eurealist.co.uk

7.12.2004

Dear Home Secretary

The proposed ID Card and the EU Constitution.

Having taken the trouble to follow the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” and the proposals for the NATIONAL Identity Card Scheme, I put forward part of my objections to both here.

It has been suggested that the ID Card might initially cost each member of the public about £85 for each card, a card which, and I quote “remains the property of the person issuing it”. We have to notify any changes affecting the accuracy of the Register, and it seems that the treasury must not be out of pocket by any of these changes. Woe betide any of us if we get anything wrong but for some that have lived here there and everywhere, I hope they have a good memory. An individual that contravenes a requirement imposed on him/her shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1000.

There is reference to Driving Licences in the proposals and as these (National) driving licences bear the EU’s Ring of Stars, it rather looks as if, even though classed as a “National” Identity Card and bearing in mind that the ID scheme may be applicable to all Member States of the EU, the same emblem that is on our driving licences may be used on the Identity Card. (It has been confirmed this year by the Identity Cards Programme Team that it “is likely” to be the same) This of course could not then be classed as a TRUE identity of a British person carrying or showing it to any official authority. It would fall foul of a TRUE description before it had even got off the ground.

The second and perhaps more important point I make, having read the final, final EU Constitution, a Constitution that would be incorporated into our system via the “Treaty”, for once installed, the Constitution would then take over in the same way that the Treaty of Rome was incorporated into our law, where we, as the years went by, learned to our cost, the direct effect and the supremacy of Community Law.

The EU Constitution, in spite of all the rhetoric to the opposite told to the people, will have untold consequences for this country of ours and all the people in it. Yet you, as a Government of this Country would accept this? A Government, according to my dictionary, is for the governing of a state, just incorporating laws made by others, is not ‘governing’.

There is no doubt what so ever, that the United Kingdom has come to a “cross roads” as far as remaining in the European Union is concerned. As an alleged independent Nation State, Britain cannot adopt/incorporate/accept an EU constitution. The EU constitution and the UK Constitutions are incompatible with each other. As a sovereign Nation, we can never allow ourselves to be subservient to another, and that, according to the EU constitution is what we would be if the EU Constitution was ratified. No country can have two conflicting Constitutions and be true to both.

We have seen in recent years, legislation made by this Government that has totally ignored the Constitution of this great Country, in fact this Government has quite deliberately gone against it in its efforts to further closer and deeper integration into the European Union. An action which, even as an all powerful Government, it would not be able to alter one dot or comma of the EU Constitution it proposing to incorporate as this Country’s own. (It is a constitution for all 25 states).

The people have a duty to defend their Common Law Constitution, they, as subjects of the Crown, are by Oath of Allegiance sworn to defend their constitution and their Country. This is what I am doing today. The people of this Country have defended to the death this Country from being governed by another, twice in living memory. I am appalled at some of the clauses in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill and to the extent that this Government will go to (Clause 30) on the Mutual Assistant in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union. Do you really think there will be no outcry when foreign nationals arrest British people here in the UK? That foreign police will be able to instigate an arrest and whisk a person off to languish in a foreign prison while investigations are completed, that there will be no outcry? Were lessons not learnt re the ‘plane spotters? (See our Constitution as to legality, a constitution that should be obeyed by all.)

One cannot help feeling that this Government believes that all 58 million people in this country are criminals and so should be treated as such. In spite of the incorporation into our law the Convention on Human Rights, the declaration re The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, we appear to have lost more Rights and Freedoms under this Government than ever before.

There is no doubt what so ever that we will soon have to extricate ourselves from the European Union. We cannot, as an alleged sovereign independent Country, subject ourselves to any further integration into the Union, and having read the contents of the Identity Cards Bill and what the Secretary of State may do, “without the individual’s consent” realise that if every person in the Country actually read the contents of that document together with the contents of what is proposed in SOCA, there would be a mass abstention from any proceedings that would help the formation of any Identity Scheme in this country.

All this power given to this Government, and all we did was to place a tiny cross on a bit of paper. No wonder people do not bother to vote.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer.

As this concerns our Constitution, this is an open letter. A copy of this letter will be forwarded to the people mentioned on the front of the Identity Card Bill and their opposite numbers (if any) in the Official Opposition Party.

As much as the professional scribes might dislike it, bogging has opened up the debate, we are no longer confined to the narrow approach news editors have imposed on the stories they choose to publish. The David Blunkett affair has been one of the main concerns of all the media, they have all jumped on the story, as if Mr Blunkett private life was the most important problem facing the British people so far this century, but they have all to a greater or lesser extent whilst delving ever deeper into his life, ignored the fact that Mr Blunkett is overseeing some of the most draconian measures ever to be passed by any government of Great Britain:
The Civil Contingencies Act gives the Government the right to remove our Common Law Constitution (under certain conditions) a Constitution politicians have successfully ignored for a number of years, yet would obey every dot and comma of an EU constitution.
The Secretary of State has given himself the power to remove the British nationality/citizenship of a person born here providing that person is not made “stateless”. This power through the “Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Act 2002″.

Identity Card Bill
an individual to whom an ID card has been issued must notify the Secretary of State about-
(a) Every prescribed change of circumstances affecting the information recorded about him in the Register; and
(b) (b) Every error in that information

Article 13 (6) A person who contravenes a requirement imposed by or under (a) any regulations under subsection (1) (Notifying the Secretary of State that the card may be lost; stolen; damaged; tampered with; or destroyed.) or
Subsection (3) (Knowingly in possession of an ID card without lawful authority etc) or (4) (where is appears that a person is in possession of and ID card that is issued to another; has expired or cancelled or is otherwise invalid; the Sec of State has decided the card should be re-issued; or an ID card that is in that person’s possession in consequence of a contravention of a relevant requirement) is guilty of an offence).
(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) shall be liable-
(a) On summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both;

The powers under the “The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill” are enormous and by taking a leaf out of the proposed EU constitution they have under, Part 6 Final Provisions taken the free-standing power to amend primary and secondary legislation (Explanatory Notes at 32)

There are a number of changes to police powers and it also extends the powers of Community Support Officers (CSO’s), and other persons designated or accredited under the provisions of Part 4 of the police reform Act 2002.

Clause 30: Application of clauses 29 and 29 to members of joint investigation teams.
The purpose of this clause is to provide a legal basis for civil liberties arising from operations of joint investigative teams involving members of SOCA’s staff and law enforcement officers from abroad. The UK is obliged, if it agrees to the setting up of such teams through its participation in international agreements such as the Convention of 29th May 2000 on mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between Member States of the European union, to provide arrangements for the satisfaction of civil claims that may arise from actions of team members when they are not operating in their own country. These arrangements are intended to provide a firm legal basis for the setting up of such teams which are important in strengthening police co-operation between participating countries by allowing for the speedier and more effective sharing of information and expertise across national boundaries in combating the common threat from serious and organised crime. (Taken from the Government’s Explanatory Notes on the Bill) (Thanks to Anne Palmer)

This government has given the power to any judge in the EU to have us arrested in our home and taken to that country to face that countries courts without any recourse or help from our own government.

Tony Blair has already signed the EU Constitution but before it becomes the basis for our law it must be ratified but notwithstanding that the EU is already beginning to put in place many of the powers the Constitution will give to it.

Blogging has allowed “the people” to see for themselves what is happening, simply by sitting in their own homes they can accesses hundreds of different view on any subject, they can find out exactly what is in the EU Constitution, they can read it themselves without having to rely on the interpretations the media will choose, no wonder the likes of Terrence Blacker are getting worried they will have to begin to write about serious issues rather than the fluff and stuff that fills their pages, because if they do not the Bloggers will be show them as the charlatans they are.

The EUABC discribes a Euromyth as
Euromyth
A Term used by the EU Commission to refer to alleged lies and distortions of fact about the EU, particularly on the part of Euro-sceptics, and especially as represented in the British press. The Commission has established a web-site claiming to refute them.
EUABC also defines
Euro-sceptics
A term used for organisations and persons who are sceptical of too much integration in the EU. They fear for national democracy and the rights of nation states.

Euro-realists
A term used for organisations and persons who are not opposed to membership of the EU, but are sceptical towards EU-wide integration in matters they believe can be dealt with more efficiently at a national level through measures adopted in the national Parliaments.
Euro-realists favour close and binding European co-operation in areas where the national Parliaments are not able to govern efficiently. They are not anti-federalists per se, but do not believe that a “European people”, or demos, exists to provide the basis of a European federal democracy.
Which means that I should rename this blog because I do not believe EUABC definition correctly describes my feeling for the EU.

The EU Commission has an office in London with a department solely dedicated to the manufacture of Euromyths which says:
“Most of us rely on our national newspapers, television and radio news to find out about what is going on in the EU. Unfortunately, amongst the clear and informative reports lie a large number of stories based on twisted facts or even lies. The stories can make entertaining reading, but many people believe them and often come away with a picture of the EU as a bunch of mad ‘eurocrats’. These pages take some of those stories and set the record straight – sadly, we cannot keep track of them all”.

The list of those Euromyths the EU Commision have chosen to highlight as based on twisted facts or even lies are interesting, because the EU Commision also gives its version of events, which when looked at shows that in many cases, each one of those myths is based not on lies or twisted facts as the Commision would like us to believe but are based on those things which are actually being suggested either by the Commision of other EU Bodies or EU funded bodies with the odd mistake of accusing the ECJ with rulings that are actually the ruling of the ECHR. What the EU Commision does not like is that several of these stories have taken the basic facts of the case and extended those to their logical conclusions.

If we look at one so called myth we can see that far from being a myth it is in fact true, I have not been able to find the Original story in the press but the Commision only want us to look at the headlines anyway.

Farm workers could be prevented from driving tractors for more than three hours a day under proposed European Union rules…(Daily Mail, 12 October 2001)

After debates about the bend in bananas, the size of Welsh farmers’ leeks and cheese that almost couldn’t call itself Caerphilly, Brussels has turned its attention to the tractor. Assuming its directive gets the go-ahead, from today farmers will be allowed to drive tractors for a maximum of seven hours a day. … Last night NFU Cymru Wales described the plan, coupled to an EU directive on vibrations, as more Alice in Wonderland stuff from Brussels: “What are we to expect next – a directive telling farmers how long they can go without answering the call of nature?” (The Western Mail, 25 April 2002)

The Commissions response: Studies show that prolonged use of machinery can cause physical damage to workers. The aim of the Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive, which was unanimously agreed by Member States’ ministers, is to improve health and safety by setting maximum levels of exposure in order to reduce the danger posed to workers. It will cost less to act now at the prevention stage, rather than waiting to pay compensation and sickness benefit to people unable to work having used this machinery all their lives. Although the directive must be implemented within three years, the EU recognises the special case of the agriculture industry so the rules will not apply to farmers until 2014. Furthermore, many farmers will not be affected because those self-employed will be exempt from the rules. The UK government was fully involved in the legislative process of the directive and the suggestion that it has been imposed arbitrarily by the EU is incorrect.

There is in fact nothing incorrect about this article, it is a fact that the EU was introducing a directive that will limit the time allowed for driving a tractor, so this is not a myth, it is not a lie, it is not a misrepresentation, it is a fact. There was no suggestion that in the press as shown by the Euromyth file that this directive had been imposed arbitrarily in the first place, that was simply the interpretation put on the story by the Commision who could then claim it was incorrect. The fact that the EU has a very sensible argument for the (Vibration) directive does not make the stories untrue.

We are paying our taxes so that our government can send money to the EU so that the EU can then spend some of that money on trying to rebut perfectly honest reporting of some of the effects being a member of the Union has produced.

A Euromyth is an EU Commision invented concept, that enables them to deny perfectly true stories in the press and therby suggest that they are mere inventions of a Eurosceptic media, once that idea has taken root and become itself an accepted myth then the Commision can extend that to name anything it wishes as a Euromyth, and thus confuse the issues and any questions arising from out membership of the Union.

The EU has an unwillingness to tolerate dissenting opinions amongst its citizens, unlike the British who make it a point of honour to criticize the government and in fact actually demands criticism The House of Lords in the case of Derbyshire County Council vs Times Newspapers in 1993 — the doctrine that states, and I quote: “It is of the highest public importance that any democratically-elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism. of course the EU does not accept that principal of law, EU advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer said that had no foundation in or relevance for European law, or is that a Euromyth?

Of course this is only my view there are other Blogs which take a differing view
Strait Banana
Europhobia

But the main problem is that our press by portraying the EU question with such juvenile details are distracting everyone from the truly important issues, such as the EU Constitution and its ramifications to the way we will be governed or in fact who will be the government of Britain in the future.

The Two Courts
The European Court of Human Rights ECHR
The European Court of Justice ECJ

Confusingly we have two European courts witch our governments have allowed to hold sway over our domestic national laws. As a point of fact no government should allow any other court to make any laws which our courts must obey, we are, within the British Constitution, supposed to be ruled only by our Laws. However that is a different story, for the purposes of this post I will not go into the rights and wrongs of allowing any other system of law that we the British people do not have influence over to dominate our system.

I am surprised at how many times people, often people who should know better, get the two courts muddled, often one court is accused of making laws which the other has made, it is often the ECJ which finds itself on the receiving end of bad press, when it has in fact had nothing to do with the ruling at all. This was brought home when I was looking at the EU Commission UK web site there they have a section of Euromyths (more of which later) Some of those were not the responsibility of the EU at all and were not the subject of any EU or ECJ intervention at all they were rulings from the other court the ECHR

The ECHR is the Court of the Council of Europe which has 46 member states, and the ECJ is the court of the European Union which has 25 Member States.

The Council of Europe is the continent’s oldest political organisation, founded in London 1949. the first major convention was drawn up: the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and coming into force on 3 September 1953.

Shortly after the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, Robert Schuman, French Foreign Minister approached all the Council of Europe countries with a proposal for a European Coal and Steel Community, to be provided with very different political and budgetary means.

The six countries most attached to the ideal of integration - Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany - joined, and on 9 May 1951 signed the very first Community treaty. Strengthened by the experience and commitment which had brought the “Greater Europe” into existence, the “Smaller Europe” was now making its own “leap into the unknown” of European construction.

So the European Union was begun from the exiting members of the Council of Europe who wished to pursue the path of closer union. From this stage there are two European organisations, however the investigation of one or the other, begins to become somewhat muddled, because all members of the European Union are, even to this day, also members of the Council of Europe, in fact to become a member of the EU it is necessary for a state to first be a member of the COE. This also means that a ruling by the ECHR would apply to all 25 members of the EU but a ruling of the ECJ would not apply to all 46 members of the COE.

The flag we accept as being the flag of the EU the ring of stars on a blue background is in fact the flag of the COE. On 8 December 1955 the Committee of Ministers adopted this as the European flag. It has only been used by the EU/EC since 1986.

As we now have two linked organisations, it is important to differentiate between them as too often even professional writers and politicians who should know better get them muddled.

Council of Europe:
An international organisation in Strasbourg which comprises 46 democratic countries of Europe.

European Council:
Regular meeting (at least twice a year) of the heads of state or government from the member states of the European Union for the purpose of planning Union policy.

Council of Ministers:
Ministers representing the governments of the Member States which ministers attend which meeting depends on what subjects are on the agenda.

Parliamentary Assembly: The deliberative body of the Council of Europe, composed of 315 representatives (and the same number of substitutes) appointed by the 46 member states’ national parliaments.

European Parliament:
The parliamentary body of the European Union which comprises 786 European Members of Parliament of the 25 European Union countries, elected by universal suffrage.

European Commission of Human Rights:
Until November 1998, this international body examined the admissibility of all individual or state applications against a member state in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights; it expressed an opinion on the violation alleged in applications found to be admissible in cases in which no friendly settlement is reached.

European Commission:
The executive organ of the European Union, based in Brussels, which monitors the proper application of the Union treaties and the decisions of the Union institutions.

European Court of Human Rights:
Based in Strasbourg, this is the only truly judicial organ established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is composed of composed of one Judge for each State party to the Convention and ensures, in the last instance, that contracting states observe their obligations under the Convention. Since November 1998, the Court has operated on a full-time basis.

Court of Justice of the European Communities:
Meets in Luxembourg and ensures compliance with the law in the interpretation and application of the European Treaties of the European Union.

International Court of Justice:
Judicial body of the United Nations which meets in The Hague.

European Convention on Human Rights:
Treaty by which the member states of the Council of Europe undertake to respect fundamental freedoms and rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Adopted by the United Nations in 1948 in order to strengthen the protection of human rights at international level.

The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights
approved by the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers at the Nice summit in 2001, The EU Constitution provides should be made binding in EU law, and therefore become superior to national law.

So not only do we have two Europe’s we have two European courts, two European councils, two European Parliaments two European sets of human rights and if the EU Constitution is ratified we will have two European Constitutions and two European Constitutional courts. On top of that we have the International Court of Justice from the UN and their Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the World Trade Organisation, NATO and a myriad of other international organisations. It would appear that we are really well represented on the Human rights front.

The only thing that perhaps should concerns a little is that we have to pay for all of this through our taxes and of course the other thing is that it is quite clear that we the people no longer have the power to elect those people who make our laws, because those we do elect no longer have the power to make our laws without ensuring the laws and regulation they do make are within all the various confines of all the various international agreements they have signed up to.