eurealist.co.uk

Just so we all understand that a myth is not a lie and a Euromyth is in fact the truth

Bananas
The common organisation of the market in bananas will allow the Community market to receive satisfactory supplies of quality bananas at fair prices for producers and consumers and ensure a balance between the various sources of supply. This market organisation has been altered for its switch, from 1 January 2006, to a tariff-only system. The latest major adjustment involves the addition of 300 000 tonnes of bananas (May-December 2004), in view of the enlargement of the European Union.

ACT

Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas [ See amending acts ].
SUMMARY

Scope

The products concerned are fresh and dried bananas (excluding plantains), frozen, provisionally preserved and prepared bananas, banana juice and banana flour, meal and powder.

The marketing year runs from 1 January to 31 December.

Common quality and marketing standards

Standards and checks. The Commission lays down quality standards for bananas which are to be sold fresh to the consumer. The adoption of standards for products processed from bananas is optional. The Member States, through control bodies, ensure that these rules are observed.

Producer organisations and consultation mechanisms

Producer organisations. Support to encourage the setting up of producer organisations recognised by the Member States which promote the production and marketing of the products concerned is granted for a period of five years.

Associations of producers. Associations of producers or of producer organisations that may include processors and traders may carry out measures of common interest including applied research and the training of producers and participate in the preparation of operational programmes. The rules adopted by these associations may be extended to non-members on condition that the rules of competition contained in the Treaty are observed.

Assistance

Operational programmes. Operational programmes drawn up under the Community support frameworks and implemented by the competent authorities in the Member States in association with the Commission and producer organisations, associations and industry groups must achieve at least two of the following objectives:

* improvements in the preparation of the marketing of products;
* greater competitiveness;
* utilisation of resources which is mindful of the environment.

Loss of income. In order to offset any drop in income, associations of producers and individual producers who are unable to participate in a producer group on account of their geographical remoteness may receive compensation. The guaranteed Community quantity for which compensation may be claimed is 854 000 tonnes allocated among the producer regions (Canary Islands, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Madeira, Crete, Algarve and Lakonia). A guaranteed quantity of 13 500 tonnes has been granted to Cyprus in the accession negotiations. The Commission determines the amount of the compensation before 1 March each year.

Producers wishing to cease banana production may lay claim to a premium of EUR 1 000 per hectare of banana plantation grubbed up provided they give a written undertaking not to plant again. This measure applied in 1993 and 1994.

Trade with third countries (fresh bananas)

Common customs tariff. The rate of the common customs tariff established under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will apply to imports of fresh bananas from 1 January 2006.

Switch to the single system (or tariff-only system)

From 2006, the market organisation for bananas will switch to a tariff-only system. That is to say, there will be a single tariff per tonne.

Tariff quotas. Since 1 January 2002, the following three tariff quotas have been applicable:

* Quota A: 2 200 000 tonnes at the rate of EUR 75/tonne. (ACP bananas - African, Caribbean and Pacific countries - are zero-rated);
* Quota B: 453 000 tonnes at the rate of EUR 75/tonne (ACP bananas are zero-rated);
* Quota C: 750 000 tonnes at the rate of zero euro/tonne (reserved for ACP bananas).

A and B quotas are opened for bananas of any origin, while the C quota is reserved for the ACP States.

Imports of non-quota bananas are subject to customs duty of EUR 680/tonne, save for the ACP countries which qualify for a tariff preference of EUR 300/tonne.

The Commission, under an agreement concluded within the World Trade Organisation, allocated A and B tariff quotas among the main supplier countries with the agreement of the latter.

Where there is a threat to Community supplies, specific non-discriminating measures may be taken.

Management of tariff quotas. Tariff quotas may be granted on the basis of traditional/newcomers method and/or other methods. The method currently adopted following the agreement with the United States (main distributor country) and Ecuador (one of the main producer countries) is that of historical reference quantities which takes account of the need to ensure balance in supply to the Community market.

Issue of import licences. Imports are subject to the issue of import licences by the Member States.

Increase in quotas as a result of EU enlargement

The new quotas will be calculated on the basis of the historic imports of the new Member States.

The Regulation also specifies the documents needed to justify the status of traditional or non-traditional operator for the new Member States, taking into account the supplies they have provided in recent years to those States.

These measures entered into force on 1 May 2004, the date of accession of the new countries to the EU.

Furthermore, the new Regulation (EC) No 838/2004 provides for the importation of an additional volume of 300 000 tonnes of bananas from 1 May up to 31 December 2004, taking into account EU enlargement.

General measures

Common customs tariff. The common customs tariff rates for all products apply.

Barrier to trade. Charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties and the application of quantitative restrictions on imports or measures having equivalent effect are as a rule prohibited in trade with third countries.

Imports. Where imports are liable to destabilise the Community market, additional duties may be charged.

Other provisions

State aid. Save where the Regulation contains provisions to the contrary, the Treaty rules on State aid apply to the banana sector.

Reporting. The Member States and the Commission notify one another of the information necessary for implementing the Regulation.

Comitology. In implementing this Regulation, the Commission is assisted by a Management Committee for Bananas made up of representatives of the Member States and chaired by a Commission representative.
REFERENCES
Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 26.02.1993 26.02.1993 OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999

Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Regulation (EC) No 3518/93 29.12.1993 - OJ L 320 of 22.12.1993
Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 01.01.1995 - OJ L 349 of 31.12.1994
Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 31.07.1998 - OJ L 210 of 28.07.1998
Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 24.05.1999 - OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999
Regulation (EC) No 216/2001 05.02.2001 - OJ L 31 of 02.02.2001
Regulation (EC) No 2587/2001 01.01.2002 01.01.2002 Partial application OJ L 345 of 29.12.2001
Regulation (EC) No 2036/2003 20.11.2003 - OJ L 302 of 20.11.2003
Regulation (EC) No 414/2004 07.03.2004 - OJ L 068 of 06.03.2004
Acts concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the EU. 01.02.2004 - OJ L 236 of 23.09.2003

RELATED ACTS

Transitional and specific measures

Commission Regulation (EC) No 838/2004 of 28 April 2004 on transitional measures for imports of bananas into the Community by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia [Official Journal L 127 of 29.04.2004].

Commission Regulation (EC) No 414/2004 of 5 March 2004 adopting specific measures with a view to adapting the arrangements for administering tariff quotas on banana imports as a result of the accession of new Member States on 1 May 2004 [Official Journal L 068 of 06.03.2004 ]. Amended by:
Regulation (EC) No 689/2004 [Official Journal L 106 of 15.04.2004].

Aid

Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 - Official Journal L 170 of 13.07.1993
Commission Regulation of 9 July 1993 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate for loss of income from marketing in the banana sector. This Regulation was last amended by the following Regulation:

Commission Regulation (EC) No 908/2003 of 23 May 2003 fixing the compensatory aid for bananas produced and marketed in the Community in 2002 and the unit value of the advances for 2003 [Official Journal L 128 of 24.05.2003].

Regulation (EC) No 471/2001 - Official Journal L 067 of 09.03.2001
Commission Regulation of 8 March 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1858/93 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the aid scheme to compensate for loss of income from marketing in the banana sector.

Producer organisations

Regulation (EC) No 919/94 - Official Journal L 106 of 27.04.1994
Commission Regulation of 26 April 1994 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards banana producers’ organisations. This Regulation was last amended by the following Regulation:

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1042/2002 of 14 June 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 919/94 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards banana producers’ organisations [Official Journal L 157 of 15.06.2002].

Imports

Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 - Official Journal L 108 of 27.04.1999
Council Regulation of 22 April 1999 establishing a special framework of assistance for traditional ACP suppliers of bananas

Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 - Official Journal L 290 of 23.07.1999
Commission Regulation of 22 July 1999 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 856/1999 establishing a special framework of assistance to traditional ACP suppliers of bananas

Protective measures

Regulation (EEC) No 1662/93 - Official Journal L 158 of 30.06.1993
Commission Regulation of 29 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the conditions for the application of protective measures in the banana sector.

The Government will kick off its campaign for the EU constitution next week by publishing the question voters will face at the referendum in March 2006.

The Evening Standard can reveal the ballot papers will ask:

“Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?”

Details will be announced next week at the first reading of the European Treaty Bill.

Tony Blair wants to use Britain’s presidency of the EU in the second half of this year to soften up domestic opposition to the treaty.

Opinion polls have shown the majority of Britons opposed to the constitution.

Tory leader Michael Howard has called it a “ball and chain” for UK business.

But Mr Blair and supporters of the “yes” campaign say Britain would retain its veto on “the most important decisions”, including tax and foreign and defence policy.

Tell that to the Birds! or better still read the Constitution

More EU propaganda aimed at children!

The European Union has launched eTwinning, an initiative to encourage the twinning of schools across Europe, using the internet.

The project will provide every child in Europe with the opportunity - at some point in their schooling - to engage and learn with other children from across the continent. They will be able to learn about each other, their school culture and family while practising their ICT skills at the same time.
The action aims to have 30,000 schools in Europe twinned by 2007. Participating schools are to use ICT technologies to build “sustainable partnerships”.
Speaking at a conference last week to launch the action, the European Commissioner responsible for education, Ján Figel, said digital and media literacy were now becoming as important as reading, writing and arithmetic.

On the face of it this appears non controversial, after all who could possible complain about children interacting with others in other parts of the world but the reality is that the EU is using such methods to brainwash children into becoming good little Europeans because they form the future generations and also act as what the EU likes to term multipliers taking the thoughts and ideas they learn at school home with them. This aspect of the EU plans is clearly enonceated by Ján Figel when he says…

School twinning will not only take full advantage of the new opportunities for school cooperation and networking provided by ICT and the internet. It will also reinforce the European dimension in school education, promoting intercultural dialogue and raising awareness among pupils of the cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe.

For further information on the EU Propaganda see…
Federalist Thought Control: The Brussels Propaganda Machine
Europe’s youth is in the eyes of Brussels a legitimate target for indoctrination and are given special treatment. This is because school children are said to be a “very receptive” section of the population and can “perform a messenger function in conveying the message to the home environment, among family and friends. It is the active population of tomorrow’s Europe”. The scandalous attitude of the EU is best illustrated by a document endorsed by DG XXII, which noted that the introduction of the Euro represented:
“…a wonderful opportunity to implant the idea of European citizenship by placing the Euro in its historical perspective, by bringing out the symbolic nature of the Euro as a symbol of peace and economic prosperity, and by giving the Euro a civic dimension.”7
Crucially, the paper states that,
“…[the] education system-and teachers in particular-will have a major role to play in forming and communicating with young people. Young people will often in practice act as go-betweens with the older generations, helping them to familiarise themselves with and embrace the Euro”.
To achieve this the EU has developed teaching aids and educational modules to spread the message. It is worth recalling some of them and their content.
The UK government was hardly any better when its Partners in Europe education package (a small plastic suitcase of glossy brochures), distributed to highlight the UK Presidency of Europe, hinted that schools refusing to acquiesce in the teaching of European identity could face trouble. It stated:
“A European dimension in education is not an explicit part of the inspection framework. However, an inspector will make judgements on a school’s work in promoting the spiritual, moral, cultural and social development of its pupils and preparing them for adult life. To the extent that the school’s European dimension policy and plans contribute to these aspects of school life, they will be reported on both directly and indirectly in an inspection. Schools, which have invested in including a European dimension in the education of all pupils, will wish to draw this to the attention of the schools inspector.”
There is also training for teachers and other educators to promote EU citizenship. Under the Socrates programme teachers receive funding to improve foreign language skills, make study visits, make project planning, or receive in-service teacher training.
A pertinent question to ask is whether UK rules on political lessons in the classroom would rule out such blatant indoctrination. The Education Act 1996 is clear on how political issues should be dealt with if so applied. It stipulates that the education system has a number of important duties and responsibilities.
“The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”. Section 406 of the Education Act 1996
And that all points of view get an airing so that,
“they [the pupils] are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views” Section 407 of the Education Act 1996
Despite an Act of Parliament forbidding political indoctrination and setting out a “duty to secure balanced treatment of political issues” it is clear that these important principles and laws are being blatantly breached. Teachers that rely solely on EU materials to discuss the topic of Europe are failing to present the issues in a balanced and impartial manner and so breach the sections of the Education Act 1996 and are thus breaking the law.
What distinguishes educational writing from propagandist communication is that arguments are honestly addressed, and counter evidence is openly admitted and examined. Yet you would be hard pressed to find the contrary vision of the EU anywhere in the Brussels catalogue. The publication output of the EU not infrequently resembles the communication techniques of both Fascist and Communist totalitarian regimes.

Quotes!
I did not expect that this particular pro European would try to argue against the words of such a leading light in the European movement as Monnet. So I was to say the least, a little surprised to find the old argument resurrected because it has been disproved so many times, not by Eusceptics but by the Euro-federalist themselves that I though they had given up.

But I suppose an old argument is as good as any when the intention is to confuse and misdirect.

Nice quotes - but I suspect you would be the first to complain were I to suggest that all Eurosceptics through the same as Robert Kilroy-Silk. Monnet and Heath are not representative of all pro-Europeans…

It is also worth noting that the drive to Federalism, though certainly initially an aim of some of the originators of the project, has long since been abandoned by all but the most fervent pro-Europeans, except as a very, very vague future ideal - much like the concept of the Federation in Star Trek… A federal European super state simply doesn’t make any sense. In 200, maybe 300 years perhaps, but for not the forseeable future - certainly for our lifetimes, not a hope in hell.

There is no federalist conspiracy. It’s simply too silly an idea under the present realities: no political elites in any of the countries of the EU would be willing to give up their power - as would inevitably have to happen for a Federal Europe to kick off - even if the people were willing to let them.

None of which is borne out by the facts
Here is an earlier quote:
No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice, which any adequate plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked to make changes of which they may not at first recognise the advantages themselves.
Design for Freedom, largely written by Peter Thorneycroft MP, 1947

The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.
Jean Monnet, founder of the European Movement, 3 April 1952

Monnet is one of the most revered EU leaders who set out the details on how the Superstate could be achieved when it became clear that his political union was not going to be accepted by the French government. It is therefore perhaps a little unfair to equate him with RKS and to suggest that he as an arch federalist has the same effect in that direction as RKS has in the other, when everybody accepts that it is his, “Monnet’s Method” which has been the system which has been, and is still being used to forge a federal EU.

The Monnet System it has now been accepted, could be actually standing in the way of further integration as it is becoming increasingly difficult to hide the real reason for the integration. So we now get a slightly different argument that is we must work together etc. but the direction is the same toward a united Europe with one government. This has been and still is the object of the European program everything is directed toward that object and nothing will be allowed to stand in its way. .

Ruth Lea;
In the early 1950s, ministers from the six members of the ECSC drafted a constitution for a new form of democratic government to control the planned European Defence Community (EDC). Monnet had intended that the EDC would be a parallel organisation to the ECSC. This so-called European Political

As the powers of Brussels have progressively increased, so the sovereign powers of the member states have progressively diminished. (And, incidentally, there is no such thing as “ shared or pooled sovereignty” . A country either has sovereignty or it does not and what some politicians refer to as “ shared or pooled sovereignty” is actually “ lost sovereignty” or “delegated sovereignty” .) But there has never been an open and fair debate in the UK about this. There should be one

The history of the EU, and the Britain’s difficult relationship with the EU, is characterised by two main features. Firstly, there has been the ever-increasing European economic and political integration driven by the vision of the Franco- German alliance.
Secondly, there has been incomprehension, partly, and deceit, partly, by the British Government and its civil service right from the “ start” . Doubtless aware that the people would willingly accept nothing more integrationist than a free trade area, pro-EEC politicians of both main parties claimed that the EEC was
little more than just that. It is harder to think of a more grotesque deceit. In addition, there has been the bizarre way in which successive British governments have claimed to be modelling “Europe” along British lines as a Europe of democratic nation states, along with the “Anglo-Saxon” model of running the economy and free trade. Such a vision of Europe has never been on the cards and is most unlikely ever to be on the cards.5 So Britain has been living a partial lie about the EU and the country finds itself in a permanent dilemma about its EU membership.

Community (EPC) would be able to levy taxes and would establish a Common Market.12 The collapse of the EDC, voted down by France (the other five had agreed to it), led to the EPC being shelved.

The argument denying federalism is not supported by EU history which has been a continual move towards a federal EU, every treaty has passed more power to the EEC, EC, and EU. neither is the denial supported by the present day EU elites, so with respect may I suggest that anyone trying to argue against the federalist intentions is going to have to convince not only Eusceptics but the federalist themselves.

In ten years, 80% of the laws on the economy and social policy will be
passed at the European and not the national level. We are not going to
manage to take all the decisions needed between now and 1995 unless we
see the beginnings of a European Government.
Jacques Delors, 1988, to the European Parliament.

We want European Union, the United States of Europe.
Chancellor Kohl, on the fall of the Berlin Wall, 1989.

We’re not here just to make a single market, but a political union.
Jacques Delors, 1993

“The day of the nation state is over.”
Roman Herzog, president of Germany, September 1996
In order to ensure its political future, the European Union must go beyond
the completion of the internal market and the introduction of the single
currency and move towards a real political union.
Resolution of the European Parliament, 22 October 1998

The European Union Treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the
process of [the] European Union which within a few years will lead to the
creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of after
the war, the United States of Europe.
Chancellor Kohl, on the completion of the Maastricht Treaty, 1992

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer
union among the peoples of Europe, where decisions are taken as closely as
possible to the citizens… the process of creating an ever closer Union…in
order to advance European integration.
Treaty on European Union, 1992

If we are to meet this historic challenge, and integrate the new member
states without substantially denting the EU’s capacity for action, we must
put into place the last brick in the building of European integration, namely
political integration…this latest stage of European Union…will depend
decisively on France and Germany.
Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, 12 May 2000

The EU is on the brink of becoming a European federation by the year
2010 although this Europe would not be a purely federal state. I expect no
opposition from Britain. Mr Blair signalled in his Warsaw speech earlier
this month that he wants to participate in shaping Europe and he is a
convinced European. But we have to be realistic. Naturally, Mr Blair has to
work under certain given conditions. A British PM who declared himself in
favour of federation would create huge problems for himself at home.
Nonetheless I feel sure that Britain will fall into line. It is a fact that Britain
has always made its decision on a pragmatic basis when the pragmatic
reasons for a positive step have predominated.
Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, 16 October 2000

The Union stands at a crossroads, a defining moment in its
existence. The unification of Europe is near. At long last, Europe is
on its way to becoming one big family.
Laeken Declaration setting up the Convention on the Future of Europe,
December 2001

Federalism might make eurosceptics laugh but, with the creation of the euro,
the halfway stage would be reached. Four key organisms would have a federal
or quasi-federal status: the Central Bank, the Court of Justice, The Commission
and the Parliament. Only one institution is missing: a federal government.
Jack Lang, Foreign Affairs spokesman, French National Assembly, 22 July 1997
A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their
sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs. It is
an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy.
Hans Tietmeyer, President of the Bundesbank, 1991

A free trade zone – precisely what we have been trying to avoid for the last
25 years.
Yves-Thibault de Silguy, commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, on the
consequences of a delay in EMU, 1997

The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the
foundation of the European Community…It is a decision of an essentially
political nature. We need this United Europe…we must never forget that
the euro is an instrument for this project.
Filipe Gonzales, former Spanish PM, May 1998

The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand,
with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and always
was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe.
Wim Duisenberg, ex-president, ECB

We must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a
single political entity…For the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire
we have the opportunity to unite Europe.

Romano Prodi, European Parliament, 13 October 1999
The introduction of the common currency was in no way just an economic
decision. Monetary Union is demanding that we Europeans press ahead
resolutely with political integration.
Gerhard Schröder, 30 August 1999

The introduction of the euro is probably the most important integrating
step since the beginning of the unification process. It is certain that the
times of individual national efforts regarding employment policies, social
and tax policies are definitely over. This will require us to finally bury some
erroneous ideas of national sovereignty.
Gerhard Schröder, Chancellor of Germany, The Hague, 19 January 1999

One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the
first to propose more than a decade ago, is ultimately a political
project…Monetary union is a federative project that needs to be
accompanied & followed by other steps.
Giscard d’Estaing and Helmut Schmidt, International Herald Tribune, 14 October 1997

The euro is a conquest of sovereignty. It gives us a margin of manoeuvre.
It’s a tool to help us master globalisation and help us resist irrational shifts
in the market.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, French finance minister, January 1999

The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand,
with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and always
was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe.
Wim Duisenberg, ex-president, ECB

A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their
sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs. It is
an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy.
Hans Tietmeyer, President of the Bundesbank, 1991

Others are reporting on the Citizenship ceremonies that I mentioned yesterday

A more Napoleonic Britain | Samizdata.net: “>”A more Napoleonic Britain”

The Labour government is planning to introduce ceremonies for ‘citizenship’ and ‘coming of age’ to add the imprimatur of The State to being ‘British’. Yet surely one of the things that has always made the British so different from many of the people’s of Continental Europe who live with the legacy of Napoleon is that we have not really needed the state to tell us via ceremonies and ID cards that we are British… or that we are in reality ’subjects’, a far more honest term that ‘citizen’. Even the United States has its strange hand-on-heart ceremonies in some schools in which they pledge of allegiance not just to the principles of constitutional governance but also to a bit of coloured cloth. Yet in Britain such notions of social identity have generally been, well, social and not some propagandising artifice of the state.

This is yet another part of moving Britain into the more Napoleonic traditional in which the state is the core around which everything rotates in a politicised fashion and the highest virtue is political engagement (not a view I share, to put it mildly, given my view of politics). Such things are alien in this country and yet another sign that our political masters are obsessed with the fetishizing democracy as a way to make as many aspects of life as possible political in nature and requiring the intermediation of the state for ever more things. Such ‘ceremonies’ may be banal but what they represent is far from trivial.

Lord Kinnock of Brussels

Lord Kinnock who is now a member of the British House Lords and has a new role of overseeing the British Parliament and protecting the British Constitution is getting confused with his old job when he was under oath to only work for the EU Commision.

Kinnock of course receives a nice fat pension paid by our taxes via the EU so he still has a financial interest which he does not have to declare. If anyone receiving upwards of £60,000 per year from any other source did not declare it this would be an infringement on parliamentary rules, but for some unknown reason the EU pension which is tied to never going against the EU is not supposed to represent a conflict of interest. So from his lofty position of utter impartiality Kinnock is supporting the EU claims that it needs to increase its budget, so that it can do more EU, more propaganda, more control, more social interference and more regionalisation.

The Scotsman reports that he has clashed with the Chancellor over EU spending plans…

Kinnock tonight clashed with Chancellor Gordon Brown over Brussels spending plans.

Mr Brown wants to cut the EU budget and hand member states more power over how grants are spent.

But Lord Kinnock warned that would have serious social and economic effects.

And he turned the Chancellor’s own watchword – “prudence” – on him, saying it meant more than simply cutting spending.

Six EU governments, including Britain, want the ceiling of the EU budget to be cut from 1.27% of GDP to 1% for 2006-2013. The current level however, is actually 0.98%.

Mr Brown also wants regional and social funding expenditure to be “renationalised”.

In a speech to the British Council in London, Lord Kinnock said a lower budget ceiling would force the EU to make cuts.

He said that would hit research and development and regional funding, working against all policies for generating sustainable growth and employment across the EU.

It would also impact on social funding which would undermine policies of social inclusion and facilitating the single market.

He said the motive was prudence. But he added: “Prudence in a modern economy clearly means much more than cutting spending. It means better management and it means gaining more quality, more benefit, more valuable outcomes from what is spent.

“And that is why sustained EU investment, effectively managed and more accurately targeted is more prudent than the simple slicing which is now proposed.”

Does this man not realise that very many of the people who pay his pension would much rather have less EU at less cost.

The Times has picked up on the Rapid Reaction Farce I posted here

THE European Parliament is to establish a “rapid reaction force” to address what it considers to be unfair criticism of the European constitution in any EU member state.
http://eurealist.blogspot.com/2005/01/rapid-reaction-farce.html

The move has angered opponents of the proposed constitition, who say that the rapid reaction force is made up entirely of MEPs who support the constitition but is funded by taxpayers’ money. One leading Eurosceptic MEP said that the move was reminiscent of totalitarianism.

Jens Peter Bonde, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP, said: “It is a good idea to have a rapid reaction force, but you must have both sides to clear up real misunderstandings. You can’t have a rapid reaction force with taxpayers’ money and represent only one view — it’s a totalitarian tendency.”

As part of a campaign by Brussels, to combat Euroscepticism in the Union in time for a wave of referendums on the constitution, the Parliament has told its representative office in each country to monitor the press and note unfair criticism. MEPs will then be asked to write letters to the newspapers to put the record straight.

The European Parliament is also sending delegations consisting of only pro-constitution MEPs to parliaments in London and Paris, and last week spent €375,000 (£260,000) on a pro-constitution rally in Strasbourg.

Richard Corbett, the Labour spokesman for the constitution in the European Parliament, who helped to set up the new system and who is being paid €2,000 in expenses to promote the constitution, said: “There are a lot of occasions when people get things totally wrong. We will have a system going to pick out the stories to respond to.”

The Rebate
In a sure sign that Blair is preparing to cave in on the £3.2Billion rebate he has asked the EU leaders to postpone the negotiations until after the general election.

The Guardian says
Amid fears that Labour’s campaign could be distracted by rows over the “cheque Britannique”, he has persuaded his EU counterparts to start discussions in early May.
This will give Mr Blair, who hopes to win re-election in the expected May 5 poll, a mere six weeks to defend Margaret Thatcher’s rebate, which will come under fire at the European summit in mid-June.
The prime minister is said to be determined to pull off a deal by then because Britain’s hand will weaken over the summer. On July 1 Britain takes over the six-month presidency of the EU, making it difficult for ministers to fight their corner while they are in the chair.
Securing a deal by the end of June would allow No 10 to cast Mr Blair in the “battling for Britain” mould of Lady Thatcher when he launches the yes campaign for next year’s referendum on the EU constitution. Delaying the negotiations into 2006 would strengthen the no camp.
But senior figures are in no doubt about the real reason. “We cannot touch the budget negotiations for the moment because of a sensitivity in one well known country,” one commission official said.
Mr Blair’s deal is likely to fuel speculation that Britain is planning to water down the rebate. But sources insist that they will not agree to any change to the core principle - that Britain is compensated for the poor deal when it joined the then EEC in 1973.
….
France is determined to end the hated cheque Britannique. Jacques Chirac, the French president, has reminded new members that, in common with the rest of the EU, they have to fund the rebate. This message has been heeded by some central European countries which think it is wrong that relatively poor states should, in effect, subsidise a rich one.
…
Britain faces an enormous battle. Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg prime minister who is the current EU president, favours reform. He told the French daily Le Monde: “It is necessary to evaluate the reasons for the introduction of the British cheque in 1984 at the Fontainebleau summit - which I still call Fontainebluff.”
Without the rebate Britain would have paid 14 times more into the EU budget in that period than France. Britain still pays two and a half times more than France and Italy.