eurealist.co.uk

EU Referendum carries a transcript of the John Humphrys interview with Richard Corbett MEP and Neil O’Brien, on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme this morning. But the following post “That defence question” is the one that is important, in the interview both parties made claims about the status of defence in the proposed constitutional treaty. “O’ Neil claims that: “there’s a commitment in the new constitution, for the first time, that the EU will move to a common defence.” Corbett, on the other hand, claims: that “it’s been in the treaty since the Maastricht Treaty”

The point at issue for me is the dispute shows some of the problems with the creeping EU, they first make an vauge outline suggestion and then this is added to or changed later but only in one direction because the Acquis prevents moves in the other.

As it turns out Corbett is right that “it’s been in the treaty since the Maastricht”

However the real story emerges when you look at the development from Maastricht to the Constitution.

Maastricht (Art. J.4 (1)) actually states:
The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.

In other words, is sets up a commitment, albeit vague, to move towards a common defence.

This is then modified by the Amsterdam treaty, renumbered to become Article

17 (1). This reads:
The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might… (deleted: in time) lead to a common defence.

The “eventual framing” now becomes the “progressive framing” – a little bit firmer, made stronger by the deletion of “in time”. The elision, incidentally, relates to a reference on the WEU, making it an integral part of the Union.

By the Nice Treaty, again Article 17 (1), the passage remains the same, with the removal of the reference to the WEU. That brings us to the proposed constitutional treaty, where the original passage now transmutes into Article I-41 (2), which reads:

The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

From the very vague provision in Maastricht, this has firmed up substantially: “might” has become “will”, but it does need a unanimous decision of the European Council.

In the comments; Denis Cooper: gets to the heart of the matter when he says:

O’Neil should have pointed out that we won’t be voting on Maastricht or Nice, so it’s not really relevant what they say.

We’ll only be voting on the question on the ballot paper:

“Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?”

So please could Mr Corbett stick to the point?

The Constitution plans a common EU defence policy and even a common EU defence:

“The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.”

Do you want a common EU defence policy? If not, don’t vote for it.

Simon Hart on the High Court’s judgement in the Parliament Act challenge

As I suggested yesterday the Judges sitting in the Divisional Court did not feel able to uphold our case that the 1949 Parliament Act is invalid. This is no surprise and the case will now go to the Court of Appeal, probably in the second week in February.

For some time our lawyers have made clear the pressures on the Divisional Court of overturning and Act of Parliament. They have always considered that the higher courts are more likely to accept the important constitutional argument that we are putting forward.

The judgement was given verbally but reports will almost certainly be available in tomorrow’s media. We will post any articles, and the judgement as soon as it is available, on the front page of the web site.

Today’s judgement contained nothing which suggests to us that the decision cannot be overturned at appeal. The Judges accepted that we had a legitimate case and that the Court has the power to overturn the Act, although they disagreed with the legal points made. If, however, the Court of Appeal is not prepared to uphold our case we will seek leave to appeal to the Law Lords.

At that stage we might also apply for an injunction to prevent prosecutions under the Hunting Act pending the outcome of the legal challenges. But we will only consider this route if an injunction would represent a real benefit for hunting. I am very conscious that the process is ever-changing, confusing and expensive. However, all of our commitment to it is vital. We have a long way to go and we must remain clearly focused on the objective.

I can only repeat that we should all be ready to face the commencement of the Hunting Act and to use 19th February as an opportunity to expose the Government to the ridicule it so richly deserves for allowing such legislation to be passed in its name. Today’s result is not a surprise, nor does it preclude a successful challenge to the 1949 Parliament Act – and that challenge is only one part of our campaign to repeal the Hunting Act. Furthermore, next week, we attack the Government on another front - via our powerful human rights challenge

The court cases will continue and meanwhile we must all continue to do what we can to support the two other strands of our campaign by engaging in the political process and supporting our local hunts. I cannot tell you whether the Hunting Act will eventually be repealed by the courts or by Parliament, but I remain confident that it will never “stand the test of time”

Simon Hart

I will answer some points in this later but feel that is should be on the main page rather than comments.

Seriously? Now I can’t give you any specifics here, but I’ve got the impression that most times the BBC holds any kind of EU based debate they generally call in people from the two furthest extremes. Most of the pro-EU lot they get in do no service to that side of the debate, usually painting eurosceptics with the broadest of “little Englander” and “xenophobe” brushes, sounding utterly patronising and making us all look like self-righteous arseholes, and the anti-EU vox pops often seem to be chosen for being hardcore pro-withdrawal voices.

The impression I’ve got of the majority of eurosceptics is that they largely object to further integration, and think that in certain areas we’ve already gone too far - not that the basic idea of a European trading and co-operation union is a bad thing. Plus I can - to an extent - see their point.

The withdrawl arguments seem utterly insane to me - other eurosceptic stances hold a lot more water and could, if the withdrawal question could be sidestepped, actually be an area where the pro and anti camps could find common ground.

As I’ve said many, many times, the majority of pro-EU folk know full well that there are major flaws with the current system (Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, lack of democratic accountability etc.), and want sweeping reforms of (almost) the entire thing. There are also plenty of pro-EU people (myself included) who aren’t convinced that the UK should join the single currency for the forseeable future.

But whenever any EU-based arguments are raised (in the UK at least), they always seem to end up boiled down to the most extreme viewpoints: pro-EU = federalist, anti-EU = withdrawalist etc. It’s just not that simple, and is preventing us from having a real and constructive debate. Any government attempts to claim that a “No” vote in the constitutional referendum is a vote to withdraw will simply give fuel to the more extreme eurosceptics, and distort the debate further.

It’s not helpful for either side for the debate to be so polarised - after all, even pro-EU people (again, myself included) are fully aware that the proposed constitution is flawed. It’s just we also don’t buy the claims that it is a final settlement, so reckon that - if everyone who wants reform can finally start acting together - we can make the best of its good points and get rid of the bad. (And yes, I know that we’ve been trying to do that when it comes to the EU for 30 years, but I reckon we’ve failed because we haven’t presented a coherent and united reformist front - we’re too busy bickering among ourselves to tackle the problems head on.)

In short, the argument between the UK pro and anti camps shouldn’t be boiled down to the utterly simplistic “withdraw or become a federal superstate” dichotomy, as it has often been. It should be over the extent to which reforms of the UK’s existing relationship with the EU are necessary - both camps agree that they are, just not how much. Only a minority on either side would argue for the most extreme options available.

Edit;
You must watch an entirely different BBC than I do, all I see is that the BBC allows pro EU spokes people to make claims that are never questioned, this is confirmed by the report>>>

The narrow focus of the BBC’s political reporting on MPs and the British Government causes other distortions. For example:

It has failed to reflect a significant minority opinion that the UK should withdraw from the EU because this does not figure in the policies of the Westminster parties.

Eusceptics do not think that the basic idea of a European trading and co-operation union is a bad thing we voted for this in 1975, unfortunately this has now been extended into a supra national organisation which is increasingly interfering in our day to day lives, in the process removing the ability of the people to set the political agenda of their own government, by voting for the party whos policies they prefer.

The withdrawal argument is based purely on the fact that we do in fact have two options, stay in or leave. The EU federalists do not allow a third option, because they continue to push for further integration. If you would like to sidestep the withdrawal argument you must put a stop to the integration motor, otherwise any debate will work as a ratchet towards further integration.

That really is the reason why we cannot accept this Constitution because it does not limit the EU it in fact allows it compleate freedom to continue with integration.

Times Online - Comment: “From the Shadow Home Secretary

Sir, Mr Anthony Aust (letter, January 26) appears not to have read our policy document on asylum. There is no question of a Conservative government returning to their countries of origin anyone whom our own courts have found to be in genuine fear of persecution.

The objective is to deter or remove false claimants. In 2003, 72 per cent of applicants were refused permission to remain in Britain. In the last two financial years only about one in five of those refused has been removed.

Yours faithfully,
DAVID DAVIS,
House of Commons.
January 26.”

All very well and good, but exactly how are you going to achieve this when the EU says you cannot. It appears that we need to sort out first, who runs this country the people we elect to do the job, or the unelected unaccountable Commission. If you cannot answer that question then why should we vote Conservative?

Earlier I knocked Simon Jenkins on his suggestion that we abolish trial by Jury, today he is arguing the case that epitomises the opposite view.

“THE HOME SECRETARY’S plan to intern British citizens without trial stinks. He must know it. His colleagues must know it. Some politicians need to have their heads banged and their ears shoved to the ground so they can hear the echoing drumbeats of history…
Yesterday I listened to Charles Clarke trying to defend his proposals on the radio. He sounded miserable and unconvincing. He implied that his critics were ignorant of some massive threat known only to him and his secret advisers. He seemed in thrall to forces of darkness which lurk deep within all governments but which stronger politicians hold in check….
Mr Clarke wants to put under house arrest any people he considers a menace, be they Muslims, Irish or animal rights activists. He wants to ban them from using mobile phones and e-mail, and restrict their contact with others. He wants to tag and curfew at will. He offers a secret appeal to a judge, but neither judge nor victim need be shown any evidence….

It is because some ministers can degenerate to this craven state that most countries have proper constitutions. They have supreme courts, plebiscites, senates, checks and balances. Britain has none of these. It has only Parliament. Yet hands up those who think a majority of MPs will boldly cry “Liberty” and walk through the division lobby to stop Mr Clarke’s monstrous arrogation of power. Not a hope.”

That, Mr Jenkins is exactly the reasons we must retain the right of trial by jury and Habeas Corpus but when Clarke comes to the Dispatch Box to implement their removal it would seem you are going to be in the front line applauding.

Times Online - World:

“Michelin knows just the place for the real gourmand: a building site
By Charles Bremner and Marie Tourres”

This story is fascinating for me because I do know a little about the way Michelin works.

The story is about the guide withdrawing all 50,000 copies of its 2005 Benelux Red Guide because they gave an accolade to a restaurant that seems to be behind in its building work and has not even opened its doors.

The guide said that it wanted to give a helping hand to a new restaurant, that seems to be general for its operating principals, which on the face of it is not a bad thing especially if they know the chef, except that by giving a helping hand to one restaurant they are intentionally or not causing problems for another. This instance show clearly that they decide who to and who not to support on some arbitrary measure that has nothing to do with the food on the plate.

The effects of the guide can be both devastating if you are not amongst the chosen ones, or exhilarating if you are, I know of one restaurant that Michelin decided to honour who quadrupled their business overnight of course draining business from all those other restaurants in the area.

It is almost impossible to describe the pressures this guide causes in 2003 Bernard Loiseau, a celebrity chef, committed suicide in a state of depression, fuelled in part by fear that Michelin was about to remove one of his three stars. That is not an understatement after Christmas each year a chef will start to become nervy and not be able to settle, as the time for publication draws near this intensifies until it is almost impossible to sleep. On the day before publication if you have any contacts in the press you are awaiting their calls to tell you have won or lost gained or not, an accolade.

Because if it falls right you have in essence won the lottery, it is not the accolade, although that is nice, but the press associated with it that affects the business. This can be intense, if this happens to be the big story, I was involved in two big Michelin stories, on the first occasion I got to my restaurant at 9.15 am and there were 21 messages on the answer phone all from the media, frantic calls from film crews heading up the motorway to film the story. On the second I had the pleasant job of phoning a young chef that I know, to tell him he had been awarded a star he had no idea that he even had a chance and was literally dumb struck. I warned him that this was the big story and he should batten down the hatches for the media storm to come, by lunchtime he had five film crews on his doorstep. Yes the effects of Michelin can be dramatic.

That BBC Report which was released yesterday has some interesting comments to make about the BBC coverage of the EU, some of them are listed here, other Bloggers also have their own ideas on the report, some of whom have been complaining for a long time about the BBC Bias, may take some comfort from the fact that although the report did not find intentional bias it did highlight a series of problems that the BBC needs to address with regard to its coverage of the EU. In fact one of the arguments oddly made by both Eusceptics and the EU Commision is that the BBC understates the importance and relevance of the EU in the political and daily life of the UK. This of course plays into the hands of those who do not wish the British people to fully understand what is going on.

“All external witnesses pointed out that the BBC News agenda understates the importance and relevance of the EU in the political and daily life of the UK”.

“Giving the audience the information it needs to make up its own mind is a proper and important role for the BBC and one which it must carry out. We feel that impartiality requires even-handed treatment of the broad spectrum of views held by the British electorate. The BBC should be “the voices” not “the voice” of Britain.”

New Frontiers
The report for the BBC Governors into BBC coverage of the EU has been published. It is good news for those who oppose in part or in full the process of EU integration. While it unsurprisingly finds that there is no conspiracy to distort the debate, it accepts that there is “cultural bias” – exactly what those who have scrutinised the BBC have long complained of for years. It also correctly notes that many BBC journalists are too ignorant about the EU to report on it properly and says that the real role of the EU in British life has been greatly under-reported by the BBC

Europhobia
The report into the BBC’s so-called bias will no doubt be much appreciated in some quarters, but all it’s actually saying is that some people perceive the corporation to be biased in favour of the EU.

EU Referendum
Having expressed considerable reservations about the make-up of this Panel, we cannot express any great surprise at this finding. All we can say of it is that the Panel cannot have looked very far, or very thoroughly. Even on this Blog – which is not dedicated systematically to monitoring the BBC – we have been able to come up with some very clear instances.

London Evening Standard
The BBC is accused by two independent reports of failing the public in its coverage of the European Union.
A review commissioned by the board of governors said there was a “cultural and unintentional bias” in BBC news and a lack of understanding of the issues among many journalists.
A second set of research by pollsters MORI found that BBC’s audiences believe it is “not succeeding in providing basic accessible information” on Europe.

Express India
London, January 28: The BBC, Britain’s internationally renowned television and radio broadcaster, has failed in its mission of impartiality and is guilty of a pro-European bias, according to an independent report it commissioned.
The report, commissioned by the British Broadcasting Corporation’s board of governors, said there was”serious problem” with the BBC’s coverage of European issues because of its failure to be impartial.
“While we have found no evidence of deliberate bias in BBC coverage of EU matters, we have found that there is a widespread perception that it suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentional bias,” it said.

Martin Stabe
The independent panel commissioned by BBC board of governors has issued its report; it found no bias, but found the quality BBC’s coverage of the EU wanting:

As I have only found a couple of pro EU sites which have have mentioned the report, here is a post about the BBC to attempt some balance.
Strait Banana

The best balance however perhaps comes from the make up of the inquiry team, independent of the BBC they may be, but independent of the EU they most certainly are not.

News Analysis: At the EU, less is better:

“New administration fosters fewer rules”

BRUSSELS Now that the new European Commission has been in office two months, its guiding philosophy is coming into sharper focus: The most effective way Brussels can help Europe’s flagging economy is to do as little as possible.”

Or could it possibly have something to do with a certain Constitution and a certain referendum. Call me sceptic if you like but it cannot have evaded notice in the commission that we do not like their endless rules and find them intrusive and overbearing. Of course they would be quite prepared to slow down a bit now if it means they can go further and faster later.

French parliament votes on referendum on EU admissions: “French parliament members voted Thursday for a compulsory referendum allowing new European Union (EU) admission bids, which will be applied to Turkey if its EU admission negotiations conclude.

The parliament will vote later article 4 of the bill, which stipulates that this referendum will be applied only after the admission of Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia to the European Union.”

It therefore becomes a matter for the French people alone to have a say in enlargement, this cannot be right either the Commission must now also interfere in an internal French matters, there can be no justification for this right to only be offered to the French. We await the announcement from the Commission that the French cannot do this because it undermines a basic concept of the Union. Er we could be waiting for some time!

Irish News,
Login required

There are fears the price of bananas could rocket as the EU plans to treble the duty on imports of the fruit.

Bananas generally come into Europe from Latin America, which has an import quota.

However, now the EU is looking at changing that, to be at the same level of charges imposed on all regions outside Europe.

If adopted, the plan could see import prices here go from €75 per tonne to €230 from next January.

Simon Jenkins wrote Times on 22 December

“The Lords is on its mettle. Its constitutional role stands undiminished by the chaotic attempts at its reform. It is to reconsider and, if necessary, delay measures sent to it by the Commons, which means by the Government. This role has never been more sorely needed. The Lords has just five months to work ahead of it, to fight more fiercely for civil liberty than ever before”.

All sentiments which I fully support, as this government and the EU try to sneak EU Roman law into this country by the back door, without any respect or even acknowledgement of the basic system of English Common Law that has formed the backbone of our society since well before Magna Carta 1215. A system moreover that forms the basis for the constitutions in most of the English speaking world at least.

But yesterday the very same Simon Jenkins is advocating the removal of the very bedrock on which Common Law stands. The final right of the people to accept or reject a government law, in court as a member of a jury of the accused peers, in other words a group of arbitrarily selected people who also have to live under that same law.

Simon Jenkins now asserts “The jury system is widely held to be the cornerstone of British justice and the Lord Chancellor wants more people to take part. But it is an anachronism and should be scrapped”

His reasoned argument, citing time-wasting, inefficiency and expense, both to the state and to jurors. And perhaps a not a little hubris; when he says “I thought the whole business was an amateur medieval mystery play staged by lawyers, largely at the expense of the working class.”… “Jurors are treated as dumb individuals. Everything from the bossiness of the staff to the forms and regulations, the food and drink, the delays more tedious than in an casualty department, all put jurors well below the salt”

To be fair Jenkins does have some salient points about the rules of evidence that need addressing
“The rules are designed to render the issue before the jury as nearly “objective” as possible. This is despite the purpose of juries being the application of lay subjectivity. Members are fed a crafted whodunnit for them to write the last act. A recent jury, asked to decide on a credit card theft, thus was not told that the bag in which the card had been found also held 100 other cards. This might have “prejudiced” its verdict. I should think it would”
and
“The laundering at trials of details of motive, character, background and past record assumes that jurors are not commonsensical at all but stupid. They are too dim to form their own view of relevance and context. In which case, why have them at all”.. “What should be a down-to-earth investigation of forensic details by those trained to do so is distorted, censored and dramatised to keep an audience occupied”.

But then he also says “Even if the rules of evidence were updated it would not validate the system” “British criminal justice is an extension of Britain’s addiction to the detective story”
did they have detective stories in 1215?

“Most countries — no less liberal and progressive than Britain — regard the assessment of legal evidence as a matter for trained professionals”. Likewise surgeons decide on the type of operation, teachers on the aptitude of pupils, engineers on the strength of bridges. Many such decisions have “subjective” elements, but are not given to lay determination. A mass of serious quasi-judicial decisions are now taken by civil servants without juries. Children may be removed from families, the mentally ill incarcerated, homes compulsorily purchased, communities wrecked by roads, prisoners denied parole. Criminal trial by jury is an exhibitionist archaism.
Worse, I believe, is the impact juries have on sentencing. Public opinion tends to complain that juries find too many guilty people innocent. The jury acquittal rate has certainly risen from 32 per cent in the 1970s to 42 per cent in the late 1990s”

The time has come to professionalise justice. Whether the continental investigatory system is adopted or the Anglo-American adversarial system retained, “judgment” should be in the hands of magistrates and judges, maybe with professional or even lay assessors. Their decisions are subject to oversight and appeal, and to the law of Parliament”.

All of the above is completely missing the central point of Juries, because he says the “Law of Parliament” Juries are not supposed to assist the state in controlling the people, they are supposed to show that this is the peoples law, they the people accept it as a just law, the accused is not found guilty by the state, but by the people, it is our law, that is why we obey it and uphold it. To remove that context of juries is to pass the power of accuser judge and executioner into the hands of the government of the day, it becomes their law.

Jenkins is therefore wrong when he says “Juries date from a time when the King’s Justice required the backing of local consent. They were a bulwark against mob rule, and assisted judges, sheriffs and justices in keeping the general peace.” They ran alongside other forms of public duty, such as service as special constables, bailiffs and highway maintainers. Today they are the sole survivor of compulsory public service”. “Juries should go the way of trial by ordeal, ducking stools and public hangings”.

The reason he is wrong is that, “In 2001 the Government tried to limit jury trials after the sensible Auld report into criminal trials”. Auld also suggested abolishing the right of trial by jury, but in the interim he suggested exactly the reasons why this is not acceptable, that Juries must find on the evidence only and may not find against the law, this is over turning the concept that juries may not refuse to convict if they feel the law is unjust, which itself undermines the whole reason for juries in the first place.

Integral to out freedoms is the ability to change our governments, to be tried by a jury of our peers, who have the power to overturn a law by not convicting anyone if they feel the law is unjust.

If Jenkins doubts this, let him consider the following; if a government were to introduce a law that limited the power of the press in some way that he found objectionable, and then by voicing this objection he fell foul of that law, which would he prefer, a judge who would not be in a position to rule on agreement of the law, but must apply the law as it is presented, or a jury who need not convict if they agreed that the law was objectionable.

Because that is exactly what he is calling for by suggesting the abolition of the right to trial by jury, they may be expensive; the system may be time consuming, but as an indicator and the power of our acceptance of the law, there is nothing that can replace them to stand as a bulwark between the rulers and the ruled. As he has inadvertently highlighted they are a clear indication of the peoples basic right not to convict on laws they find unacceptable when he says; “I believe, is the impact juries have on sentencing. Public opinion tends to complain that juries find too many guilty people innocent. The jury acquittal rate has certainly risen from 32 per cent in the 1970s to 42 per cent in the late 1990s”.

He is confirming the very point, that law must have general acceptance in the community, if it does not, it is the law that is wrong and not the jury; for he is mistaken those people are not guilty unless a jury says they are, so no matter what laws our goverment thinks are needed,if the people do not agree they have the final say, not the government.