background image
Jim McConalogue
Founder of Fathers 4 Justice, Matt O'Connor, on broken promises and his hunger strike

Jim McConalogue speaks to the founding father of Fathers 4 Justice, Matt O'Connor, who at the time is on his fourth day of the hunger strike outside the home of Prime Minister David Cameron.

I caught up with founding father of Fathers 4 Justice, 44-year-old father-of-three, Matt O'Connor, who at the time is on his fourth day of the hunger strike outside the home of Prime Minister David Cameron in Witney, Oxfordshire.  

Fathers4Justice Protest 03

Why a hunger strike? For O'Connor, it is all about achieving equal parenting rights on behalf of fathers and grandparents and it is the 10th anniversary of Fathers 4 Justice.

After first meeting the leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young, on Saturday 9th July to discuss the hunger strike and demanding the Prime Minister fulfils his pre-election promises to the group, O’Connor delivered a personal letter to David Cameron’s home the morning after at 9am, as the strike began.

Then followed a morning service at St Mary's Church in Witney, a candlelit vigil outside Mr Cameron's home (at which O'Connor and his supporters wore wear black suits and black ties), followed by a small encampment with a shrine for the children who have lost their fathers during the last 10 years with thousands of photographs on display, followed by a daily delivery of personal letters from fathers, mothers and grandparents to Mr Cameron’s house.

As the group’s website makes clear, the protest is a direct response to the broken promises made to Fathers 4 Justice last year by the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister’s recent comments made on Fathers' Day which, they feel, vilified fathers.

On the fourth day, when I am more than aware O’Connor may not be on his best form, I asked him why he was on this hunger strike. He was adamant that it was necessary and vital, “I am on hunger strike for two reasons. The first was David Cameron's appalling comments made about fathers on Father’s Day describing fathers as 'runaways'. This is the latest in a long line of prejudicial, stereotypical comments by the PM. Father’s Day should be a day to celebrate fatherhood, not demonise and denigrate fathers. He didn't seek to separate good fathers out or the tens of thousands of fathers struggling to see their children through secret family courts. Further this stereotyping is grossly inaccurate both in reality and empirically. Many, many fathers were angry and upset on Father’s Day as a result.”

He then goes on, “Secondly, the Conservative Party made a series of commitments to Fathers 4 Justice last year which they have broken, not least to begin urgently needed reforms to family law. Instead they are trying to kick the ball into the long grass by hiding behind the Labour instigated Family Justice Review - a review the Conservatives described as 'not genuine, not wide ranging enough and lacking credibility.' If they had no faith in the review, why should we?” He points me to his blog at Hunger4Justice and his letter to Mr Cameron which is on the site that answers my question in considerable more detail.

On the issue of putting pressure on the Prime Minister and the Coalition, I suggest to him that there will be some people who say, well, the problem with Coalition Government is they had to give up their pre-election promises and manifesto pledges and the country has to deal with that – and promises over our secret family courts, parental rights and recognising marriage in the tax system were just part of that situation. What did he have to say about that? O’Connor’s view was “that is an incorrect assumption – both Nick Clegg and David Cameron gave pledges. The government has failed to answer the questions put to it by Fathers4Justice as to why they have reneged on them. Our children and families deserve better.”

I was also taken by something O’Connor had put in his 14-page letter to David Cameron at the beginning of the strike. In that letter, he wrote “The idea behind this protest is highly personal, rooted as it is in my Irish heritage and the tradition of Troscadh or Cealachan. This tradition was detailed in traditional civic codes, and had specific rules by which it could be used. Fasting was often used as a method of highlighting an injustice and was traditionally carried out on the doorstep of the home of the person responsible.” So, when I asked him whether he thought think the tradition of Troscadh or Cealachan will appeal to a Prime Minister who is at home with the compromises necessary for Coalition Government, I should have expected his frank and candid response “Do I care? No.” He went on, “This protest is the antithesis of the protests we became infamous for. And this is a very, very personal protest, from one home to another, father to father. It sends a strong message that my commitment to equality for parents and reforming family law runs very deep. my small sacrifice is a big ask for me when all we are asking of Mr Cameron is for him to honour his pledges.”

I also found it necessary to return to what he had clearly objected to in David Cameron’s comments in a national newspaper on Father’s Day. The Prime Minister had written “We need to make Britain a genuinely hostile place for fathers who go AWOL. It's high time runaway dads were stigmatised, and the full force of shame was heaped upon them. They should be looked at like drink drivers, people who are beyond the pale.” It made headlines in a few of the newspapers at the time.

What in particular did he not like about David Cameron’s Fathers Day comments? And whilst we are on this issue, in these circumstances, did he think it is likely that the Prime Minister will retract his remarks. His response was clear, “Fathers have been reduced to the status of sperm banks and cashpoints. Under Cameron's Britain, you can abandon our child tomorrow, provided you pay. It is unimaginable that a Prime Minister would say on Mother’s Day that mothers denying children access to their fathers should be publicly pilloried, so why is it acceptable for him to denigrate tens of thousands of Dad’s fighting through secret family courts to see their children? It is utterly unacceptable to make cheap political capital on a day we use to celebrate fatherhood.”

O’Connor’s direct honesty is coupled with a great deal of humility and whose campaign seeks very straightforward objectives. I prod him light-heartedly about the history of his campaign asking him when he started up Fathers 4 Justice 10 years ago, is this where he thought he would end up – on a hunger strike? “No”, he responds, “I thought this was a no brained campaign. Who could possibly argue with the idea of equality between parents. After all, all we are asking is for is that children retain the love and care of both parents after separation and that we have a family justice system based on reconciliation not predicated on conflict. Is that such a big ask? As a father of three boys I have a duty of care to them to try and ensure that when they become dads they do not suffer the horrific experience I went through at the hands of the family justice system.”

As for the long term goals of the campaign, I ask O’Connor what he sees as the best way of reversing what he has previously referred to as “the catastrophic breakdown in family life driven by the removal of fathers from families and the lives of their children”. His answer is “Simple.” He points me to his proposals outlined in their Blueprint for Family Law, but also points out that “… we would like to see a bill of rights for the family, a right in law for parents and grandparents to see their children and grandchildren and rights intertwined with responsibilities. The law and the child support system will never work until we change the lexicon and mentality towards family breakdown and that will be at huge social and economic cost to this country. I fear, given the resistance we face, the family as we knew it is being torn apart under a Conservative Party that penalises traditional families through the tax system and pursues the demonisation of fathers at its own peril. We must never forget that the next fathers are our children and what message did David Cameron send them?” He may have a point.

O'Connor is due to forgo all food until the Prime Minister retracts his remarks, apologises and adheres to written pre-election commitments made to Fathers 4 Justice to reform Britain’s secret Family Courts, which the group says he has reneged on. This is a definitely a battle worth watching, given what various other think tanks, groups and individuals in Westminster have said about Cameron and the Coalition’s poor record-so-far on family breakdown, despite having made it a key part of the Conservative General Election message just over one year ago.

The EU's hypocrisy over the Egyptian regime (and Britain's role in it)

Jim McConalogue @ ConservativeHome'Platform: "Let’s get this straight – if we are to talk about any political hypocrisy in relation to events now unfolding in the Middle East, it is Britain’s part in the European Union’s hypocrisy over the Egyptian regime – notably, the clear discrepancy between generous EU funding and decades of failed demands for real democracy." Please read this blog post here.

European “Economic government” – time for the British people to vote in a referendum

Given that the leaders of France and Germany have now called for “economic government” by the European Union, whilst setting out proposals on how to protect Greece from default, political analyst, Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation says that now it is time for the current UK Government, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats to set out how they intend to deal with the prospect of the British economic policy being firmly directed by a European economic government – by responding to whether they will finally give the British people a referendum on this crucial issue, which ultimately decides how the British people are to be governed.

European “Economic government” – time for the British people to vote in a referendum

1. Given that the leaders of France and Germany have now called for “economic government" by the European Union, whilst setting out proposals on how to protect Greece from def au lt, it is time for the current UK Government, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats to set out how they intend to deal with the prospect of the British economic policy being firmly directed by a European economic government – by responding to whether they will finally give the British people a referendum on this crucial issue, in deciding how they are to be governed.

2. The proposal from the recent paper by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy that “the European Council (summits) should become the economic government of the European Union” – coupled with implied amendments or a new Treaty – is a dramatic development and one that needs decisive action. Britain must lead Europe out of this complex situation by re-affirming that the electorate is entitled to a referendum which had been previously denied on Lisbon.

3. The opportunity for a referendum will provide a proper basis for the long overdue renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with Europe.

4. A decisive ‘No’ vote from the British people would then lead to a new Europe based on an association of nation states.

5. The new development indicates that Britain has been out-manoeuvred and has been grossly sidelined under the developed Franco-German partnership, with the aid of recently acquired powers under the Lisbon Treaty.

6. Britain must be clearly opposed to economic government, which represents an obvious drive towards ever closer political union.

7. The EU acquired new powers through the provisions in the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009 and the Franco-German partnership has been keen to enforce a stronger and harmonised European economic policy, over which Britain has little or no control.

8. The paper by the leaders of France and Germany further states that "We commit to promote a strong coordination of economic policies in Europe" and "We propose to increase (EU summits’) role in economic surveillance," the prospect of which must be decided by the British people in a referendum.

9. Any future response stating that this development concerns only eurozone members would be false and misleading, since the paper’s intentions for European economic government are clearly bound up with Britain’s own political and economic government.

10. A large part of the paper details proposals for eurozone states and the International Monetary Fund on Greece emergency loans, and those also raise serious issues on which the Britain people must have their say. It would create a further crisis in public confidence if the British Government’s contributions towards a Greek economic bail-out came before its own obligations to resolve the troubled fate of its own taxpayers or act over the nation’s own failed industries during the economic recession.

A Europe policy that Britain and the Conservative Party can believe in

The European Journal examines David Cameron’s historic speech of 4 November 2009, ‘A Europe policy that people can believe in’, offering a consideration of the key points.

In David Cameron’s historic speech of 4 November 2009, “A Europe policy that people can believe in”, there are a number of assertions made which require further and careful consideration to ensure that the Conservative Party delivers a proper European policy which the British people and the Party itself can believe in.

1. “No longer a treaty…”?

The assertion that the Lisbon Treaty “is no longer a treaty” is not correct. The European Union Amendment Act, in accordance with our constitutional requirements as enacted, adds the Treaty to the list of treaties under Section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972, clearly recognising its continued existence. This Act provides that the Treaty becomes enforceable United Kingdom law. The actual provisions of the Treaty, however obscure, become the law of the United Kingdom through Section 2(1) ECA 1972 and, under Section 3 ECA 1972, fall to be enforced by the courts of the United Kingdom. All the judgements made by our courts in respect of the individual treaties, and bearing in mind that Lisbon consolidates them all, refer to the provisions of the Treaty in question – thus no one has ever suggested before that the Lisbon Treaty or any other European treaty no longer exists. It is certainly true that once all the member states have completed their ratifications in accordance with their constitutional requirements, firstly the individual member states agree to carry out these legal obligations and, secondly, it does become the law of the European Union. However, the Referendum Act 1975 is an exact precedent for a Referendum held after ratification by all the member states. Juggling with words does not alter the above and a Referendum can and should still be held on the consolidated treaties. The Referendum Act 1975 provided for an “in or out” Referendum. There has not been a Referendum since 1975 and millions of voters have been disenfranchised. A Referendum could still be held on the terms of our relationship within the European Union without it becoming a Referendum on “in or out”. A good question would be “Should the United Kingdom Government renegotiate the terms of our relationship within the European Union?” Opinion polls regularly demonstrate up to 88 per cent of the population wanting such a Referendum.

The argument that holding a Referendum would not make the Lisbon Treaty, or any provision in it, disappear is irrelevant because what is at issue is the application of these provisions to the United Kingdom itself.

2. A Referendum on “something else… anything else”

The need for a Referendum is not based on “some new pretext” or “for the sake of it”. It is because there has not been a Referendum since 1975 and the use of the European Communities Act 1972 has now been extended since 1972 into areas of government with new functions which have enlarged the original legal obligations (whatever aspirations there may have been for political union) into a completely new but evolving sphere of activity and jurisprudence of the ECJ. These have combined to drastically undermine the practical effect of our democratic Parliament and through majority voting, codecision and European regulations and rulings of the European Court have permeated virtually every nook and cranny of our daily lives. These include the running of our economy on a conveyor belt of EU law which is obvious to anyone who cares to go through the statute book and the agendas of the European Scrutiny Committee on a weekly basis.

There is nothing “phoney” about wanting to sustain a democratic system of government in line with the wishes of the electorate. Furthermore, the economy is largely driven within European Union rules as to public expenditure. The success of our economy is and will be profoundly damaged by overregulation by existing European laws. The same could be said of the CAP, the CFP, the regulation of the City of London, the billions spent on overregulation of British businesses, the rebate, regional policy making, energy policy, consequences of immigration and the £2000 for each man, woman and child which the EU costs according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

In December, the Conservative Party was whipped and voted against the new European financial regulations. It is realistic and serious policy to recognise the threat to the City of London by the loss of legal control over financial services. This involves the establishment of new regulations, majority voting and co-decision, and the ultimate jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Given the substantial percentage of Gross Domestic Product represented by the City of London, it is essential in the national interest, as David Cameron and George Osborne recognise, to ensure that Britain is not simply left with “national supervision” over this sector. This is why the Conservative Party voted against the financial regulations and must continue to reassert its control over them.

It certainly would not be a waste of everyone’s time, and taxpayers’ money, to have a Referendum which would have such practical effects as to renegotiate a restoration of democracy and economic balance from the disastrous failure of an obsolete system into a new relationship of “an association of member states” as David Cameron recently called it. This would not be a “waste of time”, would it? The British people would thank the Conservative Party. A Referendum is the right even to express a view without presuming the result and it is practical because our relationship with the European Union, enforced through the laws and constitutional arrangements via the ECA 1972, has a monumental practical effect on the daily lives of the people of this country, not to mention the other member states.

Furthermore, because the Lisbon Treaty is a self-amending text there is serious reason to suppose that an attempt to unwind amendments made within the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty will be subject to challenge in the courts, unless of course the Referendum was expressed to be “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972” with an obligation on the judiciary to construe the Referendum Act accordingly, as to which see below.

3. The case for sovereignty

The fact that we do not have a written constitution does not alter the fact that the European Communities Act 1972, as Lord Bridge made clear in the Factortame case and in line with the judgements of Lords Denning (McCarthys v. Smith), Diplock (Garland v. British Rail) and Laws (Thoburn v. Sunderland County Council), is not only a voluntary Act but can be overridden by clear, precise wording inconsistent with ECA 1972 and the judges are obliged to give judgements accordingly. We do have an “explicit legal guarantee” because of our constitutional position in relation to the sovereignty of Parliament. The problem has arisen that the textbook doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament has been severely eroded in practice since 1972, particularly since the Maastricht Treaty, which created European government, and now the Lisbon Treaty. An effective Sovereignty Act, which is to be welcomed, would deal with what is described as “a danger that over time” that our courts will come to regard ultimate authority as resting with the EU. This is because in the context of the Lisbon Treaty the declaration of primacy is included as a guide to our courts, as with other member states, as to where the sovereignty actually lies and not only over our laws but also over our constitution. Declaration 17 restates the case law referred to below, but also as further guidance of the courts (otherwise, it would not be there) states that “The Conference has also decided to attach as an annex to this final Act the opinion of the Council Legal Service of the primacy of EC law (11197/07(JUR260).” This emphasises that “it follows that the law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question.”

An eminent constitutional authority has said: “Constitutional interpretation by judges has a long history distinguishing it from ordinary statutory interpretation. Generally a more dynamic or flexible approach is adopted, most likely employing other jurisprudence from other countries and systems. This may give rise to a degree of judicial incremental law-making commensurate with the organic growth of the Constitution itself that has the potential for developing constitutional rights, immunities and powers beyond the literal meaning of the words adopted. The potential for a possible jump in judicial interpretation towards a more purposive approach to legal rights under the Constitution should not be underestimated.” Nor should this warning go unheeded.

The problem has accumulated since the White Paper of 1967, “Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom Membership of United Kingdom Communities”, further endorsed in ECA 1972. As late as June 2007, Lord Justice Rix stated that “Community law is of course regarded in England as English law. It is part of the English legal corpus. It may derive from Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg, but it is part and parcel of our law. And of course where it applies, it takes precedence over any inconsistent provisions of English law of domestic origin… The principles are founded in the originating statute, the European Communities Act 1972, and in the binding case law of highly important and extremely well-known House of Lords decisions. These cover such matters as the precedents of Community law over national law and the manner in which domestic legislation must be interpreted, in an area covered by Community law, so as to render the English statute, if it is at all possible to do so consistent with the Community Law. This is a style of interpretation with which, for some decades now we have been growing increasingly familiar…” Similar remarks have been made by Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffman. The words “if it is at all possible to do so” mean that in the light of what Lord Denning, Lord Diplock and Lord Justice Laws have stated in their seminal constitutional judgements that where the English statute is clear in overriding Community law by the words, for example, “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972” that the English courts are obliged to give effect to the latest clearly expressed statute of the United Kingdom. The Sovereignty Act would need to do this explicitly or be otiose because it omitted to make clear express provision inconsistent with the European Communities Act 1972 and thereby become a Trojan Horse for interpretation by the Supreme Court/ECJ as against Parliamentary sovereignty.

There is a whole line of ECJ cases, which goes back to Costa, Van Gend, Handelsgesellschaft and Simmenthal, all of which contain the most explicit assertions by the ECJ which under Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 have lacked only the endorsement of primacy since the treaties commenced. What the European Court has asserted has now been endorsed in Declaration 17 in its application to the consolidating Lisbon Treaty and is therefore now open to interpretation and judgement by our own courts as against our own Parliamentary sovereignty. Hence the need to re-assert our Parliamentary sovereignty immediately. Merely to declare that “ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament” would be meaningless if it did not, in very precise wording achieve the practical result of maintaining that sovereignty and democracy. It is contradictory to say that “this is not about Westminster striking down individual items of EU legislation” and then saying “it is about an assurance that the final word on our laws is here in Britain [United Kingdom].” If it is merely a restatement of the textbook definition of parliamentary sovereignty without providing for the overriding of European laws and assertions overriding our constitution, then it is all a meaningless exercise, much as the promise understood to grant a Referendum will be exploited by UKIP.

4. How the transfer of sovereignty always happens again

The assertion that “this never happens again”, i.e. to transfer power to the EU without the say of the British people, will not resonate with them given the abandonment of the Referendum – whatever reasons may have been given. As to amending the European Communities Act 1972, a Sovereignty Bill drafted properly would include prohibiting the transfer of power (including by reference to existing laws and assertions of EU law overriding our constitution) to the EU without a Referendum. In any case, there is already a prohibition, under the European Elections Act 1978, to increase the powers of the European Parliament without the specific endorsement of the UK Parliament. There is no reasonable constitutional comparison to either the German or Irish constitutional arrangements because both have written constitutions. The German Constitutional Court judgement of 30 June 2009 warns that the Passarelle Clauses envisage the possibility of a de facto Treaty amendment for certain policy areas without a de jure national parliamentary or referendum ratification. The Court argued that this would potential provide for automatic integration without democratic compliance – certainly as far as the German Constitution is concerned. The German Court asserts (somewhat in line with what is stated above in paragraph 3 regarding the voluntary nature of ECA 1972) that the authority of the European Union is founded on the decisions of sovereign states subject only to their own national constitutional law. However, so long as member states, including the United Kingdom, continue remorselessly to cede powers and sovereignty, the point is reached when there being such an endorsement of the primacy of European law (as asserted by Declaration 17) that there is such a reduction of national sovereignty as to be, in practice, a virtually autochthonous European constitutional arrangement.

The idea that primary law would be needed to overcome the Passarelle (Ratchet Clause) without the specific words “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972…” would mean next to nothing and would be open to challenge within the Supreme Court / ECJ.

Without a proper and effective Sovereignty Act, which would simply be swept away like leaves in the autumn wind, stipulated in detail in the Manifesto, there would be no “real protection for our democracy” whatever our leaflets in our Manifesto might say. A Sovereignty Act must not become by omission or by judicial interpretation a Trojan Horse for the supremacy/sovereignty of European law as against our Parliament and constitution. This would happen if the asserted and now declared primacy of EU law is not rebutted specifically in the Sovereignty Act and promises which amount to no more than window dressing would be dangerously counter-productive.

5. British guarantees

David Cameron’s Centre for Policy Studies speech of November 2005 was specific. The words “we will want to negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out” is not the same as “For Britain, the first priority must be the return of powers over employment and social regulation. This would be the strategic imperative of my European policy.” David Cameron also said, “The EU must abandon the hubristic constitutional project once and for all.” Hear, hear. Furthermore, confining or appearing to confine repatriation of such legislation, including the Working Time Directive to mere “aspects” is far too limited. Merely negotiating over the Charter of Fundamental Rights would not be enough, as are the words “we must be absolutely sure that this cannot be used by EU judges to reinterpret EU law affecting the UK.” The European Scrutiny Committee report on this matter is selfexplanatory. We certainly need a complete opt-out from the Charter but this raises all the questions regarding sovereignty and interpretation of primacy set out above. Similar problems arise in the aspiration to repatriate criminal justice. The problem has already been created under the Lisbon Treaty via ECA 1972 and what is set out above.

In insisting that “taking back power in these areas or negotiating arrangements that suit the UK is not something we can do unilaterally” could well become, if negotiations were to fail a waste of time given the wall of anonymity that we would be up against unless the Sovereignty Act contains all the legal and constitutional mechanisms to support the degree of political will needed to achieve laudable objectives. It is not that I am questioning the desire; it is whether there is the political will to ensure the result. There is a present danger in the suggestion that if the negotiations were to fail that we would walk away from taking the action needed in the national interest to repatriate specific laws and to use Parliamentary sovereignty to full effect as a matter of political will to override the European Communities Act 1972.

Constitutions have come and gone throughout the world and in Europe and the constitution of the United Kingdom itself has ranged from absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy, so there is no doubting that political will is necessary given the historic and the practical effects of not doing so. If what it boils down to is that we would never use the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament to protect our vital national interests, including our Parliamentary sovereignty, then the future is indeed bleak – nothing short of appeasement. The idea that “the expertise of officials from the Foreign Office and other relevant departments” will be of any use whatever in this context, given the developments since 1972, is to say the least not a course I would remotely recommend other than to ascertain that they are determined to resist an effective Sovereignty Act. Without taking decisive action, which the welcome guarantee of a Sovereignty Act can achieve, then the guarantees will be unrealistic and undeliverable and our democracy and our national interests will be undermined.

It is not tenable to argue that we must concentrate exclusively on retrieving the economic chaos which this Labour Government has overseen without dealing with those aspects of European law which have contributed so much to the disastrous decisions which they have made because our economy is driven so much by European policy and law, as I have mentioned above.

6. In the longer term

We have been heading in the wrong direction and not merely in a centralising direction, but in a centralising system. We are not heading for one, we are in it. It would be too late to “return to this subject in a manifesto for the Parliament after the next one.” It is already nearly too late, barring only a full implementation of a commitment to a constitutionally and legally effective Sovereignty Act.

These issues have a long and practical history. The constitutional struggles of the late 1640s between Charles I and Parliament and the failure then to achieve a constitutional monarchy led to his execution in 1649. Similar issues arose regarding the restoration of the monarchy on a new practical constitutional footing in 1660. The abandonment of the Stuarts and the succession of the Hanoverians involved another transfer of practical constitutional power. So did the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 leading to the vote for women. These constitutional step changes were a pragmatic acceptance that the constitution was evolving in stages (sometimes based on pragmatic “fictions” of where the sovereignty really resided). All these developments took us towards a parliamentary democratic system of government.

Now we are moving away from parliamentary democracy, as David Cameron’s speech indicates. Allowing the consolidating Lisbon Treaty arrangements to bed down and become accepted by the effluxion of time as the presumed order of things will undermine our system of democracy and government, which is why we fought it so vigorously on a united front together, including a three-line whip on a call for a Referendum.

The call for a Sovereignty Act is admirable, but it must be in practice what it suggests by name, with practical consequences affecting the daily lives of the voters of this country. An effective Sovereignty Act, as an act of statesmanship, will create in the historic landscape, particularly since 1972, a pathway to improving the operation of the European Union into what David Cameron has rightly called “an association of member states”. It will also “spread democracy and the rule of law across our continent” and, as Prime Minister, he would guarantee that “we will never allow Britain to slide into a federal Europe” – including our being over-dominated by the interests of other member states, which we will simply not be able to influence in practice precisely because of the dynamics of majority voting, codecision and primacy, and the clear and obvious failings of the European Union on the economic as well as the political front. This is “what this is all about” and a policy on Europe that is worth believing in.

Bill Cash MP demands Sovereignty of Parliament central to next General Election

In a debate in the House of Commons this evening, Bill Cash will be addressing the question of the ‘Sovereignty of Parliament’, which he says is a “fundamental issue” which lies at the heart of the freedom of choice for the voters to decide the laws under which they are to be governed, and to decide the question of who governs Britain – a crucial matter as we approach the next General election.

Cash will have a Bill published tomorrow addressing vital questions on the Sovereignty of Parliament.

Cash will say that European Union legislation, which ‘streams out like a tsunami’, invades every nook and cranny of our daily lives. On any reasonable estimate, it affects at least 70% of the vast array of UK laws. He will speak on how it affects the whole of our justice and criminal law. It affects the regulation of the City of London and the role of the Bank of England and financial services. It affects family law. It affects the CAP, the CFP, the rebate, regional policy making, energy policy, consequences of immigration and the £2000 for each man, woman and child which the EU costs according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

Cash applauds David Cameron’s proposal for a Sovereignty Bill as indeed does the whole Conservative Party and looks into how far this Sovereignty Bill must extend by raising proposals and issues which will need to be encompassed by the Bill.

His proposals are based on the rejection of European government and the promotion of European trade and global trade and political cooperation where it is in our national interest.

I hope my '100 Reasons' report goes some way to challenging the message of the climate change alarmists - I am glad to see the Daily Express runs an article on the report on the front cover today, in '100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL', and in the Telegraph, Climate change is 'natural not man-made'.
100 Reasons why the ‘ Copenhagen ’ Governments and other proponents of “man-made” Global Warming theory of Climate Change are completely wrong

In compiling this assessment, I am grateful to the real hard-working academic researchers and professors; the integrity and arguments of Roger Helmer MEP; the ‘Friends of Science’ organisation for providing facts and myths on climate change; the United States organisation, ‘No Cap-and-Trade Coalition’; for the detailed research by Dr. Singer in his editing of the report, ‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’, (The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), published by The Heartland Institute in 2008 and also his report with Dr. Idso, ‘Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)’, also published by the Heartland Institute in 2009, where many of the central arguments are drawn from. Also, the work and insights by Lord Monckton of Brenchley’s report ‘Climategate: C au ght Green-handed! Cold facts about the hot topic of global temperature change after the Climategate Scandal’, Science & Public Policy Institute, 2009 have been useful. I have attempted to credit all other researchers and organisations in the content of the report. Other valuable papers include Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner in Executive Intelligence Review, 22 June 2007 and John McLean’s paper ‘The IPCC can’t count its “expert scientists”: Author and reviewer numbers are wrong’ in January 2009, all of which I have used to compile my pamphlet.

1. Politicians and activists say we must tackle global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no real scientific proof that the current warming is c au sed by the rise of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.

2. Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, whilst ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: extreme poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

3. Politicians and activists say we must tackle global warming, pointing to rising sea levels but the ongoing rise in the sea level does not depend on short-term temperature changes, and in any case the rate of sea-level increases has been steady since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

4. Activists and dubious “scientists” provide ice core proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels, but as Professor Ian Clark, an expert in Palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, and other scientists have claimed, warmer periods of the earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

5. For activists, global warming is accompanied by raised CO2 levels but after World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions – while global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

6. As Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, and many other scientists have said, climate change is too complicated to be c au sed by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds. Stott said: “The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.”

7. It is a myth that the “hockey stick” graph (used by the UN’s IPCC) proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase, bec au se significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. It is known that the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate, although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, which some will recall led to a “Global Cooling” scare.

8. A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, which is an indication that ocean warming is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

9. Since the c au se of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

10. As Peter Lilley MP stated in the House of Commons on 5th November 2009, “…fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world.” There is no genuine belief in man-made global warming theory bec au se it simply does not add up.

11. The United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, was exposed as seriously troubled when new information was released (under threat from Freedom of Information legislation), demonstrating that substantial numbers of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists had serious concerns, which the Panel rejected as it publicly claimed to have formed a “consensus”. There was no such agreement. There was serious dissent.

12. A computer hacker released a number of files and e-mails from the University of East Anglia ’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), a Unit which works closely with a handful of other meteorological institutes around the world, which details the source of the basic temperature data that underpins the “science” of global warming. The evidence from this episode demonstrated that the small group of scientists, with some associations to the IPCC, had been manipulating the essential data, applying “adjustments” to create or exaggerate warming trends. They are now the subject of an inquiry. This is the exclusive data on which the modern global warming hypothesis rests.

13. The United Kingdom ’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data. Their new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

14. Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs), wind companies can sell their energy at an almost guaranteed price. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year, and Ofgem calculates that it will amount to about £4 billion by 2020.

15. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

16. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely bec au se he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

17. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.

18. Even the head of Britain ’s Climate Change watchdog has predicted that households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions in response to nonsensical climate change targets.

19. A healthy public relations collusion between politicians across the globe spread the message that 4,000 IPCC scientists believed in global warming, when actually there were only c. 3,750 people, and when we remove the duplications and the total number of au thors plus reviewers, it drops from 3,750 to 2,890, and when we consider that in about 25% of the cases, the editors rejected the suggestions, then there is even less. In fact, we eventually get to the predicament in which 53 au thors and seven favourable reviewers make up a total of 60 people who explicitly supported the claim made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. That is one scientist for every two countries.

20. In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

21. While the wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies”, this form of power involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh, which falls directly on electricity consumers. The burden on consumers will grow in line with attempts to achieve its targets – as the recent OFGEM report has confirmed.

22. In pursuit of global warming ideology, wind farms have been erected but bec au se wind is unpredictably and continuously variable, wind power requires back-up. Even the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75% back-up is required, making them highly inefficient.

23. In the UK, a group of scientists informed the media that we are “at the top end of IPCC estimates”, and that global temperatures “could increase by 6 degrees”, but the truth is that global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions, and that there is indeed no need for alarmism.

24. The small (+0.7 deg C) increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. The predictions of the IPCC’s computer models continue to fly in the face of observed data.

25. Professor Plimer – Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide – has provided an au thoritative sketch of 4½ billion years of earth climate history, stating that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity” bordering on madness.

26. Throughout the earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than today’s climate and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

27. A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis c au sed by global warming.

28. Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can actually act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

29. The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-c au sed global warming clearly predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics, but former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said that radio temperature data for the upper troposphere actually shows there is no such hotspot.

30. The argument that climate change is a result of anthropogenic global warming is the argument of flat earthers.

31. The aggressive and ideological manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire transnational decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

32. William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

33. As Canada has shown the world, targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and that didn’t work for the country.

34. News announced by the Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical, and based on solar and astronomical factors.

35. In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP rightly said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”. Are we really continuing along the same lines?

36. The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

37. The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

38. The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 but this is severely inaccurate says a professor at Ontario Trent University , J. Graham Cogley, and he believes, quite rightly, the UN au thors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

39. In pursuit of hysterical climate change policy, the EU under existing Kyoto obligations has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, Lord Lawson has warned. To make it worse, the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China , who it has paid billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which they had manufactured purely in order to be destroyed. The EU emissions trading scheme itself has been a complete failure.

40. It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (as stated under the Mann et al. “hockey stick” curve) but the Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

41. Michael Mann of Penn State University has shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age do in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work that produced the now infamous hockey stick graph that showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so and a recent dramatic upturn.

42. The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date – as it has been under the Kyoto system – is very expensive and has no bearing on political realities.

43. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

44. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever and that “global warming” science is settled.

45. The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC.

46. The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather (including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires), but the last century – during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia – did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

47. The IPCC says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increase of tropical sea surface temperatures” but despite the supposed global warming of the twentieth century, there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally or in any of the specific oceans.

48. In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions all of which had programmed into them the 0.20 deg C long-term IPCC trend and found that in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly!

49. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has written “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.”

50. Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change, it has been a failure.

51. In pursuit of an appalling European climate change policy, the first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne, meaning that the system did not reduce emissions at all. And the second phase, from 2008-2012, is likely to fail too.

52. In pursuit of climate change policy, the EU trading scheme, which has completely failed, actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting – which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

53. To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

54. In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens. It will impose a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States . The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700 or more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

55. Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated in a presentation of his research that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

56. Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the c au se of past temperature and climate change.

57. There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – to the contrary, it is changing temperatures which c au se changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

58. The last warm period ended less than 800 years ago and when thorough researchers compare and contrast these climate changes with changes in civilization and human standards, it is generally concluded that warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful.

59. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms.

60. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population.

61. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming.

62. The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth did not take place recently but actually took place around 700 million years ago.

63. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control.

64. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere.

65. How can politicians insist on global warming when the slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles, or even that in the last ten years, the earth has cooled slightly?

66. In line with climate change activist’s wishes, the Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power and will cost around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years while the benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times. It is claimed by the government that the loss of around £65 billion will be compensated by the “non-monetary benefits”.

67. It is a myth that global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate bec au se accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.

68. Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

69. It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas bec au se greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and so CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere.

70. It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will c au se significant global warming bec au se computer models can be made to “verify” anything by changing a great number of input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used. In this context, the IPCC predictions do not “prove” anything.

71. It is entirely inconsistent that the United Nations claimed to prove that man-made CO2 c au ses global warming while in a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft stating that “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases” and “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made c au ses”.

72. It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, bec au se nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

73. It is simply not true to claim that global warming will c au se more storms and other weather extremes bec au se, while regional variations may occur, there is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports these claims.

74. It is myth that receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming given that glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries.

75. It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising, bec au se that is natural variation and whilst the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The main Antarctic continent is actually cooling.

76. The IPCC claims “new evidence suggests that climate-driven extinctions and range retractions are already widespread” and the “projected impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance, since global losses in biodiversity are irreversible (very high confidence)” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research.

77. The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as they have proven to be remarkably resilient to climate change. Most wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles involving temperature changes similar to or greater than those experienced in the twentieth century.

78. Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but the real state of sea levels is not what they have stated. Climate scientists have sought to measure the tide g au ge. Tide g au ging gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. Certain members in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), chose Hong Kong, which has six tide g au ges, and they chose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. It is known that this is a subsiding area. It is well known in geological terms that this is the only record which you should not use, but the IPCC has done so.

79. The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. This eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. How can CO2 rises bring about global warming?

80. If one factors in for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). How can CO2 rises bring about global warming?

81. There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

82. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would c au se catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. In the case of Antarctica , the research actually suggests the opposite: that CO2-induced global warming would tend to buffer the world against such an outcome.

83. The IPCC claims the climate variation due to changes in the solar output since 1750 is smaller than its estimated net anthropogenic contribution. A large body of scientific research suggests the opposite: that it is the sun that is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

84. The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” and will “increase malnutrition and consequent disorders.” In fact, the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels have played an indispensible role in making it possible to feed a growing global population.

85. The historical increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and into the future it will likely provide more of the same benefit.

86. The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years on the order of 70 percent for wheat, 28 percent for cereals, 33 percent for fruits and melons, 62 percent for legumes, 67 percent for root and tuber crops, and 51 percent for vegetables.

87. The total man-made CO2 emission throughout human history constitutes less than 0.00022 percent of the total CO2 amount naturally degassed from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

88. US President Barack Obama pledged cutting emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, representing a 3-4 percent cut from 1990 levels as he aims to reach a 41 percent reduction by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050. However, target emissions for 2050 will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen. The ideology is wrong. The target is delusional.

89. The European Union, whose various 500 million peoples disagree with its emission targets, has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

90. Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

91. Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar-sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters. Ottawa is asking that no agreement emerges from the summit which will act as an impediment to its economic growth.

92. India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, bec au se the economy is driven by carbon.

93. It is claimed that during the late 20th Century, the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached a high point of unprecedented magnitude. However, the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century, which falls within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 years.

94. Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw , Poland published his research that found that a change in earth’s temperature would have more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. He “points out that cloudiness and water vapour [sic] are nearly a hundred times more influential on global temperature variations than all the rest of the greenhouse gases combined. He suggests for example, that if it were possible to double the global CO2 concentration, the effect could be cancelled out by a 1% increase in cloudiness.”

95. One petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the politician’s and media’s portrayal of Global Warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992, from Germany , with 4000 signatures. The Heidelberg Appeal was publicly released at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro . By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. Since then, word of mouth has prompted hundreds more scientists to lend their support. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. Neither a statement of corporate interests nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal is a quiet call for reason and a recognition of scientific progress as the solution to, not the c au se of, the health and environmental problems that the globe faces. The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. The petition was wrongly ignored.

96. Another petition put forward by scientists trying to tell the world about the false portrayal of Global Warming was the Leipzig Declaration in 1996, from Germany with 110 signatures, signed up to a statement claiming that “As independent scientists researching atmospheric and climate problems, we – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the Climate Treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.” Again, the petition was wrongly ignored.

97. A petition presented by US scientists trying to tell the world that the Government’s portrayal of Global Warming is false, named the Oregon Petition Project (from California), stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is c au sing or will, in the foreseeable future, c au se catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” It has over 31,000 American scientist signatories. Still their voices are ignored.

98. A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) concludes “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

99. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.

100. Out of the 210 countries that adopted the Kyoto Protocol, only 32 actually ratified it. In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the country’s most prestigious technical institute, published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.


The Daily Express reports: "SECRET plans to seize more than £4billion a year from Britain and make its citizens pay taxes direct to Europe emerged last night." The European Commission proposes to scrap UK rebate which "would cost every British family at least £155 a year."

Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation is quoted as saying “It is clear from its so-called ‘reform’ agenda that Brussels is committed to the daylight ­robbery of the British taxpayer.” Read the article here.

Ireland's lost powers over arranged marriages, social security benefits and a 30% corporation tax

James McConalogue @ Centre Right: "It has obvious implications for the next UK Government. Where does the UK stand on those laws, before Lisbon and in a post-Lisbon Europe, and its own legislative powers, for example, over arranged marriages, social security benefits and a substantial rise in corporation tax. Brussels plans for financial regulation over the City are already chasing away business from UK shores.

"However, it has more urgent consequences for the Irish people and they must decide for themselves in a pre-referendum Europe. Do they really want to have given away controls over key areas of Irish social and economic policy, which has seemingly lost much of its independence?" Read the post here.

The European Federal Superstate – how much more will its Irish province agree to?

Jim McConalogue @ Centre Right: "The only real difference between Ireland and the other Member States is that Ireland’s great Constitution allows her people to have a say. Bearing in mind the principles the Irish people are reaffirming in this treaty – in moving from a democratic association of European nation-states to the joining of a European federal superstate – the choice in this referendum to a European outsider, with no opportunity for a vote, is obvious." Read the post here.


Bill Cash has been the Conservative Member of Parliament for Stone since 1997 and an MP since 1984.

He is currently the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and the founder member of the European Foundation...

Click to read more