billion.
• Public sector current budget deficit was £13.0 billion in December 2012; this is a £0.5 billion higher deficit than in December 2011, when there was a deficit of £12.5 billion.
• For the period April to December 2012, public sector net borrowing (excluding the capital payment recorded as part of the Royal Mail Pension Plan transfer in April 2012) was £106.5 billion; this is £7.2 billion higher net borrowing than in the same period the previous year, when net borrowing was £99.3 billion.
In Tables 1 & 2, the ONS show that Public Sector Net Debt (PSND ex) has not decreased, as Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg appear to be claiming, but has risen in the financial year to date from £1,010 billion at 31st December 2011 to £1,111 billion at 31st December 2012, as Mr Nelson said. That is an increase of 10.1%, up from 66% to 71% of Gross Domestic Product.
Borrowing one’s way out of a recession is Keynsian economics, named after the promiscuous homosexual economist John Maynard Keynes. We know that government debt is paid back by our children and grandchildren. No such considerations bothered Keynes. ‘In the long run we are dead’, he said.
In contrast, financial security is said in Deuteronomy to be a blessing from God to an obedient nation:
Deut 15:5 Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day.
Deut 15:6 For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.
The United Kingdom is both borrowing from other nations and international bankers and allowing other nations to rule over us.
Moses was told to appoint ‘able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness’ as rulers (Exod 18:21). If Her Majesty the Queen followed that principle, the available pool of ministers would, on present evidence, decrease sharply.
Post script. In contrast to Government profligacy, households are making considerable headway clearing their debts, with the amount owed on personal loans dropping to its lowest level in 14 years, according to a report from the Britiah Bankers Association.
The total balance owed by consumers on all personal loans fell to £34.5billion in December, the lowest figure seen since August 1999 and almost half its pre-financial crisis peak. See: thisismoney.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Education Secretary, Michael Grove, condemned the decision as “indefensible.”
A Yorkshire council today admitted it made a mistake in removing children from foster parents because the couple were members of the UK Independence Party. (Read the Times article about it here.)
The children, a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, were removed from the foster couple by the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in South Yorkshire following allegations from social workers that the parents’ political affiliation was at odds with the children’s European backgrounds. (The Ukip party favours Britain’s complete withdrawal from the EU.)
The social worker in the case alleged that UKIP is a racist party and that the children’s “cultural and ethnic needs” might be compromised by the foster parents. However, the council admitted that the South Yorkshire couple, a qualified nursery nurse and a former Royal Navy reservist, were good foster parents and provided proper care to the children.
The children had been with the foster parents for about eight weeks. During this time they were encouraged to share their own folk songs and speak their native language, which the foster parents were attempting to learn.
The Council’s admission of error occurred after Education Secretary, Michael Gove, condemned the decision as “indefensible” last weekend, leading to an investigation of the Council’s behaviour.
In a statement earlier today, council leader Roger Stone commented that “Membership of UKIP should not bar someone from fostering. The council places the highest priority on safeguarding children, and our overriding concern in all decisions about the children in our care is for their best interests.”
Labour leader, Ed Miliband also criticized the Council’s totalitarian actions. He was joined by Michael Grove, who heads the Government department responsible for children’s services. Mr Grove promised to investigate what happened and to “deal with” the situation. He commented that
“Rotherham’s reasons for denying this family the chance to foster are indefensible. The ideology behind their decision is actively harmful to children. We should not allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families…. Any council which decides that supporting a mainstream UK political party disbars an individual from looking after children in care is sending a dreadful signal that will only decrease the number of loving homes available to children in need.”
The couple have still not received the children back, nor have they been given a public apology. The wife told The Daily Telegraph: “We feel that we have personally been slandered and we would like a public apology from Rotherham. We would also like something in the form of a letter stating that they have got it wrong in this case and that it will not be on our records that we have had children removed from our care.We just want a clean slate.”
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that social workers and local councils have used their power as leverage over parents whose views are not politically correct. Last June we reported on the story of Toni McLeod, who has taken up residence in Ireland to try to escape the tentacles of Durham County Council. Durham council is attempting to gain custody of Mrs. McLeod’s baby because of her allegedly anti-Muslim views.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Dr Charles Reed, described as the Church of England’s Foreign Policy Advisor, has sent out an email distancing the Archbishops from the comments in the submission. They did not make the remarks personally, he said. The submission, says Dr Reed, was prepared by the ‘Europe Bishops’ Panel’. It was then submitted by the ‘Mission and Public Affairs Council’, which is a sub committee of the Archbishops’ Council, direct to the Select Committee. In a subsequent email, Dr Reed clarified that neither Archbishop approved the submission, and he is ‘not aware that either (of the) Archbishops saw the submission’ before it went out in their name.
On his blog, modestly entitled ‘ethical comment’, Dr Reed is rather more bullish about the submission. He says he was encouraged by the opposition it drew in the pages of Eurosceptic publications. He writes:
The first of Dr Reed’s sensible comments was the submission’s second paragraph in which he cast the UK as unequivocally ‘without credibility’ and ‘unreliable’ for exercising a veto last December 2011:
‘At the December 2011 European Council, the United Kingdom found itself not only without allies, but without credibility as a negotiating partner as it opposed measures which were intended to achieve broad policy goals which are fully in line with UK national interest. This exposed the domestic constraints on the British government and left its partners with the impression that it was an unreliable partner. An opportunity to show solidarity with partners was missed. The UK must work to rebuild trust with its EU partners.’
The report set out ‘aims for work at all levels of the Church in the Europe of the new century’ among which were:
‘to work locally, nationally and internationally with other churches to ensure the most effective presentation of the Gospel, to join in debate and action for the future of Europe, the harmony and values of its people, and the building of peace and social justice in this continent and beyond’;
There was ‘particular emphasis upon sustainable development and tackling world poverty.’
The two leading lights of the Europe Bishops’ Panel emerged as the Rt Revd Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St Albans, and the Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher Hill. The latter was also the Chair of the Council for Christian Unity, the CofE’s ecumenical body, at the time of writing. The Panel appointed a secretary to give voice to their views. That secretary was Dr Charles Reed. This is what Dr Reed says about European policy on his blog:
‘For the Church the primary purpose of politics – even European politics – is the promotion of human flourishing and the conditions that are necessary to make this happen. On the whole the Church has over the years held that while it has reservations over certain characteristics of European integration – its democratic deficit etc – our propensity as humans created in the image of God to be creative, productive and responsible and generous beings is enhanced by pooling certain elements of national sovereignty in a common European project.’
So far so pan-European. According to its terms of reference, ‘The Panel is committed both to promoting and shaping an open and transparent Europe close to its citizens and to monitoring the EU institutions in so far as they affect Church life and practice.’
This mandate is interpreted freely. In 2008 the Europe Bishops’ Panel complained to the European Commission that ‘the EU Budget fails to provide sufficiently for the European common good.’ It went on: ‘Faced by the global challenge of climate change, the EU budget should be refocused in support of low carbon growth both within the EU’s border and beyond.’
Also in 2008, the Europe Bishops’ Panel appointed the first Church of England Representative to the European Union, the Revd Dr Gary Wilton. The Panel, at the hand of its secretary, Dr Reed, also sent a submission to a European Union Committee on climate change. Like the submission to the Commons Select Committee, it was sent under the name of the Archbishops’ Council.
Describing the EU Emissions Trading Scheme as ‘the jewel in the crown of the EU’s climate change programme’ the submission argued for more carbon trading and the ‘innovation necessary to achieve a low carbon and sustainable economy’ before going on to discuss which industries and sectors of the economy should be in the scheme and which should not, all from very practical points of view. Climate sceptics will not be impressed.
The submission is on the website of the Climate Justice Fund, a joint Tear Fund and Church of England enterprise set up in September 2009 following a General Synod resolution passed in 2008. The Fund is setting up projects to help African communities adapt to drought, and campaigning on climate change. The man in charge of it is Dr Charles Reed, now described on its website as the ‘International Development Secretary for the Archbishops’ Council’.
There may not be any reliance placed on scripture in reports from the Europe Bishops’ Panel, but they refer ‘to the integrity of God’s creation, the vocation of humanity to actively steward and care for creation, and the awareness that climate change is already impacting disproportionately on many of the world’s poorest communities.’
In 2010, this time in the name of the Archbishops’ Council, the House of Bishops’ Europe Panel (which appears to be the same thing as the Europe Bishops’ Panel) sent a submission to the European Commission on ‘EU 2020: a new strategy to make the EU a smarter, greener social market.’ They complained that the EU strategy was too materialistic. ‘The EU 2020 vision would be made easier if the vision for an economically efficient and innovative market economy is (sic) supplemented more clearly by policies for solidarity that extend across national borders to assist the most disadvantaged’, it said.
Dr Charles Reed describes himself as the Church of England’s Foreign Policy Advisor and as the International Development Secretary for the Archbishops’ Council. He is referred to in the Church of England’s Seven-Year Plan on Climate Change and the Environment as the Church’s International Policy Advisor, and elsewhere as being from the Church’s Mission and Public Affairs Council, which is a division of the Archbishops’ Council.
Dr Reed is a House of Lords staff member for the Bishop of Wakefield, where he becomes the Archbishops’ Council’s Parliamentary Adviser on Foreign Affairs. He is the Secretary of the Europe Bishops’ Panel, he writes their submissions, and via them, he establishes the position of the Archbishops’ Council, which the Archbishops themselves do not approve, and may not even see. Dr Reed also represents the Church of England on the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches.
Dr Charles Reed is in all but name the Church of England’s Foreign Secretary, but hardly anyone knows of him. He keeps in the background and lets others take the glory – or the blame – for what he writes. There will be different opinions on the various positions he brings the church to adopt, but no-one can doubt that Dr Reed wields considerable power and influence in our national church.
Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
The ‘gay’ lobby is not the only group that has fixated on school children. A report in the Express last week showed how the Brussels’ propaganda machine is introducing resources designed to teach children about the benefits of the EU.
A film was taken at an Education Show in Birmingham in which Judith Schilling was interviewed about her display of resources from the European Commission.
In the film Mrs. Schilling commented, “…everybody has now picked up the idea that we will never succeed in convincing people about the value of being a member of the European Union if we do not start early enough with the young people, before they form prejudices and are misinformed by other sources.”
The free literature for teachers included a resource titled, “The EU: What’s in it for me?” explaining “how we benefit from membership of the EU in our daily life, everything between lower roaming charges and cleaner bathing water.”
Robin Phillips, press secretary for Christian Voice, commented, “The EU is getting desperate because they know that the majority of people in Britain, as well as many of the other states, are not in favour of continuing EU membership. Thus, the EU’s only hope is to try to raise up a new generation that accept the European Union as not only normal but beneficial. To do that, however, they have to start when the children are very young.”
The Queen held a state banquet of halal food for the President of Turkey on 22nd November at which she assured him that HM Government would help Turkey join the European Union.
(1) Where and how and by whom were the animals slaughtered and cooked and which Muslim certifying authority approved it?
(2) Since when did it become HM Gvt policy to campaign for Turkey to join the EU? Actually, the answer to this is since at least 2007, when David Milliband visited Turkey. But it does not hurt to ask.
(3) Did no Christian on the guest list object to eating food sacrificed to an idol?
WRITE to Her Majesty at the following address:
Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
Or telephone during working hours: (+44) (0)20 7930 4832.
Letters begin ‘May it please Your Majesty.’
They end ‘I have the honour to be Your Majesty’s obedient servant,’ followed by your name.
So who ate the Queen’s Halal nosh? Unless he went for the vegetarian option, the Archbishop of Canterbury was among those who feasted on food sacrificed to the idol ‘Allah’ at the Queen’s table. When the Queen or the Archbishop are guests of the President of Turkey (as HM was in 2008 on her state visit) do their hosts serve up and sit down to meat slaughtered in the British way, ie stunned and with no incantations to their god, in deference to the sensibilities of their honoured guests? No, because the Turks take their religion seriously.
From the Court Circular:
‘The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh gave a State Banquet in honour of The President of the Republic of Turkey and Mrs. Gül at which The Prince of Wales, The Earl of Wessex, The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent, and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were present.
‘The following had the honour of being invited:
‘Suite of The President of the Republic of Turkey and Mrs. Gül:
‘Mr. Ali Babacan (Deputy Prime Minister) and Mrs. Babacan, Mr. Ahmet Davutoglu (Minister of Foreign Affairs) and Mrs. Davutoglu, General Hulusi Akar (Deputy Chief of the General Staff) and Mrs. Akar, His Excellency Mr. Ünal Çeviköz (Ambassador from the Republic of Turkey) and Mrs. Çeviköz, Ambassador Naci Koru (Deputy Under-Secretary for Administrative and Financial Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Ambassador Koray Ertas (Chief of Cabinet to The President), and Ambassador M. Ferden Çarikçi (Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to The President).
‘Turkish Presidency Invitations:
‘Ms. Nursuna Memecan MP, Ms Ç. Münevver Ökten MP, Mr. Seyit Sertçelík MP, Mr. Aytug Atici MP, Mr. Tugrul Türkes MP, Mr. Mehmet Emre Gül, Mr. Murat Belge (Author and Academic), Dr. Nazan Ölçer (Art Historian, General Manager Sakip Sabanci Museum), Mr. Sedat Ergin (Columnist, Hürriyet Daily Newspaper), Mr. Erdal Safak (Editor in Chief, Sabah Daily Newspaper), Mr. Derya Sazak (Columnist, Millyet Daily Newspaper), Mr. Hakan Çelik (Editor in Chief, Posta Daily Newspaper), Mr. Rifat Hisarciklioglu (Chairman, Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey), Mr. Remzi Gür (Chairman, Gurmen Group), Mr. Ferit Sahenk (Chairman of the Board of Directors, Dogus Holding Company), Mr. Mehmet Ali Yalçindag (President of the Executive Board of Directors, Dogan Media Holding Company), Mr. Hamdi Akin (Chairman of the Executive Board, Akfen Holding Company), Mr. Mustafa Çikrikçioglu (Deputy Chairman, Turkish Union of Exporters), and Mr. Ali Kibar (Chief Executive Officer, Kibar Holding Company).
‘Specially attached to The President of the Republic of Turkey and Mrs. Gül:
‘The Hon. Mrs. Whitehead (Lady in Waiting), the Viscount Hood (Lord in Waiting) and the Viscountess Hood, Mr. David Reddaway (Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey) and Mrs. Reddaway, and Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rex (Equerry in Waiting).
‘Diplomatic Corps:
‘His Excellency the Ambassador of the State of Kuwait and Mrs. Al-Duwaisan, Her Excellency the Ambassador of the Republic of Poland (Ms. Barbara Tuge-Erecinska), Her Excellency the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Mrs. Jadranka Negodic), His Excellency the Ambassador of the Hellenic Republic and Mrs. Ekaterini Simopoulou.
‘The Cabinet and Government:
‘The Prime Minister and Mrs. Cameron, the Leader of the House of Lords and the Lady Strathclyde, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Mrs. Hague, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Mr. Philip May, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Mrs. Cable, the Secretary of State for Defence and Mrs. Hammond, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Hon. Mrs. Osborne.
‘Special Invitations:
‘The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Speaker (the Baroness D’Souza), the Earl Marshal (the Duke of Norfolk), the Lord and Lady Sharman, the Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, the Lord Chief Justice and the Lady Judge, the Baroness Hussein-Ece, the Rt. Hon. the Lord Mayor of London and the Lady Mayoress, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw MP and Ms. Alice Perkins, the Rt. Hon. Harriet Harman MP, Sir Augustine and Lady O’Donnell, General Sir Nicholas and Lady Houghton, Sir Mervyn and Lady King, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen and Lady Dalton, Sir Peter and Lady Westmacott, Sir Julian and Lady Horn-Smith, Sir Jonathan and Lady Cunliffe, Sir Vernon Ellis, the Lord Mayor of Westminster (Councillor Susie Burbridge) and Mr. James Burbridge, Mr. and Mrs. Simon Fraser, Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Baird, Major General and Mrs. George Norton, Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Flint, Mr. Rahmi Koç, Mr. and Mrs. Ragip Balcioglu, Mr. and Mrs. Philip Dilley, Professor and Mrs. Mustafa Djamgoz, Dr. Kate Fleet, Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan Grun, Dr. and Mrs Franz Humer, Mr. and Mrs. Gerard Kleisterlee, Dr. Andrew Mango and Mrs. Benedict Mango, Mr. and Mrs. John Nelson, Mr. and Mrs. Dick Olver, Mr. Richard Ottaway MP and Mrs. Ottaway, Mr. and Mrs. Hüseyin Ozer, Mr. and Mrs. Stuart Popham, Ms. Suzan Sabanci Dinçer, Ms Elif Shafak and Mr. Eyup Can Saglik, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Swannell.’
Then the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagonand set it by Dagon. And when the people of Ashdod arose early in the morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. So they took Dagon and set it in its place again. And when they arose early the next morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the ground before the ark of the LORD. The head of Dagon and both the palms of its hands were broken off on the threshold; only Dagon’s torso was left of it. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor any who come into Dagon’s house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to this day. (1 Samuel 5: 1-5)
Twenty-two years ago on this day, 9 November, I remember watching the evening news with my parents as the Berlin wall come tumbling down. Though I was only a child, the event had a marked effect on me.
You see, three years earlier, when I had been eleven, my family had traveled to West Germany. One afternoon my dad drove us to see the wall separating West and East Germany. I still remember how ominous the electric fence looked which divided the free world from the “evil empire.”
As we emerged from the car, we were met by a chill, drizzling rain. On the other side of the fence a lone guard stared gloomily at us. The rest of my family had their picture taken about thirty feet from the fence, but I was too afraid to venture near. A few minutes later I plucked up the courage and asked my dad to photograph me next to the terrible barrier, or as close to it as I dared approach.
That was three years before that evening in 1989 when I sat with my brothers and parents to watch the wall being torn down. Communism had collapsed and Eastern Europe was finally free.
The fall of the Berlin Wall twenty-two years ago reminds us that that when the state confuses itself with God, its days are numbered.
A year after these momentous changes, we went back to Germany. This time there was no fence preventing us driving into the Eastern section. We traveled to Berlin where the remnants of the wall still zigzagged through the city like a serpent. In some areas there were portions of the wall still intact. Here and there I saw people dismantling the remains of this hated emblem of totalitarianism.
There was something strangely moving in seeing the broken concrete all over the ground and thinking, “So this is all that is left of a regime that tried to turn the state into God.” I stooped down and collected some big chunks of the rubble, determined one day to show them to my own children.
The fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989 reminds us that God judges regimes that try to usurp His place as redeemer. Make no mistake, for that is exactly what the communist parties of Eastern Europe did. In preaching that government was the solution to all of society’s ills, in teaching that public policy can bring civic regeneration and utopia, the communist parties of Eastern Europe presented a parody of the true gospel and a false narrative of redemption. The fall of the Berlin wall twenty-two years ago reminds us that government cannot be God, and all attempts to deify the state are doomed to end in abject failure. The fall of the Berlin wall revealed the utter futility of what David Galland recently called the “unblinking faith in an all-caring, omnipotent ‘Godvernment’.”
While the communism of the Eastern block may have failed, idolatrous attempts to deify the state continue. Indeed, the latest attempt to invest Government with quasi-divine powers can be seen in the gross idolatry of the European Union.
With utopian zeal, the pioneers of a united Europe have defended the project by attributing a near messianic status to their institutions. One of the chief areas where this messianism plays out is in the EU’s promotion of secular sanctification. The EU is concerned, not simply with promoting law and order, but in how citizens should think, how they should speak, what medicines they may take, what wealth they may retain, what risks they are permitted to run, how much they may pay for wearing their own noses and, this week, when they may or may not fly the Union Jack. In short, the EU has been interested in managing the minutia of our personal lives, claiming for itself the kind of authority our Saviour invoked in Mt. 28:18.
The utopian fervour to use totalitarian governments as a mechanism for ushering in the new heavens and the new earth reached a climax of blasphemy in May of last year when a special liturgy was conducted at Westminster Abbey to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, a document that is viewed as the first step in the foundation of the present European Union. In a strange synthesis of Christianity and state worship, the flag of the European Union was presented at the Westminster altar while an extract from the Schuman Declaration was read from the Pulpit, together with scripture passages about the New Heavens and the New Earth. (To learn more about this blasphemous service, see ‘European Union Invokes New Heavens and New Earth’.)
On Monday David Cameron insisted that Britain’s "national interests" would be served by British tax payers ploughing £40billion into the euro debt crisis.
If the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November revealed the utter failure of the messianic state within the communist Eastern block, so the recent breakup of Europe’s financial systems points to the failure of the EU to play the part of God. Yet there is a difference. When the Berlin wall fell to the ground, the leaders of Eastern Europe knew that their game was up. By contrast, as Europe’s financial systems lay in disarray all around us, our leaders remain trapped in what David Galland has described as “a delusional and self-destructive cycle of believing that the Godvernments can solve all that ails – even though almost all that ails is caused or made worse by those very same institutions – then things can only get worse from here.”
As in the story in 1 Samuel 5, the god Dagon has fallen. Yet like the foolish Philistines, Eurocrats keep trying to prop their idol back into place with multiple unsuccessful bailout plans and economic patch-up jobs. To admit what everyone knows – that the Euro-zone is imploding on itself – would be to acknowledge the failure of the entire European project. However, this is something that our leaders are still unwilling to do. Thus, they continue to prop-up the idol of the messianic state with ‘solutions’ that can only defer, but never abate, the Euro’s eventual collapse. We see this every time Europe’s governments attempts to treat the debt crisis with more debt, not least this week when David Cameron confirmed that Britain’s stake in the bailout machine known as the International Monetary Fund would increase from the current level of £29.5billion to up to £40billion.
We can therefore expect Dagon to keep coming unglued and crashing to the ground. This point (minus the Biblical elusions) was made by David Galland in the article I have already cited:
“expect the latest eurozone patch-up job to come unglued. When you have the heads of the eurozone’s largest countries talking about levering up bailout funds or ringing up the Chinese to ask for money, you know the latest ‘solution’ to the eurozone’s intractable problems is little more than a hastily concocted plan to kick the wine bottle just a bit further down the road. The problem is that nothing suggested begins to resolve the structural problems of the eurozone – because nothing can be done to resolve those problems. Thus, a heads-up speculator will look for ways of betting on failure and place those bets during brief flare-ups of euro-optimism.”
In our forthcoming newsletter, which should be with our members this weekend, we have unveiled a new strategy to effectively campaign to get Britain out of the EU. To join Christian Voice and begin receiving a copy of our monthly newsletter, see the information below.
Christian Voice is a prophetic ministry in the ‘forthtelling’ sense for those Christians who are fed up with the way things are, have had enough of secularist politicians imposing wickedness on the rest of us and who are not satisfied with trying to get ‘Christian influence in a secular world’ because they know ‘The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein’ (Psalm 24:1). If you want instead to lift high the Crown Rights of the King of kings, you have found the right place!
Membership Application
Yes, I/we wish to join Christian Voice. (Husband and wife may join as one)
I/we unreservedly support the aims of Christian Voice and agree with the Statement of Faith.
Please send me my free copy of Britain in Sin, which lifts the lid on the unrighteous legislation of the past fifity years and its devastating social consequences, my free copy of Understanding Islam, which will tell me all I need to know about Islam, my free copy of Labelling Halal, which exposes the secret sale of Islamic meat, and the latest Christian Voice newsletter, full of confidential prayer targets, which never goes up on the web.
I/we agree to computer storage of all information provided, solely for the use of Christian Voice.
Aims of Christian Voice
To uphold Christianity as the Faith of the United Kingdom.
To be a voice for Biblical values in law and public policy.
To defend and support traditional family life.
At all times to rely humbly on the blessing of Almighty God.
Statement of Faith
We believe in one creator God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as stated in the historic creeds of the Christian church.
We acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord over all creation.
We believe the Holy Bible to be the inspired, infallible, written Word of God to whose precepts, given for the good of nations and individuals, all man’s laws must submit.
We believe all government to be under the authority of God and that its purpose is the maintenance of freedom and justice solely in accordance with Biblical principles.
Cost of annual membership is £20.00
If you agree with the Aims & Statement of Faith then click the button below.
If you wish to renew your membership please click the button below. We will match your details to our records.
It will be increasingly difficult for Cameron to continue to present himself as a Eurosceptic
The motion to give the people of Britain a referendum on the EU was defeated in a vote of 483 to 111 after David Cameron ordered his MPs to vote against the proposal.
(How did your MP vote? Click HERE for surname order, or click HERE for constituency order. Both pages have links to the debate itself and for your MP’s email address.)
But while the coalition Government was successful in blocking the referendum (to read the text of the motion, see our earlier report), they have been significantly weakened after the largest backbench rebellion since they took power.
The outcome of yesterday’s vote was practically guaranteed after the Prime Minister invoked a mechanism known as the ‘three-line whip’, requiring MPs in Government jobs to follow the Prime Minister’s lead or lose their positions.
Despite the pressure from Downing Street, Tory MPs Stewart Jackson and Adam Holloway defied the Prime Minister’s whips and will consequently be resigning from their posts. They were joined by numerous backbenchers (see list below) in their insistence that the people of Britain have a right to a referendum.
‘Humiliation to the Government’
Referring to the 81 Tories who defied the Prime Minister, Labour leader Ed Miliband said the backbench rebellion was a “humiliation” to the Government. “If he can’t win the argument with his own backbenchers,” Miliband commented, “how can the country have confidence that he can win the arguments that matter for Britain?”
A Spokesman from Number 10 Downing Street defended the Prime Minister, saying, “It was important to take a strong lead – because Britain’s best interests are served by being in the EU.”
‘U-Turn’
Christian Voice accused David Cameron of making a ‘U-Turn’ after years of promoting himself as a Eurosceptic. Robin Phillips, press secretary for Christian Voice, commented, “He continually promises to change Britain’s relationship with Europe and even gave a ‘cast iron guarantee’ that his Government would support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. After yesterday’s events, the image of Cameron as a Eurosceptic will be increasingly difficult to sustain.”
“But it is not just David Cameron that is guilty of making a U-turn” Phillips continued. “In the run-up to the last general election the Liberal Democrats campaigned for a referendum [see photo below from their campaign flier]. However, when faced with a choice of keeping to their promise, they have capitulated to David Cameron’s europhilia.
What You Can Do
WRITE: to your MP. Check the Roll of Honour below and if your MP is not in the list, ask him or her why! Point out that it has been 36 years since the people of Britain were consulted. Back then the people of Britain were told that they were merely entering a Common Market.
Roll of Honour: MPs Who Voted ‘Yes’ to a Referendum
Mr Stuart Andrew (Con) (Pudsey)
Mr Steve Baker (Con) (Wycombe)
Mr John Baron (Con) (Basildon & Billericay)
Mr Andrew Bingham (Con) (High Peak)
Mr Brian Binley (Con) (Northampton South)
Mr Bob Blackman (Con) (Harrow East)
Mr. Peter Bone (Con) (Wellingborough)
Mr Graham Brady (Con) (Altrincham & Sale West)
Mr Andrew Bridgen (Con) (North West Leicestershire)
Mr Steve Brine (Con) (Winchester)
Ms Fiona Bruce (Con) (Congleton)
Mr Dan Byles (Con) (North Warwickshire)
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Lab) (Blyth Valley)
Mr Gregory Campbell (DUP) (East Londonderry)
Mr Douglas Carswell (Con) (Clacton)
Mr William Cash (Con) (Stone)
Mr Christopher Chope (Con) (Christchurch)
Mr James Clappison (Con) (Hertsmere)
Ms Rosie Cooper (Lab) (West Lancashire)
Mr Jeremy Corbyn (Lab) (Islington North)
Ms Tracey Crouch (Con) (Chatham & Aylesford)
Mr Jon Cruddas (Lab) (Dagenham & Rainham)
Mr John Cryer (Lab) (Leyton & Wanstead)
Mr Ian Davidson (Lab) (Glasgow South West)
Mr Philip Davies (Con) (Shipley)
Mr David T.C. Davies (Con) (Monmouth)
RH Mr David Davis (Con) (Haltemprice & Howden)
Mr Nick de Bois (Con) (Enfield North)
Ms Caroline Dinenage (Con) (Gosport)
RH Mr Nigel Dodds (DUP) (Belfast North)
RH Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (DUP) (Lagan Valley)
Mrs. Nadine Dorries (Con) (Mid Bedfordshire)
Mr Richard Drax (Con) (South Dorset)
Ms Natascha Engel (Lab) (North East Derbyshire)
RH Mr Frank Field (Lab) (Birkenhead)
Mr Mark Field (Con) (Cities of London & Westminster)
Ms Lorraine Fullbrook (Con) (South Ribble)
Mr Roger Godsiff (Lab) (Birmingham Hall Green)
Mr Zac Goldsmith (Con) (Richmond Park)
Mr James Gray (Con) (North Wiltshire)
Mr Chris Heaton-Harris (Con) (Daventry)
Mr Gordon Henderson (Con) (Sittingbourne & Sheppey)
Lady Hermon (UU) (North Down)
Ms Kate Hoey (Lab) (Vauxhall)
Mr George Hollingbery (Con) (Meon Valley)
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Con) (Kettering)
Mr Adam Holloway (Con) (Gravesham)
Mr Kelvin Hopkins (Lab) (Luton North)
Mr Stewart Jackson (Con) (Peterborough)
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Con) (Harwich & North Essex)
Mr Marcus Jones (Con) (Nuneaton)
Mr Chris Kelly (Con) (Dudley South)
Ms Andrea Leadsom (Con) (South Northamptonshire)
Mr Jeremy Lefroy (Con) (Stafford)
Mr Edward Leigh (Con) (Gainsborough)
Dr Julian Lewis (Con) (New Forest East)
Ms Caroline Lucas (Gre) (Brighton Pavilion)
Ms Karen Lumley (Con) (Redditch)
Mrs Anne Main (Con) (St Albans)
Mr. Steve McCabe (Lab) (Birmingham Selly Oak)
Mr Karl McCartney (Con) (Lincoln)
Mr Jason McCartney (Con) (Colne Valley)
Dr William McCrea (DUP) (South Antrim)
Mr John McDonnell (Lab) (Hayes & Harlington)
Mr Stephen McPartland (Con) (Stevenage)
Mr Patrick Mercer (Con) (Newark)
Mr Nigel Mills (Con) (Amber Valley)
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Lab) (Great Grimsby)
Mr James Morris (Con) (Halesowen & Rowley Regis)
Ms Anne Marie Morris (Con) (Newton Abbot)
Mr Stephen Mosley (Con) (City of Chester)
Ms Sheryll Murray (Con) (South East Cornwall)
Ms Caroline Nokes (Con) (Romsey & Southampton North)
Mr David Nuttall (Con) (Bury North)
Mr Matthew Offord (Con) (Hendon)
Mr Ian Paisley (DUP) (North Antrim)
Mr Neil Parish (Con) (Tiverton & Honiton)
Ms Priti Patel (Con) (Witham)
Mr Andrew Percy (Con) (Brigg & Goole)
Mr Mark Pritchard (Con) (The Wrekin)
Mr Mark Reckless (Con) (Rochester & Strood)
RH Mr John Redwood (Con) (Wokingham)
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con) (North East Somerset)
Mr Simon Reevell (Con) (Dewsbury)
Mr Laurence Robertson (Con) (Tewkesbury)
Mr Andrew Rosindell (Con) (Romford)
Mr Adrian Sanders (LD) (Torbay)
Mr Jim Shannon (DUP) (Strangford)
Mr Richard Shepherd (Con) (Aldridge-Brownhills)
Mr David Simpson (DUP) (Upper Bann)
Mr Dennis Skinner (Lab) (Bolsover)
Mr Henry Smith (Con) (Crawley)
RH Mr Andrew Smith (Lab) (Oxford East)
Mr John Stevenson (Con) (Carlisle)
Mr Bob Stewart (Con) (Beckenham)
Mr Gary Streeter (Con) (South West Devon)
Mr. Graham Stringer (Lab) (Blackley & Broughton)
Ms Gisela Stuart (Lab) (Birmingham Edgbaston)
Mr Julian Sturdy (Con) (York Outer)
RH Sir Peter Tapsell (Con) (Louth & Horncastle)
Mr Justin Tomlinson (Con) (North Swindon)
Mr Andrew Turner (Con) (Isle of Wight)
Mr Martin Vickers (Con) (Cleethorpes)
Mr Robin Walker (Con) (Worcester)
Mr Charles Walker (Con) (Broxbourne)
Ms Heather Wheeler (Con) (South Derbyshire)
Mr Craig Whittaker (Con) (Calder Valley)
Mr John Whittingdale (Con) (Maldon)
Mr Sammy Wilson (DUP) (East Antrim)
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Con) (Totnes)
Mr Mike Wood (Lab) (Batley & Spen)
BBC News reported that MPs have agreed to stage an historic debate on whether to hold a referendum on Britain’s future in the EU.
The day-long debate will occur next Monday and will culminate in MPs voting on whether to give the people of Britain a referendum.
Although originally scheduled for Thursday, Downing Street brought it forward to Monday amid fears that the party might use Cameron’s absence later in the week to stage a rebellion against his pro-EU policies.
All three political parties are putting pressure on their members to vote against the referendum and the BBC reported that conservative MPs may even be facing a three-line whip. This is a procedure that would require MPs in Government jobs to follow the Prime Minister’s lead or be threatened with losing their positions. If Europhile David Cameron does order his MPs to vote against the referendum, it would practically ensure its defeat.
Even if MPs vote in favour of the motion next Monday, David Cameron is not bound to enforce the result, although it could be politically dangerous for him not to.
The motion that MPs will vote on reads:
This House calls upon the Government to introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the United Kingdom:
A) Should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;
B) Should leave the European Union;
C) Should re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.
Tory back-benchers voted to hold the debate after more than 100,000 people signed a petition demanding a choice. Conservative MP David Nuttall articulated the case for the referendum when he said, “I believe that a referendum along these lines would allow the public to make clear their views about our current membership of the European Union.”
“It is 36 years since we last held a referendum and our relationship with what was then known as the Common Market and the European Union has changed out of all recognition.”
Pressure on David Cameron has been mounting ever since his 2009 U-turn on the Lisbon treaty referendum. If he chooses to use his weight to block the referendum in next week’s vote, he could force a mutiny within his own party.
Speaking of the prospect of Down Street intervention, Tory MP Bill Cash said it would be ‘beyond belief’, commenting,
“It would be quite extraordinary for the Prime Minister to prevent the British people from having their say on a European project that is quite clearly failing. We have protests and riots all over Europe, we have billions of pounds being poured into bailouts and we have a trade balance with the EU which has deteriorated by £40billion. For the Prime Minister to ask the Conservative Party to vote against asking people their views would be beyond belief.”
PHONE your MP and ask how he intends to vote next week. Emphasize that we need a referendum since no one under the age of 54 has ever had a say on Britain’s relationship with the EU. Information on contacting MPs can be found here.
Please sign our PETITION to Save Africa from Sodomy! A 300,000 Euro grant for the promotion of gay rights in Cameroon has led to a diplomatic rift, Christian Voice has discovered. It predates David Cameron’s declaration, exposed on this blog, that he will use British aid to promote homosexuality in Africa and the Caribbean. The European Union gave the grant in January to a group of pro-gay organisations led by Cameroon’s Association to Defend Homosexuals (ADEFHO).But Cameroon’s Foreign Minister Henri Eyebe Ayissi immediately summoned the head of the EU delegation in Cameroon, Raoul Mateus Paula, for a ten minute meetingto protest against the funding of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) groups that “violate the laws of Cameroon.”The award of the grant has also prompted calls for the arrest of lawyer Alice Nkom who founded ADEFHO. However, it appears the Cameroon Government may itself have recognised ADEFHO as long ago as 2003.
The grant award will no doubt make Alice Nkom wealthy and increase her visibility but if anything it has created a more hostile environment for homosexuals in Cameroon. In January, three men were arrested in Cameroon and charged with committing homosexual acts.
PRAY that Almighty God will reveal the extent of the European Union’s attempts to undermine Christian morality in Africa. Ask your MEP (Find him/her here with email address) how much money the EU has given to Africa for sexual rights and reproductive rights over the last ten years.
These are the rules for writing any letter or email to your MP:
1 Ask your MP to ask a question of the minister responsible. This ensures you will get a reply. Never write to a minister direct. It makes your MP look redundant. Kill two birds with one stone. 2 Be precise. Do not ramble. State the matter in the first paragraph and make each point concisely. I always try to say everything on one well-spaced page. If you go to three pages, you have lost the game. 3 Be patient. Assume your MP knows nothing about the case, so explain carefully (but precisely!) 4 Be accurate. Do your own research or rely on a group like Christian Voice who check everything. 5 Be legible. If your handwriting is not up to it, type it or email and spell-check. 6 Be calm. No ranting and raving, no over-the-top comments, no snide remarks. 7 Ask your MP to agree with you if the occasion arises. This could be your question (see 1). 8 Keep to one subject. If two things are on your mind, write two letters, a couple of days apart.
Letters are always written to your MP at: House of Commons, LONDON, SW1A 0AA
Emails can also be sent. You need to know either your MP’s name or your Parliamentary Constituency. Both of these, together with email addresses may be found here on the Parliament website. If you know neither your MP nor your constituency you can simply type your postcode in a box. In fact, that is the easiest way to get staight to his/her contact details.
“To the liberalism they profess, I prefer the liberties we enjoy; to the Rights of Man, the rights of Englishmen.” — Disraeli
As Britain begins a new decade, it does so on a radically different footing. 1010 marks the beginning of Britain being a vassal state to the powerful EU.
It began on 1 December, 2009 when the Lisbon treaty came into force, removing the remaining vestiges of British sovereignty.
Intended as a replacement to the rejected EU constitution, the treaty transfered vast swabs of power from Parliament to Brussels . It also stripped Britain ’s right to veto new EU laws in more than 40 different policy areas.
The treaty also granted new powers to the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice.
Defenders of the treaty argued that it would create a more powerful Europe . By establishing the first president of Europe and a foreign minister and a diplomatic corps, the treaty paves the way for a European empire not seen since the days of Charlemagne.
The purpose of the treaty was to streamline EU institutions, divesting local governments of decision making ability in order to achieve a greater centralization of power. The 250-plus page treaty also allows more laws to be passed by a simple majority instead of unanimous consent.
LABOUR BREAKS ITS PROMISE
In order to pass, the Lisbon treaty had to be ratified by all 27 member states. Although the treaty was rejected by Irish voters in June 2008, it received overwhelming support in a second referendum in the Irish Republic on 2 October 2009.
The people of Britain , on the other hand, were not given the chance to vote on the treaty, despite the Labour Government having promised a referendum. Indeed, Labour won the 2005 election largely on a manifesto pledge to give the British people a referendum on the treaty.
Tory Euro MP Daniel Hannan said: “It is appalling, demeaning, disgraceful that such a thing should have been done without popular consent and in the absence of the referendum that all three parties had promised.”
LISBON TREATY IN CONTEXT
Reprinted with permission from Soeren Kern’s article ‘ Lisbon Treaty: Europe ’s Slow-Moving Coup d’État’)
The EU has its origins in the Treaty of Rome (1957), which gave birth to the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC, also known as the “Common Market,” was a customs union. EEC member countries agreed to dismantle all tariff barriers over a 12-year transitional period, and over time a common tariff was also established for all products coming in from third countries.
The Single European Act (1987) extended the scope of the EEC to include not only the free circulation of goods, but also the free movement of persons, capital and services. The Act established a genuine common market, but it also codified European Political Cooperation, which was the forerunner of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).
The fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the reunification of Germany (1990) led French President François Mitterrand, who feared a return of German hegemony, to search for a way to permanently anchor Germany within European institutions. Together with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who was keen to relieve misgivings in Paris and London about a reunified Germany , Mitterrand worked to transform the whole of Europe into an all-encompassing union.
In 1989, an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) established monetary and economic union. In 1990, another IGC was called to study the constitution of a political union. Then, in 1992, following three years of closed-door debate which ignored public demands for more transparency, the Treaty of the European Union (also known as the Treaty of Maastricht) came into being.
The Maastricht Treaty modified the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act by moving far beyond the limits of a common market toward political union. The Maastricht Treaty also changed the official name of the EEC to the European Union.
The Maastricht Treaty created three pillars, one of which enables joint actions in foreign policy and military matters, and another one which enhances co-operation in the fight against crime. The Maastricht Treaty also established a European Central Bank (ECB), fixed exchange rates and introduced a single currency called the euro.
In 1998, the Treaty of Amsterdam modified parts of the Maastricht Treaty, again with no public participation. The main change introduced by the Amsterdam Treaty was the creation of a new position called the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy. The treaty also provided the EU with a common security policy, including the gradual formulation of a common defence policy.
In 2001, the Treaty of Nice was designed (once again without public input) to reform the institutional structure of the EU, with a view toward eastward expansion.
Fast forward to 2009, and the stated aim of the Lisbon Treaty is to “complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action.”…
The Lisbon Treaty is the stunning culmination of more than 50 years of European economic and political integration, a process that has resulted in the systematic erosion of democracy and democratic accountability in Europe .”
READ: Genesis 11; Proverbs 11:21.
PRAY: Genesis 11:6-7 shows that the confusion of the nations (and, by implication, the existence of separate nation states) is God’s way of restraining the effects of man’s fallenness. However, the Lisbon Treaty, like the entire European project, fails to reckon with the doctrine of the fall. Like the Tower of Babel , it is based on the faulty foundation that fallen man can achieve utopia by separate peoples simply working together.
The Utopian aspirations can be seen in the way that defenders of the EU, like apologists for ancient Rome and Nazism, point out that their empire is making one new humanity out of previously warring pluralities, ushering in a new world order of peace. Moreover, they often describe the European project as the final stage in an eschatological climax triumphing over the forces of nationalism, war, self-interest and isolation in order to usher in an age of peace and prosperity. Unhampered by the reality of man’s sin and foolishness, they present a vision of eschatological progress echoing the pretensions of the Babel architects.
Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the Austrian Minister for Security and Interior, made these utopian aspirations explicit in 1938 when he said that, “Above and beyond the concept of the nation-state, the idea of a new community will transform the living space given us all by history into a new spiritual realm. . . . The new Europe of solidarity and co-operation among all its people…will find an assured foundation and rapidly increasing prosperity once national economic barriers are removed. . . . Nations and human beings only develop to the full when they participate actively in a great common destiny.”
Gordon Brown echoed Seyss-Inquart’s comments this Spring when he said, “I think the new world order is emerging, and with it the foundations of a new and progressive era of international co-operation.”
Despite these utopian hopes, God promises to judge all empires built on the sand of such arrogance (Prov. 11:21). He did not spare Babel or Rome and neither will he spare the new EU superstate. God’s answer to the world’s problems is not a resurrection of Babel but Pentecost (Acts 2), in which separate people groups became united through acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus. Empires that are built on any other foundation than an explicit recognition of Christ’s Lordship will crumble.
WRITE: in a democracy it is crucial that constituents hold their representatives accountable, especially when those representatives have lied to them. It is therefore essential that lots of citizens write to their MPs and complain about the way Government has reneged on its promise of a referendum. Also share with your MP the words of Immanuel Kant who warned of the consequences of European integration when he said: “The idea of the law of nations presupposes the distinction between independent states. Although this is a state of war…it is still, according to reason, better than the fusion of those states by means of a hierarchy of power culminating in a universal monarchy. Laws which are passed for a large area lose their vigour, and such a soulless despotism, after it has hollowed out the kernel of goodness, ultimately collapses into anarchy.”
See how to join Christian Voice by clicking below (Link does not commit you to join):
