eurealist.co.uk

A treaty is an agreement between nation states or independent actors, if you prefer, a treaty is only applicable as long as each state agrees to the conditions, if they do not, they may withdraw or renegotiate.

A Constitution is very different in that it sets up a state, defines the rules of that state, legalises and gives authority to the government of the state, so it is fundamental to the state. It is if you wish an agreement between the people and the rulers on the powers of the government, it has nothing to do with international agreements between states.

I will give you that the EU “Treaty to establish a Constitution” is a contradiction in the terms I have just outlined, which is why I asked my MP to explain how a treaty can be used to establish a Constitution. He wrote to Dennis MacShane who replied…

“if agreed (the Constitution) would be a treaty between nation states that establishes a constitution for an organisation of which they are members”

Yet if you look at the Constitution, you will see that it refers to the people:

“Grateful to the members of the European Convention for having prepared

this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe. Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows”

“On behalf of the Citizens” implies that the citizens themselves are fully in accordance and freely give their sovereignty as authority to the EU.

Without the full backing of the people, this could be used, at a later date to argue that the people were not consulted and therefore the Constitution is illegal and does not stand. With a referendum that argument is nullified, which is why I say, is probably the reason we are being offered a referendum.

Citizenship, this itself defines a state, you cannot be a citizen of a non-state, however we have been given citizenship of the EU, which in law is not possible, yet we retain citizenship of our own states, which is the greater power? At the moment because the EU is not a complete sate, it is our own countries, but it is clear that this situation is not immutable, and could easily be changed in the future.

If we vote yes to the EU Constitution it could well be argued that we agree to that as being the greater power, which would mean that the EU could at anytime override a state government because the EU would be looking after its own citizens, who had freely expressed their desire to be represented in the EU rather than in their own Parliament or by their own government.

If you look at the Constitution, when it comes to defining the power of the EU, it refers to the Constitution as the authority for its powers, it does not refer to the nation states as giving those powers nor does it recognise the nation state as the controlling influence of power. As the Constitution is an agreement between a state and its people, it seems to me that ratifying the EU Constitution is tantamount to accepting the EU as our country. I feel certain that the EJC will take that view if and when there is any question about the rights of member states.

It is clear that the EU with its own Constitution is a separate legal entity from the member states, because the Constitution makes it so. It is also clear the Constitution makes the member states subservient to the EU, its Constitution is the higher power, and its law is the higher power.

The EU Constitution, it does say that the member’s states give power to the Union to act for them; it also defines the areas of powers in which they will allow the Union to act. However when the member states have passed a power to the union it is then not in the province of the member states, but in the Union’s.

The member states and by extension the people have agreed to be bound by the Union in those matters, and have no option but to follow union rules and allow the Union’s own court to adjudicate on any disagreements.

There are some areas of competence the states have not passed to the Union these they have retained for themselves. Tax etc. or Tony Blair’s red lines, in each of these areas, they have not in fact retained the right of deciding these issues themselves, or rather they have not disallowed the Union from making proposals in those areas. What they have done is to retain a veto in these areas; this is a different thing all together. It does not prevent the Union making proposals or suggestions; it does however allow a member state to veto them if it wishes.

So in effect the EU has almost total power to make any proposal in any area of competence it wishes and the horse trading that goes on at the EU level would mean that anything we now accept as being in the power of our elected government could well be put into the pot during negotiations.

What is also important about this is that it can be clearly shown that the EU is making inroads into each of the areas of competence where a member state has retained a veto. The direction is clearly set that the EU will eventually have no member state veto to control its overall power of governing Europe.

Leaving the Union, at present, because Britain is sovereign and the EU is treaty based, we can create a law in our own parliament, which repeals the 1972 act of accession. If the Constitution is agreed especially after a referendum, we cannot, do that, in that instance we may ask! The EU if we can leave. The EU will decide and the EU will decide on the rules that they, will allow for the state to leave, the member state can have no part in these decisions. That much is clear; this is also an indication that the Constitution binds Britain to the Union as a subservient unit if Britain was a sovereign state it would not need to ask another institution for its permission to leave.

It is far, far better to understand the relevance of the Constitution and its effects on the direction of the EU, rather than to underplay the meaning of the decisions, we as a nation must take. To understand what a legal document actually says, and what it entails, is not scaremongering,.

The view that the EU is nothing more that a simple trading association, when it is in fact the embryo government of Europe, everything points to that fact. Has permeated the political life of Britain with lies and deceits, for over thirty years. It is that view which is now causing problems for our political class, in that the people no longer believe what our ministers of state tell them. It is a view which needs to be eradicated from British politics, so that we can start to build the trust we as a people must have in our leaders.

The people who would try to silence an opposing view, use any tactics at their disposal, it is not a simple matter of being given full and clear information and choosing what we as a nation want for our future but the attempt to manipulate people into an already decided course of action BY LIES AND DECITES THAT IS THE CASNCER IN OUR SOCITY.

This is clear by the government assertions the very thought of leaving the Union, is presented as casting Britain out in to the cold dark world, where we will loose 3.5 million jobs, loose any influence in the world, still have to comply to the rules of the EU, and become a third rate country. None of this is true, in any event we elect a government to rule Britain for a maximum of five years, for the benefit of the British people, this does not preclude the British people thorough their government from helping others less fortunate than us, nor does prevent our government making treaties with other states, but this should be done openly with clear information about the effects of any changes, and not conducted in darkened corners away from the view of the people, only thieves would work in that way.

Britain, must be honest about our future within the State of Europe, and stop this continual pretending that nothing important is happening. If the EU is so good for us, then those in favour must begin to really promote the positives that the EU brings to our people, and stop trying to undermine the opposing argument by underplaying the importance of the debate, or telling outright lies or misinterpreting the facts.

I recently wrote to Mr Howard expressing my doubts about the Conservative Party’s policies in relation to the EU. I give below his response:

“Thank you for your email which I read with interest. I respect your views and the points you made.

I have strong views on Europe too.

Europe is not working properly. The European Union pumps out too many rules and regulations. It is too centralised and inflexible. It has a poor track record on waste and fraud. It is a prime example of the failed big government knows best approach to life. Red tape is strangling our businesses as I am sure you yourself know.

As you know, I am completely opposed to the European Constitution which the Prime Minister has now signed. I will lead the opposition to it in any referendum and have been calling on the Prime Minister to hold this referendum as soon as possible.

Europe has to change. I support a modern, flexible, reformed Europe. I want to see powers returned from Brussels to Britain. The existing powers that the European Union has (the ‘acquis communautaire’) should not be set in tablets of stone. Experience tells us that there are powers which Europe has which would be better exercised by national governments. We need to begin the process of returning powers from Brussels to Westminster. We will start with fishing, overseas aid and the Social Chapter, we will then look further afield.

When it comes to further integration, I have a clear approach too. If some European countries want to integrate more closely - that’s fine so long as they don’t force other countries to join them. Allowing countries to pursue their own policies would force Europe to become more competitive - benefiting everyone.

I will not accept rejection of this policy of renegotiation. If we win the next election, we shall hold a referendum soon afterwards. We shall campaign for a “No” vote. I am confident that we can win that referendum. I would then go to Brussels able to negotiate from an unprecedented position of strength. One way or another we will achieve our objectives. In the end, it is in Europe’s interest to accommodate our differences, and certainly in ours to press them. We should never forget that Britain brings a huge amount to the European table. We are Europe’s largest defence power. We have the second largest economy in the European Union. We are a net contributor to Europe’s budget. We must have the confidence to use this strength. I am determined and totally committed to driving this strategy through.

Only the Conservative party can actually deliver this in practice by forming a Government committed to renegotiation in Brussels. Labour’s approach is the exact opposite. Tony Blair is simply not prepared to say no, because as his priority is never to be isolated in Europe. Now he has signed the European Constitution despite the fact that the British people clearly don’t want it.

It is my view that the only institution which can provide a real sense of ownership and solidarity is the nation state. The nation state is what binds the people of a country together. It gives people an identity and a sense of purpose. That is why I am so hostile to proposals which would transfer more power from Britain to the European Union - that is why I want to return powers from Brussels to Westminster. This is something only the Conservatives can deliver in forming a Government. I hope that you will support us in achieving this”.

I have replied as follows:

The views that you have expressed are acceptable to me but I think that I haven’t seen this forthright a statement expressed in so many words in the media. The message I read in the media about Conservative Party policies is far more muted. Please print the message you have sent me to each of the daily newspapers. Let there be no doubt as to your intentions regarding the UK’s future dealings with the EU.

But further; I and countless others in this country need those in authority to give us a clear statement of the rationale for staying in the EU. Tony Blair won’t do it. If the reasons for our continued membership are so compelling then let the Conservative Party do what Tony Blair refuses to do: explain the rationale in facts and figures and either confirm or deny that the cost of our membership could be as high as £40 billion p.a. Unfortunately, unless you are prepared to offer a definitive statement of this kind, supported by believable facts and figures, I will not be prepared to support the Tory position and will continue to believe that the cost of membership is completely unwarranted.

Please understand that I live a in a marginal Tory constituency and my views are shared by many others who will be quite happy to vote UKIP unless your message is compelling and unambiguous.

One Woulter Coussens from the Royal Institute for International Relations What that? It sounds very grand?

Has suggested that the UK rebate is unfair and should be scrapped. This of course is exactly the opposite of the view of Dr MacShane who says “that Britain’s rebate remains “fully justified”.

Mr Cousssens says the rebate should be scrapped because it is now obsolete. It may be, but it saves the British around 4 Billion a year.

The rebate was a response to the particular situation of the UK during its first years of membership. The UK would have paid a disproportionate amount into the Community’s coffers, as a result mainly of its low receipt of agricultural spending, the predominant category of outlays at that time.

But the structure of the EU budget has changed since. The importance of agricultural spending has decreased, to the benefit of cohesion policies - aimed at helping poorer regions catch up - and other spending categories.

Ah but has the actual amount of agriculture spending decreased or is it the same, or perhaps more, in which case, perhaps the argument could be reversed and we should have an even bigger rebate. Well it’s just a thought!

Mr Coussens later goes on to say the rebate is not fair, but without it each British person would pay 15 times the amount as a Frenchman, that would not seem to be fair either. Of course when (I say when because there will probably be some deal or other which ends up removing it, and you can be sure that when a government minister for the EU says something is not up for grabs it’s on its way out) we do loose the rebate, Britain will be then be in the unenviable position of being the biggest paymaster to the EU. Considering all this started as some form of repayment to the French from the Germans after the war, we seem to have been on the wrong side, especially as we were fighting to preserve Europe from tyranny, anyway I digress.

Figures from the commission show that Britain’s net contribution to the EU. Amounts to 3.8 billion euros compared with 1.7 billion from France and 1.1 billion from Italy. As this figure does not include the contribution paid through tariffs and levies collected at our borders it is difficult to really asses the true size of the net contribution.

But it must be said that Britain is now one of the richest countries in the EU, the fact that we got that way by avoiding many of the EU problems, is not important, we will soon be dragged down to the correct level., at which point, perhaps we can qualify for more help from the EU.

But wait a minute; who then will be paying the biggest amount into the EU to distribute to us poorer countries. Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, after we have all contributed to the cost of Olympics of course? That is another point, if the EU commission want us all to participate in the next Olympics under the EU flag, why does the EU not a make bid for them, after the Constitution is ratified it will just about be a state anyway, but I digress again.

As Mandelson, twice sacked for corruption, is being sent to Brussels by his mate Tony, as the British effort at EU Commissioning, it is nice to know that he will be in good company. The incoming Danish Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel who will be in charge of Agriculture has been under a cloud because her husband owns a big farm that receives EU subsidies. It seems the problem is that Mrs Fischer Boel will be in charge of the EU budget and her decisions would affect her personally.

This of course is a clear case of conflict of interest, well not according to EU lawyers who after receiving independent documentation from Mrs Fischer Boel’s accountants in mid-August put the case to rest by dismissing all charges of possible conflict of interests. Of course they did!

Unfortunately new evidence has come to light that the so called independent documentation was changed and corrected on a number of points in collaboration with the Danish Ministry of State before being sent off to Brussels. This revelation has raised new questions about the suitability of the Danish commissioner, and the Danish government is worried that she will face a tough grilling when questioned by the European Parliament.

As Mrs Fischer Boel who along with Mandelson will be joining the elite band of EU officials, who have not had their accounts signed by the auditors for the past nine years, cannot account for millions of Euros which go missing each and every year, have been openly accused of supporting Palestinian terrorism with our money, are not accountable to anyone, who sack anybody who tries to show where the corruption is, and have legal immunity to boot, I do not see this small infringement as being of any importance. In such a corrupt environment the lady may well prove to be a saint.

A quote: Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.”

-Thomas Jefferson

On his return from Ireland Tony Blair congratulated himself for preserving his “Red Lines”, one of which was that taxation would not become an EU competence.

We are now beginning to see how well Mr Blair did by being at the heart of the EU, how his policy has succeeded in protecting the interest of the British people. I think not!

As the EU takes exploratory steps towards harmonising taxes it will be interesting to see how Mr Blair retains his red line, in the face of the French and Germany attempts to ride roughshod over the agreement Mr Blair reached.

Now EU finance ministers have agreed to look at ways of harmonising the method of calculating company taxes in Europe, a working group will be established to investigate the harmonisation of corporate tax bases. German finance minister Hans Eichel welcomed the move as a step towards corporate tax harmonisation “The first step is harmonising the tax base and then we can talk sensibly over a minimum rate”, he said.

As any changes to EU tax law have to be agreed unanimously and this proposal is opposed by five member states, what on earth are they doing setting up a working group to look at ways of harmonising tax.

If the study by the working group shows that a harmonised system of tax bases could work, then several countries might forge ahead of the rest in a so-called “pioneer group”.

As this is clearly only the first step, why take a first step when you do not intend to travel down the road.

All that will happen is the goal posts will be moved, when the working party report their findings on ways of achieving tax harmonisation, we will be dragged into further discussions about something we do not want and do not intend to happen.

Are we then going to be faced with further opt-outs archived by horse trading, those opt-outs themselves to be negotiated away at a later date in return for something else, in the end only to cave in on tax harmonisation.

I thought the EU Constitution was supposed to make clear what the EU could do? Now who was who said..

“The Treaty also makes it plain that the European Union is not and will not
be a federal superstate. Rather, it establishes clearly where the EU can and
cannot act”?

EU Referendum:

“That other referendum”

In what could be a rehearsal for the EU constitution referendum, the Electoral Commission yesterday decided to designate a rank outsider, North East Says No (NESNO), as the official “no” campaign for the North East regional elected assembly campaign.

The shock announcement came as a snub to the better-established The North East No Campaign, run for over two years by Neil Herron of Metric Martyr fame, and flies in the face of any logic.

Herron’s campaign had a strong track record, had attracted broad, non-party political support and had a considerable presence in the debate. The winner, NESNO, by contrast, was a last-minute entry in the field, fronted by businessmen sympathetic to the Conservative party and, apart from the backing of UKIP, pledged by John Whittaker MEP over the heads of local members, could demonstrate no broad-based support.

Read the full account…

This makes me extremely angry!
What is happening to our democracy when the proponents of a government sponsored proposal to regionalise this country can choose who will be their opposition and define the debate along party lines.

As Dr North says… “Both the regional and the constitutional battles, however, are bigger than party politics, and far too important to be subsumed into a narrow political framework.”

What and who are the Electoral Commission, who chose them to set the rules for our elections, who benefits from this decision to sideline a well organised, long term, broadly based movement against Britain being divided into political regions.

One of the bulwarks of our system of government is the fact that anyone may stand for election on any issue. The last thing democracy needs is a system that has the effect of promoting and defining the argument to be put before the people, or choosing which particular argument will receive funding for their campaign and which will not. These people take our money and casually use those finances to promote their own agenda, what an absolute disgrace, these rules have no place in a democratic country and would be better confined to places like the old USSR, I remember when we would ridicule their so called elections, its not so funny now.