eurealist.co.uk

I used babelfish to translate the UMP “9 reasons to say ‘yes’ to the EU Constitution” Unless the software made a compleate dogs dinner of the translation, it would seem that the French Europhiles are as adept at telling lies to the French people as the Dennis MacShane school of constitutional interpretation. They are however more direct about the truth.

9 reasons of saying YES to the European Constitution
By Alain Lamassoure, European deputy, national secretary charged with Europe.

The project of European Constitution is necessary to Europe and France.
the rules developed at the point in 1957 for the small Common Market of the Six, and included since in all the successive treaties, are from now on completely unsuited to large political Europe.

It transforms commercial Europe and monetarist into true political Europe, founded on values of civilization, and around common objectives

It devotes the innovative and fertile formula of a community of nations, “plain in their diversity”, which preserve their identity and their independence all while giving each other rules of common life and the possibility of acting together on the international scene.

The French definition of independence needs working on though!

It clarifies the distribution of competences between the Union and the Member States, by entrusting to the national Parliaments the control of the respect of this distribution. For the first time, they will have the means of preventing any inopportune overflow of the European interventions

See same old lies

It gives us a capacity of collective action on subject-keys for which we are not rather any more effective at the national level. It makes Europe the good level to answer universalization…. It will be able to sit in all the organizations or international negotiations relative to its field of competences: it will play a role-key in all the foreign relations excluding employment from the force - trade, finances, currency, transport, telecommunications, science, energy, environment, co-operation and humanitarian aid. It will start to play a more effective part in foreign politics and of defense, with the appointment of a Foreign Minister of the Union, and the creation of a European Agency of Defense.

A little more forthcoming than MacShane

It offers to the citizens the place which must be theirs: the first. It is them which will elect the European legislators and the chief of the European executive. They will be able to influence right from the start of future revisions of the Constitution, or new negotiations of widening of the Union. They will lay out of a right of collective petition, on all the subjects, an unknown capacity to date in France as in the majority of the European countries in the majority of the European countries.

Oh no they won`t

It makes it possible to give to the Union stable borders, while making possible of possible future widenings, with individually, and only if the European people wish it - the French having the additional guarantee of a national referendum in the event of all new widening.

Now, this is a new one and an outright lie nothing in the constitution gives the French the right to hold a national referendum.

In the fields where France wants to make more and more quickly, it makes it possible to start to act with those of our partners who are laid out there without awaiting the others: they are the “reinforced co-operations”. Thus, the Member States of the euro will be able to manage their economic policies between them. As regards foreign politics, of defense, frontier check external, legal co-operation, harmonization of the taxation, social policy, we will be able to take new initiatives without being attached by the rule of the unanimity.

Lastly, this text is the crowning of what one can call the French vision of Europe, against the Anglo-Saxon vision, purely free-trader, intergovernmental and souverainist. Jacques Chirac underlined without being contradicted: “This Constitution was wanted by France, and it was very largely inspired by it”. No other country played a more important part in its design and its development. No political family contributed more there than the Popular Party European, and in particular UMP. And yet no other text could have collected such a broad consensus through all Europe. The question put to the French is quite simply: do we want to give to Europe the means of which we have need to defend our values, our identity, our interests and the influence of France at the age of universalization?
For us, the answer is categorically “yes”.

As this is the French vision what on earth happened to the British vision which we are told the constitution sets in place.

EU Referendum

the facts are that, from 7 February, the Spanish government is to allow any foreign national who can show that they have a job contract and has lived in the country for more than six months to obtain legal residency.

The amnesty is expected to benefit between 800,000 and one million immigrants who work in the underground economy - about six percent of the labour force – largely originating from Africa and developing countries.

What may be a liberal and humane policy for Spain, however, has, in the words of Otto Schily, the German interior minister, “consequences for the rest of Europe”. This is because, once granted official residency status in Spain, immigrants will then, under the EU treaty rules, acquire rights of “freedom of movement” throughout the rest of the member states.

Thus, what previously would have been an internal decision for Spain now affects the rest of the EU, by virtue of the “open border” policy of the Community.

Full Post

MENAFN:

France has vowed to fight a European Union plan to create a single job market for professionals such as doctors throughout the 25 member countries.

In line with the open border concept, Barroso called for the creation of a European Institute of Technology, a university that he said would ‘attract the brightest minds from around the world.”

In a Europe without Borders this is going to happen whether we like it or not that is the whole point of the European project.

BBC NEWS | Politics | Labour accused of ‘EU propaganda’:

“A ‘taxpayer subsidised propaganda exercise’ on the EU is being used to lull the British public into a false sense of security, say the Tories.

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram told MPs a new White Paper was part of trying to soften up opinion ahead of the referendum on the EU constitution.

So Whats new?

His claims were denied by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who accused the Tories of ‘running scared’ of debate.”

Nobody is running scared of debate Mr Straw, so how about telling us all what is really in the Constitution rather than spending our tax money sponsoring Eupropaganda.

Caribbean Net News: Outside View: The EU, Castro and freedom:

“Outside View: Caribbean Net News: Outside View: The EU, Castro and freedom: “>The EU, Castro and freedom
by Frank Calzon, UPI Outside View commentator
Thursday, February 3, 2005

WASHINGTON, USA (UPI): At a time when President George W. Bush is reaffirming America’s commitment to freedom around the world, the European Union, at the behest of socialist Spain seems to be ready to turn its back on political prisoners of Fidel Castro’s communist dictatorship in Cuba.

The leaders of the EU countries met recently to consider, among other things the recommendation of the Spanish government that they cease inviting Cubans dissidents to their national day celebrations at their Havana embassies. The policy of inviting dissidents dates to 2003, when Cuba arrested and sentenced to long prison terms some 75 peaceful advocates of democracy who Amnesty International identified as prisoners of conscience. Prior to those arrests, a few governments were already inviting members of Cuba’s democratic opposition to the celebrations.

Castro’s immediate response was to freeze relations. Cuban officials would no longer attend any functions at the European embassies on the island, and Cuban diplomats around the world refrained from carrying out most normal diplomatic communications with governments to which they have been accredited.

In political terms, Castro understands ‘the power of the powerless,’ which is to say that if a powerless majority gains recognition and organizes, it can force change. So Castro ignores no opportunity — however petty — to prevent recognition of Cuba’s powerless majority. In this instance, he petulantly demands Europeans make a choice: Deal with him and protect their Cuban investments or invite his democratic opponents to their diplomatic receptions. When Spain’s new socialist government was elected, it decided to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq and to acquiesce to Castro’s demands. Spain carries inordinate weight in determining European pol”

More:

You know who your friends are

The so called row over the papers covering the events leading to the ERM exit, the day Britain left the European exchange-rate mechanism on September 16, 1992, and the Bank of England reputedly spent £27 billion of reserves propping up sterling.

All that went on in those days should be open to public scrutiny, it was after all the total failure of Majors attempts to take us into the Euro, that caused this debacle in the first place.

I have always felt that Lamont was the fall guy for a policy he was forced to continue by a Prime Minister, whos support of the policy was the main cause of the problems. Because Major was playing the EU game, he fully expected the other EU countries to help out, but when he tried to contact the other European leaders they were strangely unavailable, leaving Britian to face the markets alone. I know nothing about the international monetary trade, but have always believed that was the time when the Union could have stood by one of its main supporters in Britain, therby showing their determination to present the united front they keep telling they want, and at the same time backing the introduction of a single currency in Britain.

On the election front the Labour party have continually harped on about how “bad it was under the Tory’s and do we want to return to the days of 15% interest rates” this lie has never been nailed by the Tory’s who presumably are to embarrassed, and it has therefore become a modern (excuse the term) Myth, there were 15% interest rates under the Tory’s for five hours on one day Black Wednesday at the Times makes clear:

11am Norman Lamont raises interest rates from 10 per cent to 12 per cent after frenzied selling of sterling on the exchanges

2pm Rates go up to 15 per cent as £27 billion is speculated on propping up the pound.
The net loss is put at £4 billion-£10 billion

7pm Mr Lamont withdraws from the ERM and drops the second rate rise.

Europhiles try to confuse the issue

The Telegraph letters page today, has Richard Corbett MEP self-selected defender of the EU Constitution, taking to task Dr Peter Gardner, Ukip, who wrote a letter suggesting that Dennis MacShane should offer “Less fudge and more facts about the EU Constitution” As usual with the Europhile argument, instead of addressing the point of the letter Corbett selects one part to misinterpret and Euspin. The point Mr Corbett is that Dennis MacShane is not being honest with the British people, not how many other sovereign nation states are giving up the veto, but how the EU constitution is affecting the rights of the British voter to elect their own government. It was also notable the Mr Corbett did not mention the other letter on the same day from Harry Randall which made the same point.

Hurrah, we can’t say no

Sir – Rather than complaining over the fact that the new EU Constitution removes the national veto in about 60 areas (Letters, Jan 31), surely this is something we should celebrate?

These are all areas in which Britain supported the removal of the veto. It is retained in every single area where we wanted it retained - treaty changes, security, foreign policy, tax and so on.

After all, the veto is a double-edged sword. If we have one, so does each of the other 24 countries around the table. Policies that we want can then be blocked by others.

Indeed, if Britain has 60 fewer vetoes, then there are 1,440 vetoes (60 x 24) lost by other countries, giving them fewer opportunities to block the decisions that we want.

Richard Corbett MEP, Labour spokesman on EU constitutional affairs, Brussels

Less fudge, more facts about EU constitution

Sir – Denis MacShane’s letter (Jan 29) contains one statement magnifying something of no importance and one statement downplaying something of great importance. His reference to a greater role for national parliaments presumably refers to the new measures under subsidiarity contained in protocol two of the treaty. This provides that, if a third of national parliaments object to a proposed EU measure, the relevant EU institution must “review” the measure. Having done this, they can carry on regardless. All they need to do is say why they disagree with the objections.

Mr MacShane’s “simpler decision-making” sounds good, perhaps. What he did not say is that this will happen because the veto will be removed in around 60 areas – according to the British Management Data Foundation’s analysis. In addition, the treaty contains six new “passerelle” clauses allowing the Council of Ministers to vote by unanimity to remove the unanimity requirement in a particular area. As Mr MacShane says, the EU under the new treaty would be more flexible. But the price would be a vice-like grip on the member states.

Dr Peter Gardner, Ukip PPC Oxford East, Oxford

Sir – Mr MacShane will need to support his rhetoric with facts if he is to succeed as the minister responsible for selling the EU to a sceptical British public in the run-up to a referendum on the constitution. The contrast between his letter and the editorial on the issue is striking.

Mr MacShane fails to include even one article from the treaty in support of his case as to the reason why we should not reject the treaty. He believes that the British people will support it in a referendum “when provided with the facts”.

Given the opportunity to do so in his letter, he fails. In an interview he gave to The Telegraph last year (News, Aug 7, 2004) he said: “There are more myths about Europe than you can find in Harry Potter”. Now is your opportunity, Mr MacShane, to expose those myths about the treaty.

Harry Randall, Dorchester

New EU Regulations on Meat Hygiene

The Country Side Alliance has issued a handy leaflet “Game to Eat” Which can be downloaded here

Most people involved in shooting know that the laws on game meat are changing. They may have heard for example that in future some shooters will need training in food hygiene, or that chillers might be required instead of traditional game larders. It is the responsibility of the shooting community to know the laws and to comply. This leaflet will help shooters to understand their legal responsibilities and where and when new regulations apply.

The changes are happening because in 2004 the European Parliament passed new laws
designed to improve food safety. These regulations apply to all types of food, not just game, and they are becoming law throughout the EU.

The regulations are directly applicable throughout the UK and the three of greatest relevance are:

• Regulation(EC) No.178/2002 laying down the
general principles and requirements of food
law (known as the ‘General Food Law
Regulation’)

• Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 on the hygiene
of foodstuffs (also known as ‘H1’)

• Regulation (EC) No.853/2004 laying down
specific rules for food of animal origin,
including game (also known as ‘H2’).

All three new laws are being given effect in the
UK through parliamentary regulations.

The General Food Law Regulation was implemented on 1 January 2005. H1 and H2
will be implemented on 1 January 2006.

Although this European legal framework is new, some of the earlier UK legislation is being left in place, including – for the moment at least – the nineteenth century Game Acts. So, for example, an individual wishing to sell game can still only do so to someone who holds a Game Dealer’s Licence. The new food hygiene rules apply alongside these older laws.

The new laws take account of varying shooting circumstances and do not always go further than current legislation.