At Least one Conservative is pointing out the faults

Telegraph | News | At the heart of Europe:

“At the heart of Europe

By Daniel Hannan
(Filed: 24/10/2004)

From Commissar to Commissioner in one easy step

It has been a brilliant diversionary tactic. As far as the watching media are now concerned, there is only one Commission nominee: Rocco Buttiglione who, we are told, denounced homosexuality as a sin at his hearing.

In fact, Mr Buttiglione did no such thing: it was a Green Euro-MP who used the S-word. But by fabricating a row about the hapless Italian, Left-wingers have deftly switched attention away from what would otherwise have been the main story: the appointment to the Commission of seven former Communists.

Some of the nominees were very senior apparatchiks. Siim Kallas, the Estonian candidate, was a party member for 28 years, deserting it only when the Soviet Union was visibly falling apart. Laszlo Kovacs was one of the leaders of the Hungarian Communist Party.”

……
consider what some of the former Communist candidates have already said, even before their formal appointment. In this space last month, I mentioned that MEPs had formally asked each of the incoming commissioners which parts of the proposed constitution they intended to implement without waiting for formal ratification. We now have the answers.

“The Commission should already build on the political commitment to greater integration expressed by member states,” says Mr Kallas. “Instead of standing idle until the formal entry into force of the constitution, we should start the necessary preparatory work,” says Mr Kovacs. The Polish and Lithuanian nominees have said much the same thing.

And, disgracefully, they are being applauded for it: MEPs wholeheartedly agree that referendums should not be allowed to impede what they call “the process of European construction”. The ugly truth is that the EU, like the old USSR, is not especially interested in democracy.

I don’t mean, of course, that Brussels is a tyranny: it does not throw its opponents into gulags or take away their passports. But it has in common with the Soviet system a belief that the ruling ideology is more important than the results of ballots.

A rigged dialogue with society
The Economist 22 Oct 2004

From VOTE NO on side Bar

How independent are the civil-society organisations beloved by the European Commission?

THE European Commission knows it has an image problem. To try to fix things, it is creating the new post of commissioner in charge of communications. Margot Wallstrom, previously responsible for the environment, promises that one of her first actions in office will be to hold “brainstorming sessions” with “civil society”. Talking to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that purport to represent civil society is a proxy for the commission’s talking to ordinary Europeans. But there is something odd about this dialogue. Many of the NGOs that Brussels likes to consult are directly financed by the commission itself.

Take the “dialogue with civil society” that took place during the Convention on the Future of Europe, which last year produced a new draft constitution for the European Union. Sensitive to the charge that it was dominated by Europe’s political elite, the convention set up civil-society contact groups, allowing NGOs to air their views. Giuliano Amato, one of the convention’s vice-presidents, stressed the importance of “the support of civil society in legitimising the final outcome of the convention’s work”.

Happily, civil society seemed supportive of the idea of expanding EU power. The working group on citizens and institutions called for “the government of the Union to be in the hands of the commission, which alone was capable of representing the common interests of its citizens.” Five NGOs on this working group were invited to deliver this message directly to the convention. But all five—the Young European Federalists, the Federalist Voice, the Active Citizenship Network, the European Network Against Racism and the Polish NGO Office in Brussels—are financed, directly or through EU-funded members, by the commission itself. It is hardly surprising that they are eager for their paymasters to become the government of the Union.

The amounts of money involved are large. The Young European Federalists, which styles itself an autonomous youth organisation campaigning for “the creation of a European federation”, has received €466,000 ($560,000) from the commission since 2000, accounting for at least 50% of its funding. And this is just one of hundreds of NGOs funded by the commission. Romano Prodi, the commission’s outgoing president, boasted in a discussion paper in 2000 that “over €1,000m a year is allocated to NGO projects directly by the commission”. Most of this money goes to organisations that are not directly political: over €400m was allocated to humanitarian aid for example. But Mr Prodi also reckoned that €50m went to educational NGOs and €70m to social NGOs.

Some of the organisations financed by the EU directly promote political messages congenial to the commission. Indeed, some are assisted precisely so as to influence the political debate in Europe at critical moments. Just as Poland was completing its negotiations to join the EU, and preparing for a referendum on whether to join, the commission devoted millions of euros to pro-European initiatives in Poland. The commission influences the climate of debate more generally, by subsidising many of the think-tanks studying the EU, and by promoting the introduction of European integration studies in universities across Europe. Its Jean Monnet project has enabled European universities to set up over 2,000 teaching projects since 1990, as well as funding over 400 Jean Monnet chairs.

NGOs dealing with social issues are also big recipients of EU cash. Scores of such organisations, campaigning on issues ranging from conservation to corporate social responsibility, have been set up in Brussels. The commission finances many of them partly because they are convenient interlocutors for the various policymaking directorates. Suppose the environment or social-affairs directorates are thinking of issuing new directives and want to be seen to take account of the views of European citizens. What could be easier than picking up the phone and arranging a meeting with the local (commission-funded) NGO?

When is an NGO a GO?

Simon Wilson, director of the Platform of European Social NGOs, points out that the commission is hardly unusual in supporting NGOs. Most western governments and many international organisations do the same thing. The World Bank, for example, has made a huge effort to step up its contacts with NGOs. Mr Wilson argues that it is in governments’ interest to foster such links, since they can then tap into a wide range of expertise and experience. His own organisation received €369,383 from the commission in 2003-04, some 90% of its budget. But Mr Wilson denies that this compromises its independence. “On some occasions we broadly support the commission’s line”, he says, “but on many others we oppose it.” He cites two examples: the Social Platform’s campaign for new anti-discrimination legislation, and its effort to insert a clause in the draft EU constitution, making consultation with civil society a legal obligation.

This last (successful) campaign was, perhaps, a tad self-interested. But campaigning on their own behalf is a big occupation of these groups. Look at the websites of EU-funded NGOs and it becomes clear that one of their favoured activities is to lobby for even more EU money. Thus the European Network against Racism (80-90% commission-funded) complains truculently that “the present budget line for anti-racist activities is…insufficient. The network…needs to put pressure on the European institutions with a view to increase this amount.”

The spectacle of organisations that receive EU money using their money to campaign for more EU money is only one example of this looking-glass world. It is a world in which so-called NGOs are actually dependent on government for cash; and one in which the European Commission, itself directly financed by Europe’s national governments, finances “autonomous” organisations that campaign for more power and money to be handed to the commission itself.

An another look at the Buttiglioni Affair

Conservative Commentary:

“Even the initially supportive President of the European Commission, Jose Barraso, has responded to controversy over the putative appointment of Rocco Buttiglioni as Italy’s Euro-Commissioner by backing down. As a Bible-believing Christian, Buttiglioni’s mainstream Catholic views on the benefits of marriage to children and the morality of homosexual acts were too much for the European Parliament, which is now threatening to vote down the entire European Commission - tossing Peter Mandelson out of high office for a third time - if Rocco Buttiglioni is not withdrawn.”

With a comment from EU SERF

which puts into perspective the view of a real Conservative against that of Leftisim

Prof. Buttiglioni is the victim of a view of the world which says that the role of politicians is to meddle in everyones lives.

No self respecting leftist would fail to use a position of power to try to change the way people think. (Probably a great number of conservatives would do the same.)

However in the conservative tradition of limited government a persons personal beliefs are of little relevance as there is an assumption that he will not try to force them on everyone else.

Leftists are not able to understand this so they reject anyone who does not believe in their world view. This is the source of their intolerance.
EU Serf

From VOTE NO on side bar,

In an interview with the Sunday Times, outgoing Commission President Romano Prodi suggested that businesses wanted the EU to produce more regulations. He claimed, “Most regulation is actually requested by industry” (Sunday Times, 17 October).

If the EU parliament does veto the new Commision, Prodi may well not be outgoing quickly enough many.

Prodi’s comment demonstrates the detachment of EU officials from the concerns of ordinary businesses. While some large businesses who can afford to lobby in the EU may favour a higher level of regulation - to hold back smaller competitors - most businesses are concerned about over-regulation. A poll of 1000 chief executives of UK firms in April this year found that 74 percent thought regulations introduced in the last five years had damaged their businesses. 59 percent thought that the EU Constitution would be “bad for their business” because it would lead to an even higher level of regulation.

The EU is always making claims that they are only making regulations, because they are asked to by this or that organisation. The truth is that the EU regulations industry is about one thing and one thing only, and that is to increase the power of the Union over that of the nation states. The EU decides what it intends to do and then it goes out of its way to find the appropriate organisation often backed by the EU itself to agree, the EU then ignores any voices raised in opposition.

The point “Vote No” raises that it is the larger business that demand these regulations which have the effect of putting more pressures on smaller business making them less competitive and eventually driving them out of business altogether is well made. The EU is about larger everything except democracy!

Net contribution to the EU to rise

As the EU wants to increase the amount of money we must all pay into its coffers to enable it to continue to support Palestinian Terrorists, the Monett centres of EU propaganda among other many worthy EU causes.

According to a study by the French International Relations Institute (IFRI), quoted by Die Welt, Berlin’s net contribution to the EU could rise to 16bn euro a year by 2013.

In 2002, the net contribution of the Union’s largest member state was 7 bn euro; this rose to 9.5bn euro last year.

The institution has based its calculations with the EU budget set at one per cent of gross national income - something demanded by six of the biggest contributors to the EU budget, including Germany.

However, should the British rebate be taken away and instead a general rebate for all member states put in place, then Germany’s contribution would sink to 14.113bn euro.

To date Germany has been the biggest paymaster of the EU, but if Britain were to loose its rebate, and this is certainly very much on the cards, unless Tony is prepared to borrow one of Cherie’s handbags and do a Thatcher. We will find that it is Britain which will be paying the lions share into the EU bottomless pit, because we pay in £4.3 billion at present and the rebate would just about double that amount, therefore our costs would rise at the same rate as the suggested German rate. So in 2013 it will cost us around the same figure as Germany, and if the German economy continues to stagnate and the British economy continues to grow, we may well find ourselves in the unenviable position of taking the lead as the biggest paymaster.

In the news the cost of MPs! Apart from their £57,000 MPs are claiming extra expenses to the tune of on average £118,000, these expenses include costs to cover travel, run their offices and maintain second homes in their constituencies.

On top of this figure MPs are also entitled to a lump sum payment of between 50% and 100% of their final salary as a lump sum payment along with their pensions when voted out at an election.

This is the first time these figures have been published MPs decided to release the information voluntarily before the Freedom of Information Act forced them to do so from January.

With the Exclusion of SNP Angus Robertson £147,975, all the top ten claimants were to a man or woman, Labour MPs. Clair Curtis Thomas, Crosby wins the first prize by claiming £168,889. Whilst Keith “Beano” Vas comes a close second with a mere £164,265.

This on the face of it is a very great cost to the British taxpayer who have to struggle on an average wage of £20,000. I am sure that out there, some people will be prepared to jump to the defence of these charges, but before doing so, they should consider some of the following points:

In the past thirty years the work an MP must do in order to make any claim to represent their constituents by scrutinizing legislation, has more than halved, as now the majority (minimum 60%) of our laws are made in the EU, and are not subject to approval or alteration by the British Parliament; they play at looking at some of the stuff streaming out of Brussels, but they can do nothing about it anyway.

Whilst these MP are always on the front line in demanding our industry or service sector to continually cut costs and become ever more efficient; they have had their own work load cut by at lease 50% whilst their own costs are spiralling, what other organisation would still exist today if were the case.

The House of Lords which still does take its job of scrutinizing carefully legislation and amending it, if needs be, as well as producing copious and carefully argued reports on various aspects of EU legislation, the constitution and many other matters, costs a total of £91,000, per member to run, but House of Commons cost: £409,000, per member and just to add to the general discussion of value for money, in the 2002-3 session, the, the House of Lords sat for 174 days, whilst our representatives in the Commons only sat for 162 days. It is looking as if our much maligned second chamber is much more cost effective than the Commons.

All this however, pales into insignificance when we look at the cost of running the real government of Britain; the European Parliament cost a staggering £1,138,000, per member to run and in line with their more important position in society? these MEPs only sat for a total of 161 days in the 2003-04 session.

The EU Parliament, by putting pressure on the new EU Commision President José Manuel Durão Barroso, to drop Rocco Buttiglione - the Italian Commissioner under fire for his conservative views on gays and women, is staking a claim to a superior level of power than the individual states that send their chosen Commissioners.

They are in effect taking the line that the states must only suggest people the Parliament will accept. According to Andrew Duff, a liberal MEP; the current situation is one of those “historical moments”.

It is historical in that the Europhiles can no longer maintain their brainless claim that the states are in charge of the EU, and that power flows from our governments to the Commision who sets the agenda.

This procedure is on its way out in any case, because the EU Constitution makes changes to the rules on the states ability to choose their own Commissioner. In the future the state must suggest three people and the Commission President will then choose which of the three he will select to be in the Commision.

You can imagine the horse trading that will then go on between the Parliament and the President, with the States representing the people who have to pay for all of this charade, having to stand on the sidelines and watch.

I suppose only those people that have shown a history of supporting gay rights, or being suspected of some fraudulent activity in their past will be considered acceptable to the socialist block in the EU Parliament.

President elect Barroso has said today that he intends to keep the present make up of his commision and put the ball firmly back into the Parliaments court in the hope that his entire Commision will survive the vote.

But which ever way it goes the Parliament have placed their marker on the proceedings and in the future everybody will have to consider this when selecting their Commissioners.

And to think we did not know any of this was going to happen when we joined that nice trading group the Common Market.

Scotsman.com News - Latest News - Whistleblower Hands EU ‘Corruption’ Papers to SFO:

The former European Commission chief accountant Marta Andreasen who was brought in by Neil Kinnock to counter allegations of corruption and mismanagement.
But he suspended her from her job in May 2002 when she refused to sign off the EU accounts and made known her concerns to the public, she has now been sacked for breach of trust and disloyalty??? after she went public with her belief that lax accounting left the £63 billion a year euro-budget “massively open to fraud”.

Ms Andreasen eventually sacked last week after a two year suspension, insisted today, at a press conference that she did not regret her actions, she said she had acted in the interests of the public. She said “I do not withdraw the claims that I have made and I am not sorry for the actions that I have taken.

“Whatever The EU Commission say I communicated my concerns about the accounting systems to the hierarchy at the right time. I proposed changes and instead of getting an answer I was removed from the job.”

Ms Andreasen joined UKIP MEP Ashley Mote to deliver documents to the Serious Fraud Office in London, which they say support a number of allegations about the EU.

They argue that the UK Government is knowingly behaving in a fraudulent manner by paying money to Europe.

The papers they handed in today support allegations of institutionalised fraud and corruption at the heart of the EU, they claim.

Lack of financial control means some 95% of funds have not been accounted for and there has been no audit of the treasury for the last 14 years, they say.

They also say the EU accounting system is structurally flawed and there are seriously defective management controls.

With money in more than 200,000 bank accounts in 45 banks worldwide, inadequate accounting systems mean fraud is easy to commit and hard to detect, they claim.

They say there have been cover-ups within the EU hierarchy and money laundering by EU officials through a New York office.

They were backed in their concerns by leading barrister Leolin Price QC and it was suggested that if no criminal action was taken there was still the possibility of a civil case against the Government.

Mr Mote said: “This is a catastrophe for British taxpayers. It is a scandal that successive British governments have turned a blind eye to this disgraceful and unacceptable state of affairs for so long.”

He said the Government’s funding of the EU to the tune of £12 billion a year must stop “at once”.

I may have posted this before but it needs repeating anyway.

“European federalism is another secular religion, 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 the ends will justify the means — including subversion of a country’s democracy — that their counterparts so enthusiastically practised”.

Robin Harris, Consultant Director of Politeia

Helen Szamuely of Eureferendum has some costs of the British and EU parliaments and the House of Lords. It makes interesting reading Here: Considering the amount of work these various bodies do it is surprising how much they are all costing us the tax payer to keep them in the style to which they think they are entitled!

“Costs per member for the 2003-04 session were as follows:
House of Lords: £91,000,
House of Commons: £409,000,
European Parliament: £1,138,000.”

Squaring the Circle

From EUOBSERVER

Court of Human Rights decisions not binding, says German court

A landmark decision on hierarchy in European law was taken by the German Constitutional court.

The Court on Thursday (14 October) found that it is not obliged to hold to the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.

According to Germany’s Constitutional court, rulings by the Strasbourg court are “interpreting aids” which have to be taken into account but not strictly followed if they contradict German constitutional law.

The court justified its decision by saying the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) is worth more than the Human Rights Convention agreed under international law.

Under the German system, international law is at the level of a simple national law.

The German judges found that while the constitution wants Germany to be in a community of Free states it does not mean giving up the “sovereignty” of Germany.

They say that German courts, therefore, should neither enforce the Human Right’s rulings in a “schematic” way nor ignore them altogether.

The European Court of Human Rights was founded in 1959 and overviews the upholding of human rights in the 46 countries that are members of the Council of Europe.

The ruling came about after an unmarried father wanted access to his child. A German national court denied him this even though the European Court of Human Rights in a previous ruling had said that it is a human right for the natural father to have access rights to his child.

I find this decision rather interesting, if, Germany is going to insist that her Constitution is superior and her own Sovereignty is more important than international treaty agreements, will that stance not conflict with the EU`s own Constitution and the European Court of Justice claims making EU Law superior to national states, as it must, how then will the German Courts square the circle.

EUobserver.com:

“EUOBSERVER / ISTANBUL - The European Parliament’s Greens have said that they will reject the Commission as a whole during a key vote next week.

At a meeting this morning, the Green group unanimously decided to vote against the incoming Commission led by Jose Manuel Durao Barroso.

Meeting on the fringes of a conference in Istanbul, the group, which has 42 of the 732 MEPs, decided that six of the proposed Commissioners where not suitable for their posts.

Isabelle Zerrouk, a spokesperson for the Greens said that three of the would-be Commissioners were deemed ‘incompetent’: Stavros Dimas (Greece, Environment), L�szl� Kovacs (Hungary, Energy) and Ingrida Udre (Latvia, Tax and Customs).

According to the Greens, Mariann Fischer Boel and Neelie Kroes - the Danish and Dutch Commissioners - who are due to take up the Agriculture and Competition portfolios both have conflicting business interests, and are also not suitable.

The group furthermore, decided to oppose, for political reasons, the nomination of Rocco Buttiglione, the controversial Italian conservative who earlier this month said being gay was a sin.”

So being sacked twice for corruption is fine with the Greens? well at least we know who we can trust don’t we.

How dare Professor John Tomaney insult everbody who lives in the south…..A news Item in the Northern Echo
Here

The Yes group led by EU backed Professor John Tomaney has started to play a dirty campaign they must be desperate!

Yes 4 The North-East yesterday sent an 8 foot rat, (Not in metric I note) armed with a one-way railway ticket back to London, to track down what it says are the southern-based spin doctors behind the North-East Says No campaign.

Yes 4 The North-East said the rat had been chosen to symbolise the Rather Arrogant Toff Southerners, who they said were masterminding a campaign to dupe North-East people on the cost of an elected regional assembly.

Campaign director Ross Forbes said: “It’s a shame we had to stoop to this”

Yes I would agree when you are so desperate that you have to descend to insulting everybody who lives south of Darlington to try to win your votes that is a shame.

Below are just two of the letters of complaint sent to the Northern Echo

Dear Sir,

RATS

To Professor John Tomaney I am obviously a “Rather Arrogant Toff Southerner”
which just goes to show how absurd and facile the Professor’s assumptions
are.

My middle daughter lives and works in Newcastle and both I and my wife enjoy
our visits to this vibrant and attractive City. Furthermore my family come
from Liverpool so, although I may live in the South and no doubt John
Tomaney would castigate me as a “Toff” I suggest my northern roots,
traceable to 1600, exceed his.

Having on many occasions met Neil Herron, a more honest and patriotic
Englishman you could not hope to meet.

If only I were in a position to vote in this EU inspired break up of England
through Regionalisation I would listen to Neil Herron, a decent, down to
earth, local trader, rather than a professor taking money from Brussels.

Regards,

Bill Woodhouse

Dear Editor,
Professor John Tomaney from the Jean Monnet Centre at Newcastle University
who is leading the “Yes” campaign to install a North East Assembly. Is
exactly the reason people should vote “NO” to the Regional Assembly in the
referendum.
We have been repeatedly told regional assemblies are “nothing to do with the
EU”, but the Professor is proof of the EU connection, because Jean Monnet
was one of the original advocates and founders both in Europe and in America
of the original European Community, now the EU.
He established many learning centres throughout the EU to spread his
message, which would eventually lead to a political joining of nation states
and the creation of a Superstate of the Regions, and the removal of control
from the nation states.
yours truly
Mrs Jane Birkby

France to bring forward its referendum

France prepares to fall into line with the suggestion from the EU Parliament that the various referendums on the Constitution are all held at the same time, in a effort to imply that this would be an EU wide Referendum.

According to EUOBSREVER “French political leaders are considering bringing forward their referendum on the Constitution to 8 May next year and have already met to discuss this possibility.

President Jacques Chirac has previously said that the poll would be “in the second half of 2005″ but according to French daily Le Monde, he met prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin last Thursday (14 October) to discuss bringing forward the date of the poll.

The date itself is symbolic - it is the anniversary of the end of World War II. And 8 May was last week suggested by MEPs as an ideal date to hold co-ordinated referenda across the EU.”

Spain is still set to hold its referendum on 20 February.

Buttiglione affair Socialist Group softens its demands!

Speaking to Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Rocco Buttiglione said MEPs were trying to block his nomination to become commissioner because of his religious beliefs.

He said this meant having “to conform to a new orthodoxy, accompanied by a new inquisition, but this time anti-Christian”.

“There is a hate-campaign being waged against me”, claimed the conservative Catholic, adding that “whatever I say is being interpreted the wrong way”.

The issue has come to a head with the Socialist group in the European Parliament threatening to veto his nomination if he is not given another portfolio - he is supposed to take on justice and home affairs from 1 November.

Meanwhile Swedish media report that 10 of the 19 Swedish MEPs are set to reject the whole Commission in a vote at the end of this month if Mr Buttiglione is not moved to a different portfolio.

It would appear that the EU Parliament has moved on this and are now prepared to accept Buttiglione if moved but I am sure they specifically rejected this option last week. They are obviously preparing for a deal to be done that will save the Commission.

Refuting Euphiles platitudes

An exchange of letters in the Grimsby Telegraph

Linda McAvan MEP

Treasurer of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament.
Labour’s spokesperson in the European Parliament on Environment and Public Health and is a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee. She also serves on the Development Committee and the Joint ACP-EU Assembly (African, Caribbean and Pacific-European Union), which brings together parliamentarians from across the developing world with MEPs.
Member of the UNISON Group of MEPs. Member of the Tribune Group of Labour MEPs.

Linda McAvans Letter Grimsby Telegraph

There is No Need to Worry

Jane Birkby has nothing to worry about (Viewpoint September 10). She’s been an EU citizen for many years already.

The concept of European citizenship is not new.

The draft constitution makes it clear that “Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it” (art 1.8 draft constitution).

Such citizenship gives us extra rights when we travel to other EU countries or choose to live there.

It means a UK pensioner travelling in the EU will get the same travel discounts as nationals. We can work and retire in any EU country. It means we get access to emergency medical care when travelling.
We lose nothing and gain much. The draft constitution changes nothing compared with the status quo.

Linda McAvan MEP, Wath upon Dearne, South Yorkshire.
———————————————-
Don’t we hear the “not new argument” often enough from these people, when did they ever ask us! if we wanted any of this. The fact that without a mandate from the people of this country various politicians have taken it upon themselves, to agree between themselves, what is best for us some time ago, is no argument.
Murder is not new theft is not new etc. Is this therefore and argument for these?

Jane Birkby’s reply Amended with the recent discovery that Tony Blair has already removed many constitutional safeguards.

Shallow Thinking

Dear Viewpoint,
Linda McAvan MEP (Viewpoint September 30th) thinks I’m worried about EU Citizenship, and gives all the usual platitudes about how good the EU is to us, and for us. I find this to be shallow thinking.

“The concept of European Citizenship “which she mentions…. is just that, only a concept, it has no legality, substance or truth to it, and is a myth pure and simple.

The EU is not a country, it is not legally recognised as one, except in it’s own misguided purchasing power, publicity, and aspirations.
It is a collection of sovereign nations, who at present have lent their sovereignty to the EU.
A person can only be a citizen, of a legally based country.

The EU desperately needs the Draft EU Constitution to be accepted and ratified, so that it can be recognised legally as a country, and so that it can have Legal Kompetenz (full legal control).
Article 1.8 of the Draft Constitution (note…Draft i.e. changeable) saying” EU Citizenship will not replace national citizenship”… is a placebo…. for if it should arise that the EU gains all the “Kompetenz’s” (or controls) of subsidiarity it needs, they will then be able to amend pretty much anything they want, on the grounds that it is ’showing proper respect to The Union’.
In the past, the EU has amended the original agreement for the then Common Market, by using treaty after treaty, so it will be nothing new.

The Draft EU Constitution will change everything Linda McAvan….not nothing as you would have us believe. Frankly I’m surprised by your apparent ignorance.

It will require the abolition of our own protective British Constitution entrenched in Common Law, because our British Constitution Acts and Treason Laws are designed to stop anyone conspiring to, or actually handing over this country to a foreign power, either within or without the Realm (British Constitutional Law)

Our Governments and the Queen have a sworn duty to uphold and protect the British Constitution, sadly they have not done this, Tony Blair repealed the Constitutional Laws of Treason for 1790, 1795, 1817, and section 2 of the Treason Felony Act 1848, using the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 a year after coming to office. This was in itself an Act of Treason because it diminished our Constitution. The statute of limitations for action is 3 years, now past.

The most dangerous piece of legislation ever placed before our Parliament, the “Civil Contingencies Bill 2004″ is in the House of Lords, soon to pass back to the House of Commons.
Clause 21 (3) j, will confer supreme unlimited power to parliament, deifying it (making it Godlike in authority), which will allow it to sweep away the Acts of Parliament which make up our British Constitution.

The British Constitution had protected us, and given us stability for 1,000 years.
In the time of James I, Sir Edward Coke (the great Chief Justice) held that “law, divine in its origin and sanction, is the basis upon which civil society is built, and that this law is supreme above King (Monarch) and people equally”, or in other words no person is above the Law, and certainly not Constitutional Law the Supreme Law of our Country.

Mr Blair, who is a Lawyer, has already initially signed up to the EU Constitution without consulting us. Whoever is in power at the point of ratification for this country, will first need to destroy or misapply the rest of our British Constitution. They cannot legally sign this country over to a foreign power, in direct opposition to our own Constitution which they have a duty to uphold and protect.

Therefore they will have to commit a monumental Act of Treachery against the Political Sovereign of this country i.e. the people, in order to comply with completion of the ratification of the EU Constitution. This would of course be committing a crime by breaking the Supreme Law of the Land, something they are prepared to do it seems. Quite a problem for them I would think, or for us, if they choose to ignore the Supreme Law of the Land again.
Yours truly
Mrs Jane Birkby

My thanks to Mrs Birkby

The real North East No Campaign is keeping up the pressure on the government which seem incapable of obeying even its own electoral rules.

Tony Blair is so frightened of loosing the first of his referendums on regional assemblies, that with only a few weeks to go before the people have a chance to decide the issue, he is sending in the big guns to bolster flagging support for Professor John Tomaney`s Labour backed Yes campaign. But as picked up by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph, by doing so he is breaking the rules for a fair referendum. As the body which is supposed to oversee the parties do not break the rules (the Electorial Commision) seem to be sitting on their hands, the job is being left to the NESN Campaign.

From the NENC Website

“Who paid for the Ministers to speak as Labour Party Members?”

If the Electoral Commission will not do their job and ask the difficult questions of the ODPM, then we will. We may have to go back down the legal route again, but it is important that this is exposed in advance of any referendum on the European Constitution. The rules MUST be clear, and since the Electoral Commission is spineless and useless, it is down to members of the public.
The ODPM, because there is a referendum very imminent have a duty to respond within 24 hours, especially as we are a Permitted Participant in the referendum.

Below is a link to the e-mail sent Friday afternoon.

E-mail from Neil Herron to Jessica Matthew
Regional Assembly Division
ODPM:

Christopher Booker’s Notebook: “Prescott flouts democratic rule

John Prescott is so keen to secure a Yes vote in next month’s referendum on an elected regional assembly for the North-East that, last week, he and two other ministers, Gordon Brown and Peter Hain, were out on the campaign trail. (As Mr Brown put it in Newcastle, ‘I believe that a Yes vote would be good for the people and the businesses in the North-East.’)

On Thursday Neil Herron of the North-East No campaign lodged an official complaint with the Electoral Commission. He pointed out that the politicians’ visit was in clear breach of the Referendums Act 2000, which rules that Ministers of the Crown may not actively campaign to promote a specific result within 28 days of the start of polling in a referendum. At the same time he asked the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to explain why ministers appeared to be breaking the law.

He was told that they were not campaigning in their capacity as Deputy Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House, but simply as Labour MPs (although this was not how their presence in the North-East was reported). When Mr Herron asked whether they had used ministerial transport to travel to the North-East, no explanation was forthcoming.

Perhaps the Electoral Commission, which has a statutory duty to ensure that the law is observed, would like to investigate, with a view to possible prosecution?”

And then again perhaps they would not?

Some interesting background on the spat between the EU Parliament and the New Commision from EURSOC.
As an EUsceptic I do not care who causes problems for the EU, so am torn between what I see as a clear case of discrimination towards Rocco Buttiglione, which I despise, and the fact that this will cause problems for the EU itself, which if it happens I would celebrate, but I am not ordering in the Champagne just yet, these things seem to work themselves out in the end.

EURSOC: Fancy That!: “Fancy That!

The leader of the European Parliament’s Socialist bloc says he is confident he can muster a majority to vote down the entire European Commission unless the new president reconsiders his
position on controversial Italian Rocco Buttiglione.”
Martin Schultz, who leads the parliament’s 200 socialists, claims he can count on 88 liberals plus 150 greens, communists and Eurosceptics to overturn the appointment of the commission.

Such a rebellion by MEPs would doubtless provoke a constitutional crisis.

snip

But it might be more helpful to look to the personalities behind the crisis. The civil rights committee rejected Buttiglione, though their recommendation would not normally lead to the toppling of the entire commission. Buttiglione was put forward for the job by Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s prime minister. Berlusconi and those newspapers he owns or influences have been the most vocal critics of the committee vote.

So let’s go back to the Socialist leader who decided that this row could be used to overturn the entire commission. Why, Martin Schultz of course. Sounds familiar? Schultz was the heckling MEP who Berlusconi said would make a convincing concentration camp capo should anyone make a film about the war.

Schultz, who had been leading a rabble of Socialists disrupting the prime minister’s speech to parliament, reacted as if Berlsconi had abused his mother live on stage. The German, whose gang had been bandying about Godfather and Mafioso slogans to attack Berlusconi, whinged like a wronged schoolboy when Berlusconi served up some of his own medicine.

So of course Schultz has a grudge - despite rising to the dizzy ranks of EU parliament socialist leader thanks to his little publicity stunt, he still hasn’t forgiven Berlusconi for his jibe.