eurealist.co.uk

Late last year whilst conducting a debate with a student of EU matters and obviously a fervent EU supporter, I began to realise that for some, the EU was not a political matter but was verging on a religious passion, and to question the EU at all was almost heretical doctrine.

As all common sense arguments were dismissed one after the other out of hand, it was a matter of “belief beyond reason” that held this person to their cause.

The belief that the EU ideal was beyond reproach that Euro-sceptics were non-believers who needed to be look upon with pity whilst their education was corrected. Or failing that treated as children who had to be led along the path of righteousness, towards the light of eulogy for the EU. Or failing even that, to be ignore whilst those who understood these lofty matters made the world better for all.

Today in the telegraph Robin Harris has noted this religious outlook! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/…/ixopinion.htmlPart of what he has to say is worth repeating…
Snip

“This leaves, however, one still more intriguing question. Why, in the end, do Messrs Blair and Mandelson care so much about achieving a European mega-state, when there is so little political advantage, and so much political complication, in the project? Perhaps the truth lies deeper than the conventional explanations suggest. Euro-enthusiasm fills for Mr Blair and Mr Mandelson the moral gap that has yawned since they tore up their early doctrinaire socialist roots.

European federalism is another of those secular religions, like communism or fascism, whose attractions prove so great because they reassure people who have lost their inner bearings that they are still on the winning side of History. Its proponents display the self-righteousness, the intolerance of dissent, the assumption that ends will justify means - including the subversion of a country’s democracy - that their counterparts so enthusiastically practised”.

To me the EU is no more than a political movement, that could possibly just! Have some justification if, and only if it were reformed and based on clear democratic principals, instead of being as it indubitable is, at its core the undemocratic institution it is.

The High Court has allowed another legal challenge to the Inland Revenue’s corporation tax rules.
Up to now more than 300 international companies have filed legal actions in London, claiming that the government has taxed them on their UK earnings in ways that break European law. The multinationals protest that, for much of the Nineties, their UK subsidiaries were forced to pay corporation tax to the Inland Revenue before they were able to transfer their UK profits to parent companies abroad.

The basis of these cases lies in a judgment made by the European Court of Justice in 2000, stating that “this rule broke EU agreements and discriminated against non-UK corporations”. In 1996, the ECJ ruled that tax relief for losses incurred by subsidiaries established in other EU member states could be set against profits from companies registered in the UK. This has not been allowed by UK law.

The ECJ relied on Article 43 of the Maastricht Treaty, guaranteeing “freedom of establishment” which it has taken as over-riding Article 93 giving member states sole rights over their tax systems on the basis of financial cohesion.

It is important to accept that once the EU has the legal right to decide on something they will then use that power to interpret the clauses in the treaties and the future Constitution in a the way they see as a benefit to the EU and its institutions, and will ignore other clauses which oppose their view.

Article 93 is quite clear that tax is the prerogative of member states, yet the EJC has in this case used another clause to render article 93 meaningless.

Even now Tax is one of Mr Blair’s red lines, yet we can clearly see that this red line is nonsense.

If the Constitution as a Constitution is to have any meaning then the power to overrule the agreements of our elected leaders must be removed from the EU Court, it can no longer be allowed to adjudicate on the these matters, which have been agreed by member states leaders, and then overturn their positions when passing the treaties, agreements, through their own parliaments.

Because if not, then no agreement can make any sense, if it its passed though parliament on the understanding that tax remains with the states, then that position should only be changed only with a further agreement, not by an arbitrary decision by the EJC.

Because the EJC does have this power, it totally undermines any arguments relative to red lines and retaining power in the member states parliaments.

So the next time Mr MacShane or Mr Blair tells us that they have retained the power over tax laws, we can all know that they are lying through their teeth. Because whether they have or not, will be decided next year by British judges, who will have to accept that the EJC rulings are superior to theirs, and EU law is superior to British law, so there can only be one outcome

In July a reader responded to an Independent article, the Independant did not print his letter, I find that unfortunate because I feel Mr Spalton has hit the nail on the head with the problems and the causes of those problems the EU is going to face in being acceptable to many British people who have experienced the deceit for themselves.
http://www.ironies.blogspot.com/

Quote”Subject: Britain, the EU & Jim Dougal
Hopcroft
DerbySir,
Jim Dougal (5 July) has had a hard row to hoe for the Commission because theEU project can no longer be disguised.

In a BBC programme about manipulating British opinion in the Seventies, Roy Hattersley remarked “Not only was it wrong for us to deal superficially with what Europe involved, but we have paid the price for it ever since because every time there is a crisis in Europe people say, with some justification ,

“well, we wouldn’t have beenpart of this if we’d really known the implications”.

Quite so. I have a copy of the 1975 referendum leaflet from the Wilson government. It gives the overwhelming impression that we were voting to stay in a “Common Market”. It used the term thirty nine times and also assured us of the abandonment of Economic and Monetary Union. That was a deliberate lie. Those of us who were mildly europhile had been reassured by Mr. Heath that”no essential loss of sovereignty” was involved. We eventually discovered that we had been consistently misled . The policy of deceit had been set out by Peter Thorneycroft as early as 1947. We would be nudged a little at a time into what can only be called a superstate. The idea was that, by the time we noticed, the process would be irreversible.

There is now a large, implacably hostile minority, in touch with like-minded people across Europe. It is usually better informed than most spokesmen in favour of the EU project. The internet ensures that it can neither be talked down to nor soothed with broad, sunlit platitudes. The Big Idea could have been sold to Britain honestly. With the accretionof fifty years of deceit, it is a dead duck.
Yours faithfully,
Edward Spalton”Unquote

This, ties in with some thoughts on the EU I have been having recently, how is that the British people have accepted this situation when their own Government has been so deceitful for so long.

Well of course, the first point is we have not had a chance to make clear our feelings on the EU because no party has been against it, we have in effect been disenfranchised on this point. But there is more why is it when we do realise that an MP has misled the public that they are not pilloried by the press. I believe the answer lays in the fact that the EU works so far ahead that the MPs who misled us are no longer in power, or no longer hold the position they held, we probably have another government entirely.

Mr Hain`s blandishment that the Constitution was just a tidying up exercise has now been exposed as pure rubbish, but Mr Hain is no longer in charge of EU matters, he has gone on to other things. Keith Vas clearly told us that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, would have no more legal power than the Beano! where is he now that this document is going to form a large part of the Constitution and be the basis for all laws. It is not just these two MP`s who have been court out lying to the British people, this has been going on for over thirty years and none of the people concerned are in power long enough to have to face the music.

After a Eurostat calculation that Britain last year was the richest of the net contributors with a Gross National Income at 111.2 percent of the EU-15 average. Michaele Schreyer, EU budget commissioner, is pushing the idea of replacing the British rebate with a “generalised correction mechanism” for all big net contributors.

He is seeking to stave off increasing concern in Germany, the Netherlands and even Sweden at the increasing costs of financing the EU. The Dutch each pay far more into the EU than anyone else, so individually perhaps they should have a greater say in the EU than anyone else?

There were several options on the table but talks behind closed doors in Brussels this week have settled on the most far-reaching option. This would have the effect of doubling Britain’s EU fees from around £10 billion annually in recent years to around £20 billion by increasing contributions from 0.25 per cent of GDP to 0.5 per cent. This would make Britain the Biggest net contributor paying twice as much as France.

It is interesting to note that whilst Britain has remained outside the Euro zone and has resisted some of the more draconian socialistic tendencies of the others she has become the richest nation in the EU, it makes one wonder if there could be a link between the two facts.

Although Mr Blair has stated, he has a veto on the EU Budget, and therefore on Britain’s rebate, the European Scrutiny Committee said in a report on the Convention on the Future of Europe: “We are concerned that the UK’s rebate does not appear to be one of the matters on which decisions would be made by unanimity.”

This of course may have been one of Mr Blair’s Red Lines and we may find he is correct, but we must also remember Mr Major, who fought very hard against the Working Times Directive, obtaining the famous opt out, only to find that the Commission backed by the ECJ brought it in through the back door.

The draft treaty makes clear that there will be unanimous voting on the overall size of the EU budget and how contributions are made up. But a further section states that for “detailed arrangements” on budgetary matters, the Council of Ministers will take a decision. This section has alarmed British negotiators because it is assumed by those drafting the constitution that where there is no reference to unanimity, qualified majority voting will apply.

This is the way of EU negotiation and treaties, one part very clearly makes a statement then another undermines the statement, so you build your arguments on solid ground, only to find they are on quick sand and the opposite of your expectations is the case.

When I have in my life been offered a legal document, I do read it and I do make sure that I understand what that document entails. With the EU, it has to be understood that the Commission and the ECJ will interpret the words in a manner that will enable more centralisation. That is after all their very basic remit, It has been in all the treaties from the very beginning of the European movement and it is the Commission, which is empowered to achieve the wishes of the States and the people

“Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions, and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny”

Although our British leaders and Europhiles would like us to ignore such clauses and are very proud of the fact that they have had the previous manifestation of this clause removed “the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe” this has been replaced a different form of words that means exactly the same thing.

So we wait to see if Mr Blair has retained a veto on what the EU is going to cost us, the British people in the future. If he has then and if he is prepared to use it all well and good, if not, then those who are working out if it would be financially better to stay in or leave had better start adjusting their figures accordingly.

Britain in Europe the organisation supported by the EU with our own money to promote “European Values” in Britain, has thoughtfully issued a briefing paper on the EU Constitution, titled “Briefing on the draft EU Constitutional Treaty” It is thirteen pages long and has seven sections they are:

1. Introduction

2. Myth and MisinformationThe top ten anti-Constitution howlers

3. What’s New and What’s Not An analysis of changes proposed in the draft treaty

4. The Same Old StoryHow we’ve heard it all before from the anti-Europeans

5. Yes or No – The Impact on the UK Why the EU constitutional treaty is good for Britain

6. The View from the rest of EuropeA very British treaty

7. Positively European Quick guide to the benefits of EU membership

It is unfortunate that the organisation empowered by the European Union to flog the EU to the British people, instead chose to base most of their briefing on disseminating a series of arguments to counter the BIE view of the Euosceptic case.

As can clearly be seen from their section headings out of the seven sections only one actually contains any reference to what is in the Constitution itself, this runs to a whole page! yes that right one whole page about the Constitution.

I would like to suggest an alternative view of the briefing as a whole but first, some questions on the introduction written by Philippe Legrain, Director of Policy Britain in Europe. Mr Legrain gets right to the point in his fist paragraph when he writes: “The draft EU constitutional treaty is a long and complicated document. Unfortunately, anti-Europeans have further muddied the waters by spreading myths and misinformation about it. Some people go so far as to forecast the end of our country as we know it. Many inaccurate ideas about the Treaty’s contents are circulating. This briefing aims to set the record straight.”

This in English means, we cannot go into the details of the Constitution and what it means for Britain, because you just would not understand it, and even if we did we could not make a strong enough case for it. So instead, we will build up some Euosceptic straw men to demolish.

Mr Legrain goes on:“People have legitimate differences of opinion about Europe and the constitutionaltreaty. We relish the opportunity of putting the pro-European case in a big national debate about Britain’s future. But let the debate be based on fact, not fiction”.

A briefing paper with the title of “Briefing on the draft EU Constitutional Treaty” I would have though was a fine opportunity to put the pro-European Union (not pro- European) case Mr Legrain. I believe you will find full agreement on a fact based debate.

Mr Legrain continues..

“Most of the claims made by anti-Europeans about the constitutional treaty are simply untrue. Not differing interpretations – just plain wrong. Whatever you think about the merits of European integration, the EU president is not going to replace the Queen as our head of state, the EU foreign minister will not oust Britain from its seat on the UN Security Council and the EU is not about to acquire tax-raising powers”.

Ah! Straw men! Just make an outrageous claim and then demolish it, of course you fail to mention the slightly less outrageous claim, which would be so hard to refute.

(a) The Queen as a citizen of the EU as confirmed by Major, in that case cannot be the sovereign of Britain she no longer is the supreme ruler. Supreme in that no one is above her, no higher authority exist.

(b) The EU Constituion says….”The Union’s competence in matters of common foreign and securitypolicy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating tothe Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union’s common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area.

They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union’s interests or likely to impair its effectiveness. The European Union shall conduct a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States’ actions.

(c) The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies. Without prejudice to other revenue, the Union’s budget shall be financed wholly from its own resources,

As we already know the Union is discussing an EU tax in the first instance on businesses.

Mr Legrain again “Moreover, many of the objections to the constitutional treaty are directed at aspects that are not new. EU law, for instance, already takes precedence over domestic law. It would make no sense to pass EU laws and then to allow member states to have laws which conflicted with what had been decided by Ministers. This does not imply a European superstate now – as even The Sun concedes – so why should it suddenly do so once the constitutional treaty is adopted?The primacy of EU law in some areas does not entail the end of British independence; it just means that member states must abide by the rules of the club they have signed up to”.

The fact that they are not new is no reason to make them the Constitution for the Union. Which will also have its own identity and for the first time it will be independent of its member states and its laws will be superior in a much larger area of competence than originally. The Constitution also has clauses that work towards unity of all laws and legal systems. In addition, other clauses that allows for changes of the Constitution without recourse to state parliaments.

We either have independence or we do not, Mr Legrain`s argument is self defeating.

Mr Legrain goes on..“Although we strongly disagree with them, those who call for withdrawal from the EU are entitled to do so. But they cannot be allowed to pretend that leaving the EU is cost-free. Nor should they get away with inflated estimates of the financial burden of being a member of the EU”

According to Britain in Europe’s own figures the UK is a net £3.7Billion contributor each year £10 million a day, the costs of withdrawal would need to be of that order to make it a net loss. Britain’s rebate negotiated by Mrs Thatcher is up for grabs in the next year, in fact Prodi is about to issue a new plan which will do away with the rebate, so our costs will almost double.

Mr Legrain finishes his introduction:

“Likewise, some may urge that the British people reject the constitutional treaty in a referendum. But it is a fantasy to suggest either that a No vote would leave Britain with the same relationship with Europe as prior to the constitutional treaty debate, or that it could lead to a reconfiguration of that relationship entirely on our terms. Voting No would give political momentum to those who favour our withdrawal from the EU. And if Britain votes No to a treaty that the other 24 EU countries have approved, we should not fool ourselves into believing that those 24 will allow our objection to deflect them from the common path they have chosen. They may make minor concessions to secure Britain’s support, but they will not ditch the treaty altogether. In short, if the choice facing the British people in the referendum is not “in” or “out” – it is certainly “in” or out on the margins”.

Mr Legrain has obviously not read the previous treaties,if he had he would have noticed that to change them it needs all, that is all! the member states to accept that change.

It does not say if only one or two do not accept the change then the others may go ahead,

it does not say that a member state refusing to change the treaty can be put out of the Union or put to the margins of the Union.

So in fact a “No” vote means exactly the opposite of Mr Legrain`s interpretation, Britain would be in exactly the same relationship with the European Union as prior to the constitutional treaty debate.