eurealist.co.uk

The Adam Smith Institute has picked up on an article in the Telegraph apparently the government is proposing that fines fit the criminal rather than the crime. Dr Madsen Pirie said in the post

“Another principle of justice overthrown”

The UK government reportedly plans to fine people according to their disposable income, rather than on fixed penalties. Under the new system a fine of £200 might become £750 for someone better-off.

This illustrates yet again how little feeling this particular government has for the principles of justice. I wrote in the Guardian that:

The principles which preserve between them the rule of law and the rights of individuals have been systematically subverted by recent governments…it is almost as if the government has made out a checklist of those rules, determined to strike them down one by one.

I cited the right to trial by jury, presumption of innocence, double jeopardy, limited jurisdiction, right of silence, habeas corpus, conviction before sentence, and the absence of prior restraint and retro-active legislation. All of these have been compromised to some degree. Now the government intends to remove the blindfold from justice and have the punishment fit the criminal, rather than the crime.

What is gained in return for abandoning so important a principle? Another ’stealth’ tax to transfer more money from the middle classes to the Treasury. Is it worth it?

Unfortunately Dr Madsen Pirie missed the paragraph in the Telegraph that gives the answer to his last questions

It is partly based on “day fine” schemes used on the Continent, though these tend to be linked to a prison term in the event of default.

For Continent read EU, this is more evidence of the British Governments preparation of Britain to align it with EU law, which is being introduced by the back door. I wonder what the arguments will be? there is really no difference between the two systems?

EU Referendum on news today in both the Independent and the Guardian that the treaty will have to be re-written if Turkey is ever allowed in the Union.

Although GISCARD D’ESTAING would like his monument to EU integration to stand for fifty years, as a mark of his undoubted self beatification there is absolutely no chance of this happening, which will be a little disconcerting to the government who are already claiming that the proposed constitution is the last word on European integration.

“But what is even more remarkable is that anyone can believe – or believe Blair –. Before the ink was dry on the final draft, the “colleagues” were already working on a successor treaty. Should the EU constitution be ratified, it is only a matter of time before new; formal proposals for another treaty emerge, ratcheting up the integration process even further.”

This is without doubt the only way to look at the Constitution, because it is quite clear that although they can no longer hide the eventual aim of the EU to become the full government and authority of Europe, it is equally clear that the process although mapped out, has not yet been completed. There is still the chance that some countries could slip through the net.

EU Referendum goes on; “We are told that the disclosure will undermine Tony Blair’s attempts to portray next year’s referendum as a once-in-a-generation chance for Britain to decide whether to be at the heart of Europe. Turkey could be admitted to the EU by 2015, meaning that the rewriting could take place in around 2013”.”

Between five to ten years is also the timescale that I had understood to be on the cards.

The point at issue is the question of the voting system in the constitution which is based on the populations of member states. Of course Turkey being a very large country will have a much greater voting power in the council if the system were to stay the same.

Commission president José Manuel Barroso has sought to reassure French opinion by trying to separate the constitution from the question of Turkish membership. He said: “If there is a need to change the rules later we will do it. But that is not the issue today.”

Sorry am I missing something here? Why would there need to be a change in the rules?

Not withstanding that the EU intergrationalist would want to take the process further and would want to change the constitution as soon as possible.

If the argument for weighted voting (which I do not accept) is because this reflects the size of the populations, then what difference will it make to that basic concept when Turkey joins?

They will have the biggest population, they should have the largest voting power, that is the argument we have to swallow in this constitution, when the rules just happen to place the most power in the hands of France and Germany, so what is the problem?

How can anyone who agrees with the present set of rules complain about them when they work in another’s favour?

I mean Dalia Grybauskaite, the European Budget Commissionerhas just got through telling the British government that “If you have bad times, you have been helped. If you have good times, you help others. Those are principles that most of us believe in. If one or another country start to revise it, it jeopardises the future of the EU.”and “The problem is that in Europe we need to work together to compete and survive in the globalised economy”.and This solidarity principle is one of the core ones”.

All good stuff when it applies to us paying more money into the EU but aperently not good enough for the the voting rights argument.

So what argument are they going to introduce to argue against their present argument, which itself argued aginst their previouse argument I wonder?

A report from Europhobe on the “Not in my name protest” in the EU parliament by someone who was there, and the reason why these were held which can be summed up in the following quote from the report.

“None of the footage taken will be used in the ‘Yes’ campaign propaganda, that’s for sure. Mission accomplished”.

Also some photos of the protest in the parliament

Loose the Delusion has a post about the fuss being caused by prince Harry and the Nazi Uniform, I agree with the basic premise of the argument as expressed on LTD “It is one of those issues where you know that at one level it is extremely serious, but somehow can’t help but feel that a case of stupidity and lack of judgement is being blown out of all proportion.”

I would of course argue that the side swipe at Eusceptics is unwarranted, when the blog says “I would be far more worried that he is currently third in line to the throne. (Eurosceptics might like to take note of the number of Europeans on that particularly ‘British’ of lists.

I could argue that our royal family are not from British stock anyway, the Queen from a German line and her consort was Greek, evidence I believe of Queen Victoria’s earlier attempt at European control, this time using her children to marry into every royal family they could. I could also argue that the nationality of the Monarch is unimportant anyway it is the oath that they must swear to become the monarch that is important, because it is part of our British Constitution.

But the list posted shows another, to me, much more interesting point, in that that 11 people are excluded for marring or being Catholic. This is the result of the Bill of Right 1668/9 and the Royal Marriage Act of 1772,

I hope we all agree that in this day and age such a rule is out of the park, yet the Bill of rights still stands, basically unchanged. However there is today the Second Reading of a bill going before the Lords, to remove the offending articles, the Bill also seeks to repeal the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 however the Bill of Rights specifically states that changes to it are illegal.

There are a couple of different angles I could take over this, but to be honest on the face of it I cannot argue that to exclude a Catholic from the Monarchy is defendable in a modern democracy, when the Queen has been divested of all powers.

But the reasons for the inclusion of anti-Catholic clause in the Bill did at the time make sense. It was not intended to prevent a cross religious marriage for reasons of discrimination or religious purity or to preserve the Church of England, otherwise it would have been drafted to exclude all other religions, the people who drafted the Bill may have loathed the Catholics these were after all very turbulent times, but they did not think much of the Jews either.

The real reason was to protect and preserve the British “Common Law Constitution” We had only just been involved in a civil war, brought about by the King overstepping his powers and claiming the divine right of Kings. This of course was when the King was the power of the country, of course the concept of the Devine Right is another term for “Roman Law” in which the ruler has total power that is then passed down to the subjects. This of course conflicts with “Common Law” which says the rights lie with the people who choose the ruler to rule but retain the power to remove them if they do not agree with the rules. Instead of power flowing from the top downwards we have a closed circle of power, the people have power over the king, who has power over the parliament, who rules the people, who have power over the king. In this method the people are not at the bottom of the power line, but are an integral part of the system, we are ruled by our own laws we are the final arbiters of those laws not the government and not the monarch.

So the clause against Catholics was intended to preserve that system in Britian for ever because, it secured the throne the then seat of power, against “Roman Law”, and codified “Common Law” as the law of the land.

All this ancient history, if I have got it right, is particularly pertinent at this time when we again see the incursion of “Roman law” into Britain. This time through the EU with the collusion of our own political parties, and it must be said the Monarch. Who are destroying the British Constitution in order that Roman law can be introduce again into this country.

The only problem is that, as I said before the Common Law Constitution is self protecting, it says that any law which changes it is illegal, and any law that places our constitution under the power of foreigners is illegal. As Sovereign the Queen is the supreme ruler of Britain if she is also a citizen of the EU then it is obvious that she is no longer supreme, our courts are the supreme courts of Britain if they are forced to apply Foreign law and bow to a higher authority they are no longer supreme, etc, (I should make a note that by foreign I do not mean French or Germany etc, but that which is not totally under the control of the British people.)

Now if the Bill changing the Bill of Rights, is allowed to pass Parliament that will set a precedent for further erosions of Common Law, and will by the law of Britian be illegal anyway.

One further point is about the EU Constitution which is a combination of several things and is not really clear on any of them, except that the EU is supreme. A look at the Charta of Fundamental rights will reveal several clauses setting out exactly what those rights are, and many of these rights can best be described as social. Now I do not intend to argue about the rights or wrongs of any of them here, but we can see in the Bill of Rights, the problems of setting in stone today’s political thoughts, for all time in the future. If the Bill of rights had been clear in that it was “Roman Law” that was not wanted and not a Catholicon the throne, then we would not today be faced with the ridiculous situation that we are not allowed to discriminate against a religion for any reason, yet we live in a country which does not allow a Catholic to marry the Monarch.

It must also be a consideration that the bill being read today could well be part of the British government’s ongoing moves to create in Britain a System of Government, that will slot neatly into the EU Roman based law system.

Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union

Article II-21: Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

I very much wonder what the ECJ would make of the Royal Marriage Act of 1772, when it becomes the final arbiter of these laws after the Constitution is ratified.

The pressure is on for Britain to give up its rebate which with increased costs would put up our Contribution by five billion according to the Times which reports on Dalia Grybauskaite, the European Budget Commissioner, who told The Times that unless Britain and other big EU countries increased their payments to Brussels over the next seven years, the EU would be unable to provide the skills, technology and infrastructure required to compete in the global market. That, she said, could kill the idea of Europe.

Sounds like a threat, funny it doesn’t feel like one.

“If other member states started to negotiate just on physical amounts of money, you are forgetting solidarity, a core policy of the European Union. If you have bad times, you have been helped. If you have good times, you help others. Those are principles that most of us believe in. If one or another country start to revise it, it jeopardises the future of the EU.”

Ah we must put the EU first, that’s quite good, I thing I will try on the suppliers next week tell them they should not be concerned with the actual physical amounts of money, I am sure they will see the sense of my argument.

Is it not strange that we are asked to provide solidarity when it suits the EU but when we were in trouble over Majors attempt to get us into the Euro nobody was around to offer us solidarity.

Over the past 20 years, the rebate has brought back €64 billion to Britain, or about €1,000 per citizen. Without it, Britain would have paid 14 times as much as France or Italy to the EU.

The British Government is worried about public reaction if it caves in, but Ms Grybauskaite said that the unfairness of Britain’s rebate was beginning to rankle in other member states. Sound as if they are going to be caving in as soon as they can. If they think it is unfair that we would pay 14 times more into the EU than France and Italy then I suppose it must be.

Mr Brown the “British” Chancellor also wants to curb Brussels’ power by demanding that London take back control of EU development funds spent on British regions.

This ridiculous situation where we receive some of our money back with EU bells attached.

Now I have not heard this, so Labour has a policy to combat the Tories fishing policy, its take back from the EU time folks.

But wait a minute Ms Grybauskaite has an answer “nationalising” development policies in this way would undermine the Union”. She sounds like a very nice lady and for an EU commissioner she is really catching on the way of making the EU popular with the Eusceptics.
So much for the Tories return of British fishing waters.

“The problem is that in Europe we need to work together to compete and survive in the globalised economy”.

So we get poorer and they get richer, and then when we are very poor the EU will step in and help oh goody.

Ms Grybauskaite also said “The nationalisation of policies will divide us. This solidarity principle is one of the core ones. To abolish such principle will practically kill the idea of the European Union,”

She said it again, how delightfully sweet of her to offer us a way out of this mess.

European No Campaign

How the Convention on the Future of Europe failed the Laeken Declaration

The Laeken Declaration provided for the assignment of the Convention on the Future of Europe. In the aftemath of the Irish “no” to the Nice Treaty it was a concession, that some basic reforms were needed, not least of all to improve the acceptance of the European Union among the European citizens. Drafting a Constitution was no target but a vague future option as it says:

“The question ultimately arises as to whether this simplification and reorganisation [of the Union] might not lead in the long run to the adoption of a constitutional text in the Union.”

QUESTIONS:
Was there any debate in the Convention, whether a Constitution should be drafted at all? Were the advantages and disadvantages of having a Constitution discussed adequately? Was the logic: FIRST simplification and reorganiation THEN (possibly) a Constitution remembered? Apart from that: does the proposed EU Constitution finally provide for a simplification and reorganisation of the European Union, as requested in the Laeken Declaration?

PRESIDENT V. GISCARD D’ESTAING opening address TO THE CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE; “However, there is no doubt that, in the eyes of the public, our recommendation would carry considerable weight and authority if we could manage to achieve broad consensus on a single proposal which we could all present. If we were to reach consensus on this point, we would thus open the way towards a Constitution for Europe. In order to avoid any disagreement over semantics, let us agree now to call it: a “constitutional treaty for Europe”.

Gisella Stuart; “The debates focused solely on where we could do more at European Union level. None of the existing policies were questioned”.
“The most frequently cited justifications for a written Constitution for Europe have been the need to make the Treaties more understandable to European voters and the need to streamline the decision-making procedures of the European Union after enlargement. I support both of these aims. But the draft document from my experience at the Convention it is clear that the real reason for the Constitution – and its main impact – is the political deepening of the Union.”
“It gives more power to the European institutions but does not make those institutions more accountable to voters”

Concerning the needs of European citizens the Laeken Declaration states, that there should be …

… subsidiarity instead of a European superstate
Citizens (…) feel that the Union is behaving too bureaucratically in numerous (…) areas. (…) What they expect is (…) not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life (…and…) intervening in every detail. (…) Thus the important thing is to clarify, simplify and adjust the division of competence between the Union and the Member States (…) This can lead both to restoring tasks to the Member States and to assigning new missions to the Union. (…and…) There is the question of how to ensure that a redefined division of competence does not lead to a creeping expansion of the competence of the Union.

QUESTIONS:
Does the EU Constitution include reforms that will be a major step to reduce bureaucracy? Are there any provisions to (re-)check the more than 90.000 pages of aquis communitaire whether restoring tasks to the Member States would make sense? Is there any hope for the citizens that the EU will NOT become a superstate, because its powers are going to be limited? Are there any serious, sincere and effective security provisions included in the Constitution to avoid a creeping expansion of the competence of the Union?

… transparency, democratic legitimacy
More importantly, however, they [the citizens] feel that deals are all too often cut out of their sight and they want better democratic scrutiny. (…) The Union needs to become more democratic, more transparent and more efficient. (…) The European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens. (…) The European project (…) derives its legitimacy from democratic, transparent and efficient institutions.

QUESTIONS:
Does the EU Constitution provide for more transparency? Does it provide for any significant measures to finally create a democratic division of powers on EU level? Are there any regulations that improve a democratic control over the EU institutions? Did the Convention honestly use its chance to include the EU citizens in the drafting process?

CONCLUSION:
As far as I see it, from a citizen’s perspective, all these questions have to be answered with a “no”. And this alone is a reason for rejecting the EU Constitution. The basic assignment was not fulfilled and now the Constitution is “sold to the people” like it is a great success. The people should therefore return it to the sender by saying “no”.