people who challenge corruption

View previous topic View next topic Go down

people who challenge corruption

Post by bobbin on Tue 4 Sep - 13:45

Would it be an idea to gather the names of people, in notable positions, who are courageous enough to challenge and speak out against the corruption that we are seeing in our institutions, police, politics, judiciary, courts, parliaments, European parliament etc.

When we wonder if we are wasting our time, or even are wrong, to pursue justice for Madeleine, when all the signs point to a cover-up with obstruction and intervention at the highest levels, and when we think that no-one in power thinks as we do, it is refreshing to hear Jacob Rees-Mogg, one of the UK's most eloquent and erudite MPs, speaking out so frankly. He refers, with deep respect, to the ancient alliance between Portugal and Great Britain and with evident disrespect for the corruption in the European Parliament's Court of Justice.

The following is taken from Hansard, (UK Parliamentary recordings) 3 Sep 2012 : debate on Article 122, (it starts at Column 71)
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]
Second Reading”

Jacob Rees-Mogg referring to the British (snipped)
“Government deserve a good deal of credit for what they have succeeded in negotiating. I want to be reasonably generous, but not excessively so. They have got us out of article 122, on the European financial stabilisation mechanism, which required us to put money
(3 Sep 2012 : Column 114)
into a European pot to bail out, so far, Portugal and Ireland. One may say that bailing out Portugal and Ireland is not too bad a thing to have done. Portugal is our oldest ally, and I am sure your mind often turns to the treaty of Windsor in 1386, Mr Deputy Speaker, which is why we have a fellow feeling with the Portuguese. Ireland is our close neighbour and friend and is important to us. It is worth noting that that €48 billion liability still remains, and the Foreign Secretary was careful to say that the Bill would exclude us from new liabilities. The old ones are still there, so we are signed up to our share of €48 billion of liabilities, which may come back
to haunt us. However, we are exempted from further liabilities.

The European treaties say that there should be no bail-out from us, although my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) complained that often European treaties say one thing and the European councils do another, which is perfectly true. It is a regular state of affairs that the construct of the European Union is basically dishonest. A point that I shall make at every opportunity is that we know that the judges of the European Court of Justice are so corrupt that they judged in their own favour to give themselves a pay increase. We therefore know that the institutions of Europe are rotten, failed and corrupt. None the less, we are living with them, and they have decided that they will have a bail-out mechanism. It is better that we should be out of it. We should say to them, “This is your euro project. You go ahead, you pay for it. Thank you very much.” It should be outside our bailiwick, to the eurozone members’ charge, not the British and the other non-eurozone countries.
The Government have achieved something in ensuring that, although I have questions about what the black letter of the law actually says. We know full well that recitals are not the law, and that article 122 remains. We know that the regulation allowing €60 billion to be spent on propping up the euro remains intact, and it is conceivable, if unlikely, that that part of the European treaty could be used in future, because it is a qualified majority matter rather than a unanimity one. That has not been excluded from the treaty, but there is a strong political promise that it will not be used. Although I have my doubts about strong EU political promises—in
the past they have not necessarily been adhered to—
it is still an achievement to have got the bulk of the future cost away from Her Majesty’s Government and the British people. The Government deserve to be commended for that.

We have talked much in this debate about what the best solution for the eurozone is, and about whether we, as a country looking on, should help it prop up the euro or obstruct it in its desire to do so. That raises a fascinating moral question about the duty that one owes to one’s neighbour who is determined to follow a course of folly and error. If someone sees a man who is about to run under a bus, it is their moral duty to make some effort to grab him back. They may even risk their own safety in attempting that endeavour. It is an important requirement of neighbourliness and a duty of humanity. The question is, are the members of the eurozone throwing themselves under a bus, or are they committing some lesser folly which means that, because we know our intervention could not succeed, our duty to intervene and stop them does not exist? I think that the second category is the answer. If the Europeans had any sense, they would have an orderly dissolution of the euro.
(3 Sep 2012 : Column 115)
Consider what the euro is doing to Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy: impoverishing their people, putting them out of jobs, making them unable to afford some of the basic needs of life. That is done for a political project driven by bureaucrats with no democratic accountability. They fire Governments that they do not like and they have put their despots into Greece and Italy. The panjandrums of Brussels are sent in to rule, overturning democracy as we have historically known it. They have done all that to prop up the euro, which strangles economic growth.” snipped

Last edited by bobbin on Tue 4 Sep - 14:09; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : to realign words)


Posts : 2028
Reputation : 118
Join date : 2011-12-05

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum