eurealist.co.uk

Just a short blogging break back in a few days.

Will HuttonSunday September 5, 2004 The Observer

With all eyes fixed on the American presidential elections, the scale of the looming crisis in France and Germany has gone largely unremarked. But it may so change the political geography of Europe that British arguments for and against the EU will be made redundant. A pervasive sense of decline in both countries, only partially justified but none the less virulent, is destabilising not just the structures of the EU - but the political systems of France and Germany.

Last week in France, charismatic finance minister Nicolas Sarkozy resigned from the government in order to challenge for the leadership of President Chirac’s UMP party, despairing of what is seen in France as a do-nothing regime that is fiddling while the country burns. The economy is mired in low growth and high unemployment; government spending at 54 per cent of GDP can go no higher…

To imagine that Britain will be immune from this is absurd; what happens in mainland Europe will directly impact upon us as it has throughout our history. What is needed is an understanding that if European states don’t hang together they will hang separately - and that because the European Union is the best we have, we’d better make it work.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comm…1297576,00.html

What a strange argument, France and Germany are in trouble because their governments are tied to the EU, and must abide by EU rules, this is causing them problems, so we must all make sure that we stick together in the EU! Why? Because the EU is the best we have?

If the complaint is that the French and German governments are fiddling while the country burns? Exactly how much power do these governments still have to manage their own economy, the EU Bank sets the interest rates the EU sets the employment laws and environment laws and so on. Why blame the governments when they are probably doing the best they can within the confines of the EU.

Is it any wonder that the German economy is in trouble, apart from the great expense of East Germany, Germany is the biggest paymaster to the EU, money is pouring out of that country to finance the rest of the EU countries.

The EU is causing stagnation, it makes its rules in a vacuum, it is not responsible for the costs its rules entail, the member states are, as they are obviously struggling under this yolk we should consider removing it rather than whipping those who do not have the power. How about putting a moratorium on all new EU laws for the nest five years, then see how France and Germany are doing.
It seems to me as if lefty leaning Will Hutton is trying to bat for the up coming EU Constitution which will have the effect of giving more power to the EU and even less to the French and Germans.

The People have not spoken

This piece and the previous were based on a speech FIVE REBUTTALS TO THE EU CONSTITUTION FANATICS delivered by Philippe de Villiers, Member of the French National Assembly, and President of the Movement for France (MPF), to the “Rally for a Referendum”, held by the Congress for Democracy on Friday 7 Nov 2003 at Church House, Westminster.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eucon/eucon1.html

The EU federalist movement is very fond of claiming a democratic mandate for their proposals without in reality giving the people a chance to voice their thoughts, or give their consent.

According to the Europhile the EU is a democratic institution because we get to elect a few MEP`s every five years, this of course is a nonsense because in the first place the MEP`s do not have a mandate they do not form a group and issue an election manifesto against which we can judge their performance, or even decide if we like their policies. Because they do not form policies the Commission does that, and the Commission which is the executive of the EU Parliament is not formed from those we elect but are appointed, hence we get the likes of Mandelson who would not stand a chance in hell of being elected by the British people, but finds himself in a position of power, simply because he is good mates with Tony Blair.

As the elected MEP`s do not form a government from their members, there is no way we the people can have a say in any of the policies which are passed. Similarly if we do not like those policies there is nothing we can do to remove the people making the rules. Even the MEP`s still have to pass laws which they had no part in compiling because the Commissions work goes on no matter who we elect and the new intake of MEP`s are expected to continue with the work of the previous incumbents. In a British national election any laws or proposals not passed, naturally fall when a government leaves office and the incoming government starts with a clean slate.

Britain was taken into the union by the Heath administration in the early 1970` without a mandate from the people, since then we have seen a massive increase in the power of the EU and a corresponding decrease on our sovereign right to elect the people who make our laws.

If we look at the referendum called by the Wilson government with its massive pro-EU advertising campaign which was totally misleading over the whole EU project, we can see that when they feel they must ask the people they do everything in their power to ensure that the outcome is concluded to their satisfaction. In the event that they cannot get the people to agree the first time they then make them vote again until the required answer is given. Tony Blair has already been making noises to the effect that if we vote no, we will find ourselves in the same position as the Irish who were asked to vote again.

In Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s declaration in Rome.

He suggests that national parliaments should be free to ratify the constitution without direct reference to their electorates, taking into consideration instead the result of the EU election.

Such a procedure would be completely illegal. For in this instance, it really would be the case that, instead of a single question being put, a whole series of questions would become intermingled.

What’s more, MEPs have no authority over constitutional questions. Their election cannot be held to legitimise a constitutional revolution.

What Giscard proposed on 18 July would therefore hijack due process and would do so on the gravest of subjects, one concerned with the subordination of national democracy. But this is the way Eufederalist think and work, anything they can do to refuse the people a voice will be done without a moments thoughts to any democratic or legal principle.

There cannot be a single pan-EU referendum, even though the Eurofedralists would like that and are working towards holding the referendums at a similar time to try to then pass this off as a pan-EU Referendum. To try to create a single EU referendum, to be decided by a majority in the EU as a whole, would be to assume that the nations no longer exist.

That would be to act as though the Constitution and its consequences were already in force when, of course, it is the very adoption of the constitution which is in question. This would be quite monstrous from a legal perspective, and I hope it will never happen.

What we should be pushing for is for each nation to consult its people

according to its own norms. For us in France, this means by referendum.

And, as I understand it, you in Britain are using similar arguments to ours.

Nevertheless, we must not remain separate during the campaign ahead. That would be greatly to the advantage of the European Commission which, like a spider at the centre of its web, has succeeded for decades in playing one nation off against another.

This time, we all share a great common interest: the preservation of our national democracies. This common interest should unite us despite our diversity.

In 1955, Jean Monnet set up an Action Committee for the United States of

Europe, bringing together figures from different countries, with the aim

of putting pressure on the authorities then drawing up the Treaty of Rome.

Today, we should create our own movement — the Action Committee for a

Europe of Nations — to work together in the endeavour ahead. To develop

our vision of a European concert, founded in respect for its nations. A

Europe which is prosperous, democratic and free.