eurealist.co.uk

A YouGov poll for The Daily Telegraph last week put the Tories on level pegging with Labour, reinforcing concern about the absence of an advance in Mr Howard’s first 10 months as leader.

To be confident of victory at the general election the Tories should be at least 10 points clear, instead they have fallen back from when Iain Duncan Smith was leader.

Against the back drop of questions about the war in Iraq, higher taxes and the general feeling of uneasiness about this New Labour government. The Tories failure to advance even in a YouGov poll must be extremely worrying for them, as they are also going to be faced with the extra burden of UKIP snapping at their heels over the EU, which, may well strip away many natural core Tory voters, who can see already that Howard`s policy over the EU is only more of the same trust me! that we have seen in past Tory administrations lead to passing ever more power to the EU. I simply cannot see that they have any chance of winning power.

However Mr Howard is unconcerned about the mounting evidence of failure and the growing concerns of senior party members, insisting that he is pleased with the improvement the Tories are making and boldly predicting victory at the next election.

Howard thinks the government will be punished for failing the nation and persistently telling lies.
They may well be, but if people are not beginning to believe in the Tories, and are not prepared to give them their vote, then the feelings about the government wont do them any good, that is the point Mr Howard fails to notice.

Mr Howard may well be right about the country going in the wrong direction and that we need to change course. He is certainly right that we do need a government that is prepared to tell the truth and to deliver on its promises. But unfortunately for him, I am not hearing the direction the Tories wish to take, neither am I convinced that they will offer the Government we need.

The core Tory message to the Country, is that New labour have broken their promises on crime, on education, on health, and across the board on tax.. So, we do know that! But what are the Tories offering instead? policies which are meaningless?

One of Mr Howard`s promises is that he will take back control of British Fishing waters, but we all know that for him to be able to do so, he will have to force a reverse in EU integration, and we all know that is not going to happen easily, if at all. Yet Mr Howard has already tied his own hands when he admitted he was not prepared to leave the union if he failed to get an agreement.

If the other Tory policies are anything like their policies on the EU and according to the recent offering from the Conservative Research Department “Reversing the Drivers of Regulation The European Union then they are, the Tories are offering nothing new and nothing that can be achieved. They may feel that to be successful they need to take on some of New Labour`s tactics but Spin is not one that is likely to win many votes.

For the Tories to win the next election would require a mountain to be climbed, and they are not going to achieve that but walking backwards, downhill, fast.

From Statewatch a report on the governments response to the critical report by the parliamentary Joint Committee. Statewatch response- revised and just as dangerous as before!

Statewatch News online: UK: Civil Contingencies Bill - revised and just as dangerous as before

A much clearer description of the CCB, from New Alliance, with a plain language summary,analysis and history.

Civil Contingencies Bill - Blair’s ‘Enabling Act’: “BLAIR’S ‘ENABLING ACT’

The proposed Civil Contingencies Bill is supposed to modernise civil emergency arrangements. However it goes well beyond this, aiming to allow the Government and Ministers to exercise almost absolute powers on the slimmest excuses

When Parliament’s Joint Committee reported on the original Bill in November 2003, they were alarmed that:
‘In the wrong hands, it could be used to undermine or even remove legislation underpinning the British Constitution and infringe human rights’”

At EUREFERENDUM In a general analysis about NGO`s Dr North links to an independent organization report Funding for Peace Coalition, which details the use of the funding the EU has given to the Palestinians.

EU Referendum: “Meanwhile, an independent organization Funding for Peace Coalition, has published a report, also passed over in silence by the British media, that details the many and varied uses the �2 billion handed over by the EU directly and indirectly to the Palestinian Authority since 1993, as well as a further �2 billion paid over in the same period by the member states. This report is so important for developments in the Middle East, the European Union and the smugly oft-invoked �civil society� that we shall analyze it in detail. Suffice it to say for the moment that the report carefully quotes all its sources, many of which are Arab, and all of which show �the diversion of unprecedented sums of financial aid from the Palestinian people towards corruption and violence�, which could not have happened without �incompetence and apathy on the part of European agencies�. These are the people who want yet more money from the taxpayer and more power over the unfortunate people of various developing countries.”

The argument that a golf club can have a constitution, so we need not fear a Constitution for the EU is patently ridiculous. Disregarding the fact that the set of rules for a golf club are not forever changing, a golf club is a golf club it is not a government.

A constitution sets up a government and gives it its powers. Perhaps more importantly the difference is that the golf club rules apply to its members, each member is a whole entity, one unit, if you wish, they, each have sovereignty, in that if they wish to leave they may.

A state is one entity only as far as the government is concerned, a state also has a population, the EU is with the Constitution, in effect taking its powers not from the one entity, which is the state, but the state’s population. The population will have agreed to change their own Constitution for the EU Constitution the state has also agreed to the same:

The Constitution Preamble….

“on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe. Who, having exchanged their full powers”

The Constitution then much later goes on to talk about the rights of a member state to leave the union, this in itself, is a clear admission that the state no longer retains that right under its own sovereignty, if it did there would be no need for such a clause. The very fact that a member state must go to the EU and ask permission to withdraw is the proof that we would no longer hold that power in our own parliament.

The Constitution….

“A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European
Council of its intention; the European Council shall examine that
notification. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European
Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that
State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the
framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall
be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council of Ministers, acting by
a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European
Parliament.

The representative of the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in
Council of Ministers or European Council discussions or decisions
concerning it.

This Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the
date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two
years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European
Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, decides to extend
this period.”

There is nothing here that shows a member state has any rights in this matter and the wording is very vague to the point that the ECJ could well argued that a state government wishing to withdraw would be in contravention of the Constitution. The ECJ could then demand that the people who “having exchanged their full powers”
had in fact removed the power to withdraw from the government, and insist on a referendum.

It is also clear that the EU can place conditions on it future relationship with the Union, on a state wishing to withdraw.

Some will argue that the Constitution is the end of the nation state; the grounds for this claim would be the fact that it will pass even more powers to the EU institutions and it also extends the present powers to other areas.

Although it could be argued that as long as the government in Whitehall still retains the right to withdraw from the union then it is maintaining it own sovereignty. This in itself is doubtful because until and unless a government does use the power it has at present to withdraw then we are bound to the EU and to EU Law.

In any event even if it can be shown that the nation state would survive this Constitution, perhaps the next one will be the end of Britain.

Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, an influential member of the Convention involved in drafting the Constitution, suggested emphasising that if the text is ratified “there will be no revision of the treaty in the foreseeable future”. (See previous post below)

However Prodi has commissioned a report on the way forward after this Constitution is ratified. The report is clear that a further Constitution will be needed in a few years time, there have been suggestions that ten years would be too long, it is obvious from the report that there will be a strong push to go ahead with the second stage as soon as this Constitution is ratified.

BUILDING A POLITICAL EUROPE
50 proposals for tomorrow’s Europe

“The next European Parliament should be given constituent functions by being charged with the task of preparing a new constitutional phase.

This second phase is both possible and necessary. It is necessary for three reasons:

• The institutions must continue to be politicised. The draft constitutional treaty merely contains the seeds of the institutions the Union is going to need in the long term: a fully fledged political government, accountable to the European citizens, a Council functioning on a federal basis, and a Parliament with full legislative powers.

• The Union’s powers must evolve. Part III of the draft constitutional treaty basically
reflects the existing powers of the Union. Whether it evolves along the lines proposed
in this report or takes another route, the transformation of the Europe of today into the
Europe of tomorrow will require considerable changes in these powers.

• If the constitutional treaty is to evolve in line with future needs, the procedure for
revising it must be made more flexible. Because it is an international treaty, the
procedure for revising the European constitution is extremely cumbersome. The draft
revision must be adopted unanimously by governments at the IGC and then ratified in
each Member State, either by the national parliament or by a referendum. This
revision procedure is particularly ill-suited to Part III of the Constitution dealing with
Union policies121; because of the unanimity requirement, there is a risk that the
constitutional treaty will be set in stone in a Union of 25 members, whereas Europe as
a political union is still being built and regular amendments will have to be made the
constitution as this new union gradually emerges. A simpler revision procedure is
therefore necessary122. It is a pity such a procedure was not introduced during the
present IGC, but in any case it should be introduced in the second phase of
development of the constitution”.

It is quite clear that this present Constitution is only a stepping stone to further integration and does not in any way limit the power of the EU to forge ahead with it plans to become the full government of the EU.

The EU Parliament is hoping to kick start a debate? On the Constitution when it becomes the first assembly, to vote on the text on the 15th December.

This group of sops for EU democracy have discussed the way they can assist the Constitution along its rocky road to endorsement in the 25 member states.

A proposal that the EU Parliament should simply tell the member states governments how to vote was dismissed, probably just as well, since to my knowledge there is no mechanism for them to do such a thing in any case, but the suggestion does show how some of these people think.

Strangely enough Labour MEP Richard Corbett is convinced that an overwhelming majority of MEP`s will endorse the Constitution, Well what a surprise!

Spanish MEP Inigo Mendez de Vigo a member of the Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Gave an insight into what we can expect when he suggested that the “EU Parliament should act as a pioneer” in promoting the Constitution to a people, he claims the parliament represents, a people “who would not have read the Constitution and would have a very basic level of knowledge”.

UK MEP Andrew Duff seems to agree with the sentiment saying the “people are slightly less informed and a bit more sceptical than the MEP`s are”. His idea is that MEP`s would travel to national and regional capitals “to sell parliament’s position on the Constitution”. I hope when he does visit regional capitals in Britain he can be acquainted with the thoughts of many of us who have read the text and are a little bit more than a “bit sceptic” about it.

But that won’t matter because he will be on a mission to sell the text to the people, and will ignore anything that does not agree with his interpretation.

Mr de Vigo went on to suggest, that when selling the Constitution “it should be stressed that the text will bring “stability” to the EU, and further suggested emphasising that if the text is ratified “there will be no revision of the treaty in the foreseeable future”.

This leading member of the Convention which came up with the Constitution in the first place, clearly has not read: BUILDING A POLITICAL EUROPE 50 proposals for tomorrow’s Europe…..

“The next European Parliament should be given constituent functions by being charged with the task of preparing a new constitutional phase”.

Either he has not read Prodi`s report or he is extremely short-sighted!

Other who also would not have read this document suggested that there will be no revision of the Constitution for the next fifty years, this is the time period suggested by its architect Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who obviously must have visions of sainthood if he really believes that his work toward EU integration will be sufficient to stem the tide for over half a century, especially as the next phase is already in the pipeline.

The main thing to come out of the discussions is that we can expect a lot of hot air in the next year or so, and very little of truth or substance, after all why should the MEP`s bother to be honest and open when they are talking to a lot of uneducated sheep. Just get in the back of the truck and we will all go for a little drive in the country Ba Ba Ba.