eurealist.co.uk

“active European citizenship”

Tracing the money the EU Commision is spending on Propaganda is like trying to find your way through a maze, not even the UK Select Committee on European Scrutiny seems to have much, luck by the time they get to ask questions of ministers there seems to be a very short amount of that commodity left before the Commision makes its decision to proceed, and obstruction appears to be the name of the game ministers play. An instance when the Select Committee asked ministers for details of which organisations that promote EU citizenship had received money from the EU in 2003 to 2003 they were presented with a list of umbrella organisations that were being considered for 2004 to 2006.

The question arises, is promoting the idea of EU citizenship an aim of the EU Commision, based on the treaties? According to the select committee, this is not and aim that is in the treaties, however the Commision and the British government take the view that the Clause giving the Commision authority to take the power it needs to see through a treaty obligation can be used in this instance as the legal basis to promote the EU, Article 308 “If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market one of the objectives of the Community and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall…take appropriate measures”.

(Caroline Flint) As no specific legal base exists for establishing this programme and the measure is necessary to attain a Community objective, Article 308 is the appropriate legal base”.

The select committee said of this “At that stage, it seemed to us that the Minister’s interpretation of “in the course of the operation of the common market” was so wide as to rob the words of their plain meaning.”

In other words there is no authority to take this action at all the Commision has just taken it, as that is the case, then it seem irrelevant having legally binding treaties, if they are going to be ignored in order for the Commision to achieve an aim that is not in the treaties in the first place.

Select Commitee report

The purpose of this draft Decision is to provide a legal base for grants, from the beginning of 2004, towards the promotion of active European citizenship.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office (Caroline Flint) and one assumes the Government takes the view that “this programme is an essential complement to the formal establishment of European citizenship.” “Active citizenship is as important to the operation of the common market as it is to the operation of any other area of Union activity. essential to make the granting of citizenship workable.”

Essential to the EU maybe but it should be remembered that we did not ask for this added encumbrance to be placed upon us we did not ask to be citizens of this non state.

The Decision provides for two types of grant:
a) operating grants to co-finance expenditure associated with the permanent work programme of a body (such as the Association of Councils of State) pursuing an aim of general European interest in the field of active European citizenship or an objective forming part of the European Union’s policy in that field; or
b) grants to co-finance a specific action in the field of active European citizenship (such as the promotion by local authorities of town-twinning).
There are several umbrella groups that at receive EU funding for promoting the EU apart from that the EU also makes grants and loans available to other media outlets such as the BBC.
• “Our Europe” Association
• Jean Monnet House
• Robert Schuman House
• Platform of European Social NGOs
• European Council on Refugees and Exiles
• Association of Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union.
The financial reference amount for the implementation of the programme for the period 2004 to 2006 is € 72 million.

Report on the Propaganda machine

Details of the money earmarked for promoting EU Citizenship

What the grants are for:-
(a) to promote and disseminate the values and objectives of the European Union;
(b) to bring citizens closer to the European Union and its institutions and to encourage them to engage more frequently with its institutions;
(c) to involve citizens closely in reflection and discussion on the construction of the European Union;
(d) to intensify links and exchanges between citizens from the countries participating in the programme, notably by way of town-twinning arrangements;
(e) to stimulate initiatives by the bodies engaged in the promotion of active and participatory citizenship

An operating grant may be awarded directly to bodies working in the field of active European citizenship under Part 1 of the programme upon approval of an appropriate workplan and budget. In order to award the grants under Part 2 of the programme, the Commission will publish calls for proposals. However, in 2004 and 2005, by way of derogation, grants may be awarded to the following organisations:

International Secretariat of the Union of European Federalists
Council of European Municipalities and Regions
European Citizens Action Service
European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management
Centre for European Studies in Strasbourg
College of Europe in Hamburg
Soul for Europe’
Fair Trials Abroad
Intercultural Leadership School
CEJI (Centre européen juif d’information)
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Europäisches Übersetzer-Kollegium Straelen
Festival of Europe, 9 May
Association européenne des représentants territoriaux
Meeting for Friendship among Peoples Association
Institute of European Affairs (Dublin)
Centre for European Not-for-profit Organisations
Institut für Europäische Politik (Berlin)
European Institute of International Relations (IERI)
European Academy of the Urban Environment in Berlin
Trans-European Policy Studies Association (ADEPT)
Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Friends of Europe
International European Movement
Permanent work programme of a body pursuing an aim of general European interest in the field of active European citizenship or an objective forming part of the European Union’s policy in this area. This may relate to
a non-profit body working to assist citizens active in these bodies
a European multiplier network of non-profit bodies active in the States participating in the programme and promoting the principles and policies contributing to the objectives in this area,
a body pursuing an objective forming part of the European Union’s policy in the field of active citizenship,
An annual operating grant may be awarded to support the conduct of the permanent work programme of such a body
actions in the field of active European citizenship, conducted in particular by non-governmental organisations, associations and federations of European interest or cross-industry trade unions; by way of derogation from Article 114 of the Financial Regulation, cross-industry trade unions participating in the European social dialogue are eligible under this part even if they do not have a legal personality;
actions to promote town twinning instigated by municipalities, local and regional communities and bodies, local and regional authorities and organisations thereof.

One thing is certain the EU is spending a lot of our money to make us all accept the citizenship they imposed on us, one might pose the question why is this necessary, well one answer might be that when later they begin to tax us directly we will be much happier to pay the EU tax demands when they come through the letterbox if we feel European. Of course that won’t happen until we have all been re-educated to accept the EU as our government.

Tim Worstall

Has a post about the Prime Ministers aptitude in house buying.

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle has a copy of a letter sent to each member of the Lords.

On the 14th January 2005 the House of Lords will debate the Second Reading of a Bill to amend the Act of Settlement and to repeal the Royal Marriage Act.

The Spectre of the Euromyth

It is interesting to note in the slow run up to the EU referendum that the EU Commission is again raising the spectre of the Euromyth, their term for press reports which do not promote the EU line.

This week there have been two articles in the press dealing with the Euromyth, one in the International Herald Tribune and the other in the Economist.

British press perpetuates the Euromyth shouts the headline in the Herald, in the article we find that James Marsh, 27, a press officer for the commission along with his boss, Christopher Bell, the commission’s chief press officer in London, Marsh has the job of fighting these so-called Euromyths, from their commission’s London office near Westminster Abbey, in the shadow of the Houses of Parliament. On most mornings, Marsh and Bell connect on a television screen to Brussels for a daily meeting at which press monitors and press officers in each of the EU’s 25 member nations discuss the day’s media strategy.

Bell says “many Euromyths stemmed from the signing of the Single European Act in the mid-’80s, which launched the start of Europe’s single market and the plethora of rules needed to achieve it”.

Well in fact it is only the EU own insistence on harmonisation for their own ends which need the plethora of rules.

But the truth behind the article is explained by Bell when he said “Over the next 18 months, at least 10 EU countries will hold referendums on whether to adopt the new European constitution. Britain is due to hold its referendum in 2006, but the EU is so out of favour with the British public that the commission fears the opinion polls look disastrous. Rejection in just one country could send the EU into crisis.”

Again only because the Intergrationalist would have been delayed in their aim to make the EU the government of Europe, this has nothing to do with what we the people want or any democratic choice, but what the EU Elite want to achieve, and they are not going to be happy bunnies if we have the audacity to stand in their way.

Marsh said of the Euromyth “You know that is not true, but there is always a grain of truth to these stories.”

In other words the stories are true but the EU does not like it when someone in the press goes against the EU line of spin they would like put on these stories.

The particular story that has marsh concerned at the moment is the Daily Mail report that Britons faced a shortage of Brazil because the European Commission in Brussels was banning them. As usual with the EU it has not in fact banned them but has made it almost impossible for an importer to bring then into the country, by doing what it does best, and that is introducing or imposing a new testing regime through legislation which is expensive, complex, and un-necessary, because the science behind the moves is arguable.

“The European Commission has introduced additional measures to prevent Brazil nuts contaminated with unacceptable levels of aflatoxins from entering the European Union (EU). The move comes after the UK and other EU Member States found consignments of unshelled nuts from Brazil above the regulatory limits.

Aflatoxins are toxins formed by certain moulds on food, particularly nuts and nut products grown in warm, humid conditions. They have been shown to cause cancer in a number of animal species by damaging DNA. There is also evidence to suggest they may cause cancer in humans.
To protect consumers, the Commission has issued Decision 2003/493/EC. This introduces measures to ensure unshelled Brazil nuts from Brazil, that contain aflatoxins above regulatory levels, do not enter the EU.
These measures require that:
• Official Brazilian aflatoxin certificates accompany consignments.
• Consignments may only enter the EU at specified points.
• Each consignment must have an identification code that must also be on the official certificate.
• UK Port Health Authorities check all consignments for certificates and re-test all consignments of unshelled Brazil nuts from Brazil for aflatoxin B1 and total aflatoxins. Consignments with unacceptable contamination will not be released onto the market.
• Consignments be subjected to sampling and analysis and can be detained for a maximum of 15 working days from the point of entry into the Community before release onto the market.
• Member States must submit to the Commission a three monthly report of all analytical results deriving from the above official controls.
The Commission Decision, which came into force on 5 July, will be reviewed before 1 May 2004 to assess the effectiveness of the measures in protecting public health and whether further measures are required.
The Decision has been enacted into English Law by The Food (Brazil Nuts from Brazil) (Emergency Control) (England) Order 2003, which came into force on 11 July.
Parallel Orders will be made in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.

So we see that the EU is, in fact responsible for the shortage of Brazil nuts, what they are complaining about is that instead of the Daily Mail spouting the EU line that our beloved EU Commision is protecting us from the terrible scourge of aflatoxins, that the Mail chooses instead to point out the stupidity of creating a shortage and cause problems for the farmers in Brazil, based on dodgy science that unacceptable levels of aflatoxin that might or might not cause cancer of the liver in humans is sometimes found in the shells of Brazil nuts which we do not eat anyway.

So the EU paid propaganda merchants, label this a Euromyth, and expect us then to believe that the Daily Mail is printing lies, when in fact it printed the truth. They then link this to similar instances of stories in the press and come up with the claim that we have a British press that appears to “revile most aspects of the grand European project, and will use every journalistic exaggeration, trick and sleight of hand to blacken the EU’s name. The common theme is that of a rabble of unelected bureaucrats - to use tabloid parlance - out to destroy European freedoms and identity in its enthusiasm for a European superstate.”

Well I don’t know if it is a rabble, horde, mob, multitude, or gang, but it is certainly bureaucratic, unelected and unaccountable and it is certainly out to create an EU Super state, that is what the “Grand European Project” is all about, and that is why the commision of the EU is prepared to spend our money employing people whose job it is to confuse the issues and to promote EU spin or propaganda or both.

The story in the Economist was written by Charles Grant: director, Centre for European Reform

In 1996 a group of young people decided to establish the CER, because they felt the existing think tanks in Britain had failed to focus on reform of the EU from a constructive point of view.

Grant argues that much of the British press, unlike the press in other EU countries, does not report the EU in a favourable manner to the Union, and is probably responsible for the problems the Government will face in the referendum. Again with Grant’s article we see the same theme appearing, the referendum being the main point of concern, and in a roundabout way calls for sanctions to be imposed. When he says “British journalists get away with such factual inaccuracies because editors and proprietors encourage them, and because they face no sanction.” And then claims that no fair-minded person can claim that the British press will cover the referendum in an even-handed way. As if it was written somewhere that the EU itself is going to cover the same referendum in an even-handed way.
To set up his argument he uses some coverage in the Sun, which he then refutes, badly because nothing he says is in fact true
Sun…
“Our army will have to follow EU orders”;
“We will be ordered what to say at the UN:
the new EU foreign minister will speak for Britain at the Security Council”;
“We will lose control of our borders and have no say in who enters the country.”

Grant…
“There is no truth in any of those statements: all armies will remain under national control; the EU foreign minister will not be able to speak for Britain unless every country (including Britain) first signs up to a common policy; and Britain has an opt-out from EU policies on borders”.

Just to put this into perspective, Grant uses an oft employed method of rebutting the claims about the Constitution, by quoting the present Treaties, and claim that the report on the Constitution is wrong, when in fact all he says is wrong, because his argument is based on the Treaties and not the New Constitution.

The EU is intent upon taking a seat on the UN Council, but cannot put forward their claim to represent their member states at present, because it does not have a legal entirety, however the Constitution gives it that entirety. Further the Constitution also establishes that the EU foreign Minister represent the member states on common issues being discussed in the UN Security Council, what is a common issue? The Constitution also allows the Union to confer mission mandates on countries including Britian, so our army will have to follow EU orders, apart from that our army is being restructured to fit in with the EU rapid reaction force which is due to be up and running by 2007.

“When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking…If you don’t want to call it a European army…You can call it “Margaret”, you can call it “Mary-Anne” , you can find any name, but it is a joint effort for peacekeeping missions – the first time you have a joint, not bilateral, effort at European level”.President Prodi to the Independent newspaper, 4 February 2000

The Constitution gives the EU its own territory and external borders and a common frontier policing and immigration policy.

“Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union’s common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted
by the Union in this area.”

“The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the
attainment of the objectives set out in the Constitution.”

Also the Constitution actually changes the whole basis of power within the union

In EC law the scope of specific Treaty bases is interpreted by reference to general principles the Constitution would alter the ground rules on which those general principles are based.

Clearly, changing the legal basis of the EU from a series of treaties to a self-contained Constitution would fundamentally alter the Court’s view of the ‘objects and purposes’ of the legal texts which it is applying. This would radically affect its interpretation and application of treaty provisions as well as of the scope of directives and regulations. In practice, there would be a presumption that the Member States are only permitted to exercise power in the residual areas left to them under the Constitution, and even in those areas they would have to fit in with any over-arching EU policies or foreign policy imperatives in accordance with their general duty to ‘facilitate the attainment of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the objectives set out in the Constitution; Martin Howe QC

“The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.