eurealist.co.uk

With Fond Memories of Stephen

When we talk to others or write about the EU and our thoughts do people understand the basics do we loose them when we start to mention MEP, ECJ, CAP, CFP, and any number of acronyms the EU has wrought. Do we need a different language to get our message through do we fall at the first fence if so how can we change the way we talk about the EU.

All this is brought on by a question on a political forum, I had posted what I thought was a reasonable clear discussion point about Members of the European Parliament selling the European Union Constitution. The questioner asked…

“Ken, i’m sorry.. but i just.. i.. i just don’t get it! What is the MEP? And this constitution whassap with that? A vote? Whats going on i’m a member of the EU and i don’t get a word of what you are talking about geez could you point me to some page so i could educate myself”

Now given English was not the gentleman’s first language and he did an awfully better job of his English than I could have managed in Swedish, it was clear that I had failed to make myself clear and therefore people would simply turn of from the message I was trying to impart.

I then remembered that last year on the FCO.gov.uk Forum I did for a time trade insults with a Europhile whose language was so thick I had to deconstruct it to find the meaning before I could formulate a reply this would sometimes take an hour or so eventually I gave because I felt that if the gentleman had wanted to write clearly it was obviously within his capabilities to do so and if he wished to convince anyone of the greatness of the EU he would have made himself clear.

This really is not going anywhere else, but I have attached just a short bit from my FCO friend for you enjoyment.

Here he is writing about the Tories 10 point plan. If you get to the end please let me know what he is saying, I’ve lost the knack and already have a headache.

And is not the Tory’s pseudo “red card” system to require an European law to be repealed ‘if five or more national parliaments objected to it’ a case of populistic will-enforcement on the rest of EU nationstate-sovereignty? Surely undemocratically-induced de-integration “to which all must even ipso facto subscribe”? [All right, what that means is the Tory-proposition to '... require a European law to be repealed if five or more national parliaments objected to it, ...' - surely it would result in collusion by EU-sceptic movements within the EU member-states to abrogate to themselves an absolute power, hugely greater than that alleged to be "additionally transferred" to the European Commission by 'Constitutional Treaty'. So please inform us whether such an enforcement of pseudo-democratic short-term power is going to be mandatory under EU absolute law, or at least subject to QMV decision-making in the EU Council of Heads-of-State. At least the EU's own acceptance of citizen-referenda power-play in the new "Constitutional Accord", if any, is going to be limited to be consultative-only, although still probably overloading the governing-work of all EU Institutions and nationstate parliaments at libertarian whim].

Then we get the rather unthought-through addition: ‘… and pledge to put any new European treaty that transferred significant powers to Brussels to a referendum.’ - surely that is covered vis-a-vis the EU by veto-powers retained by EU member-nationstates. And there might be lengthy argumentations about what would be considered as “significant powers”, possibly going eventually to an extra-empowered EU Constitutional Court (instead of being dealt with in a cooperative European Council). If, on the other hand, you moot it would be considered by ‘The Queen in Parliament’, then Amen - but surely then we come back to “the Referendum” methodology: to accept “non-significant powers” or to leave the EU ipso facto in due course. I suggest that there is more democratic opportunity to remain at the heart of the EU

In an attempt to stem the tide of desertion from the party and undercut the UKIP vote Mr Howard has brought back into his shadow cabinet arch EUsceptic, by Tory standards, John Redwood ,who has started to frighten the moderates with his assertions that if, I mean if, the Tories were returned to power at the next election they would “try to re-negotiate any laws the party judged to be excessive” Wow what excitement!

After the attempt to ignore the results of the EU Elections and push the EU to the back burner, in the hope that we would all just be happy to discuss hospitals and the like, Mr Howard has begun to realise that it is not working so we get Tory two! the newly revived party that is going to “try to re-negotiate”, when will these people wake up, not in time for the election thats for sure.

That some people actually believe quite sincerely that we can stay in the EC and recover national sovereignty by renegotiation of the treaties, beggars belief. Have they not read the treaties have they not read the EU Constitution have they not understood what they signed up to in 1972, 1985 and 1993 do they not know that Maastricht makes it explicit that further Treaty changes must preserve and build on the acquis communautaire and any changes must also be in the spirit of the goals of the Community.

Have they not looked at the ECJ rulings

The EC legal system carries a permanent limitation of member states sovereign rights

Member states must accept all EC laws and judgements

No national law may prevail over European law even if the latter violates the national Constitution

Do they not know that under Article. 5 of the Treaty of Rome, carried forward, member states must do nothing to jeopardise the attainment of œever closer union.

Now we know why we signed up to all this, the Tories were not paying attention.

It is now apparent that the EU plans to outlaw sex discrimination which will force insurers to ignore common sense and statistics when applying insurance rates. It is a fact that young men are involved in many more accidents than young women hence their insurance is higher because they obviously pose a greater risk factor, but to make things equal between the sexes, insurance companies will not now be allowed to consider gender, when they issue cover, so young women will have to pay the same as young men.

It goes without saying that the government of Britain (fairly soon we are going to have to think of another name for this body) broadly supports the planed directive, which is just as well as they couldn’t do anything about it if they didn’t.

I am reasonably sure that the EU does not intend to make driving more expensive for women, but that is what is going to happen, and is an indication of the inability of the EU to make sensible laws. They are cocooned in their own little world, and do not have to consider the anomalies and inconsistencies which results from their drive to make us all subservient to their will.

All that matters to them is that both sexes must be equal, it seems the fact that they are already equal in that they both have the chance, not to drive into other cars, not to drive to fast, not to drink and drive, has escaped the Commissions notice, the only difference is that young women have consistently shown they choose not to do those things which can cost the insurance companies money, and are therefore a better risk. I would have thought that they had a jolly good case of sex discrimination, against the EU Commission to take before the ECJ