eurealist.co.uk

Tackling Short FOC Myths
The FCO has this week been regaling us with its series of papers “Tackling myths about the European Constitutional Treaty”

What is becoming apparent as these papers are released on a daily basis is that they are very short, with very little information used to back up the basic point “Myth” making the basic case describing it as “Myth” this is then followed by a section of “Facts” each with a short sentence or two. The fact that in each case it can be clearly shown that the “Facts” are not facts at all but spin or outright lies is not the point, because to rebut these “Facts” the Eusceptic feels they have to go into details to show exactly where and how these “Facts” are misleading.

The very vagueness of the governments output is compelling us to go into great detail ourselves, I have written several pages showing where the Constitution does not back up the FOC version but feel it would be a waste of time posting them because they are simply not succinct enough.

The danger is that the public will just turn off from reading volumes of clauses and their likely interpretation by the ECJ. So I will try to find some short rebuts to the “Facts” I do not guarantee that short will be possible and any help would be much appreciated because we are going to be hearing these “Facts” endlessly in the coming months.

The “Myths” and the facts are listed below but the first short rebut I have stolen from E U Referendum

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Conservative MP
“FOC Myth” National Parliaments have a direct say for the first time

“We heard again the tired argument about this new power for national Parliaments over subsidiarity”,

“That is not new; we can object already. It is certainly not a power, as we can object all we like, and the Commission can go on ignoring us. All that we get in this constitution is a new right to be ignored.”

Myth One: Britain would lose control of Foreign Policy
The Facts
Common foreign policy isn’t new
It strengthens Britain’s influence in the world
We won’t be forced to follow an EU policy through ‘loyal cooperation’.
The new European Foreign Minister works for the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Ministers.
The EU can’t take our seat at the UN
The European Commission already negotiates treaties for the UK

Myth Two: The Constitutional Treaty will create a European Army
The Facts
British armed forces will remain under British control
It adds another layer to our security
Britain keeps its veto over European defence
European Defence does not undermine NATO
The European Defence Agency is not building a European Army

Myth Three: ‘Primacy’ means that the EU controls our laws
The Facts
EU law protects British business and consumers.
Primacy simply means everybody sticking to the rules that we agree at European level.
Primacy of European Law is not new.
No international organisation could function if domestic law undermined treaties
The European Court of Justice defends those rules.

Myth Four: The Charter of Fundamental Rights will be used to change Britain’s labour laws
The Facts
The Charter makes clear that EU institutions must respect people’s rights
.. but for Member States, the Charter will apply only when they are implementing Union law, and cannot extend EU powers.
The Charter creates no new rights.
It will not create a right to strike in the UK.
Nor will the Charter prevent women-only swimming sessions, outlaw Sunday School

Myth Five: The Constitutional Treaty creates a European superstate
THE FACTS
The EU is an international organisation
The limits of EU authority are set out clearly for the first time
Nation states set the agenda
National Parliaments have a direct say for the first time
The Queen will remain the Head of State
We keep national vetoes over key areas

Will France Say Non to the EU Constitution?:

“Will France Say Non to the EU Constitution? Maybe so. ”

With three countries already on board and a host of European countries facing referenda to ratify the proposed European Constitution, one would think that the ratification process in Europhile France would be relatively simple. However, despite a majority in parliament in support of the constitution, there is increasing disenchantment on both the left and right that could derail Chirac’s plans for a successful summer referendum. Chirac cannot simply assume an oui result, as recent events and polls attest.

Perhaps most surprising is that some of the most vocal opposition to the constitution has come from the left. For the usually statist left, the proposed constitution is viewed as too liberal economically (i.e., not sufficiently dirigiste), and insufficiently attentive to “social priorities,” like France’s sacred 35-hour work week. Fueling attacks against the proposed constitution have been France’s labor unions, twenty of which have launched a campaign against the constitution, claiming that the constitution “robs” countries of the right to govern themselves. Nearly 500,000 demonstrators recently took to the streets in Paris, Marseilles, and other major cities to protest the threat to the 35-hour work week that they believe the constitution poses.

Then, last week, the 120-member Committee of General Labor Confederation (CGT), which has many members in the influential state railway company SNCF, voted against the proposed constitution, in opposition to the wishes of the CGT’s secretary-general. The CGT’s vote is symptomatic of a larger change of opinion on France’s left, captured by the fact that 56 of the leading opposition Socialist Party’s (PS)
140 deputies flouted PS chief Francois Hollande last week by abstaining from a National Assembly debate on the proposed constitution.

On the right, opposition to the constitution is being spearheaded not only by Jean-Marie LePen’s nativist National Front party, but also by proponents of French sovereignty like the conservative Philippe de Villiers. Even members of Chirac’s own Union for Popular Movement (UMP), which largely supports the constitution, has created a “Group for a confederation of the states of Europe” that opposes the proposed constitution.

But perhaps most distressingly for Chirac is the fact that two recent examples of France’s erratic voting behavior portend poorly for this summer’s referendum. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty referendum, which led to a common European currency, barely squeaked through, and most likely would not have done so if the vote had taken place only a week later. Passage of the treaty had seemed a shoo-in for then-President Francois Mitterrand, who watched the treaty eventually pass by a meager one percent. And Chirac will be the last to write off the unpredictability of France’s voters after the 2002 presidential elections, in which one in three voters went for either a far-left or far-right candidate in the first round of the presidential election, and the proto-fascist LePen maneuvered his way into the final round of the election against Chirac.

Conflicting polling data make it hard to judge current popular support of the constitution in France. While some polls show support hovering around 65 percent, others show a significant decline in support-an Ipsos poll showed support drop from 64 percent to 57 percent in December, and another showed a dip from 64 percent in the fall to 59 percent last month. A poll in France’s metro revealed only 52 percent support, with 84 percent of those polled claiming they didn’t know enough about the 300-plus page document. And it is surely not a good sign for the constitution’s supporters that a recent poll by the Journal du Dimanche showed that 46 percent of the public is still undecided as to how they will vote

The FOC papers Tackling myths about the European Constitutional Treaty or put another way the FOC hoodwinking for Europe
Myth Five: The Constitutional Treaty creates a European superstate

The Queen will remain the Head of State
The President of the European Council will not replace any head of State or Government. He or she will not act as Head of State or outrank Heads of State, including The Queen.

So who is suggesting that the The President of the European Council would outrank the Queen this is just invented spin to misdirect attention from the real question which is,if the Queen is, like the rest of us is a citizen of the E,U and John Major told us she is, as such she is subject to the same duties to the EU as the rest i.e. she owes duty to a higher authority than herself, as that is clearly the case then how can the FOC substantiate their claim that “The Queen will remain the Head of State”.

Monarch
One who reigns over a state or territory, usually for life and by hereditary right, especially:
a. A sole and absolute ruler.
b. A sovereign, such as a king or empress, often with constitutionally limited authority: a constitutional monarch.
• One that commands or rules:
• One that surpasses others in power or preeminence:

Anne Palmer looks at this absurd situation…

TREACHERY? TREASON? TRAITORS?

How does Citizenship affect the Queen?

Her Majesty has British citizenship for she was born here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain-she wasn’t always Queen (and was not expected to be Queen) and she served in the armed services during the last war. She is therefore as British as they come. More-over, and I quote Sir Ivan Lawrence here (Hansard 1st Feb 1993 Col 68) “It is generally accepted by international lawyers, as well as by the Home Secretary and the Government, that Her Majesty the Queen is pre-eminently the British citizen and is therefore subject to the law of the land as any citizen would be. The last member of the royal family who said that he was not a British citizen and that he was not subject to the laws and obligations of the land had a little walk further down Whitehall, which ended in the loss of an important part of his body and a number of years of civil war”.

It was also pointed out by Mr Spearing in response, “”Unlike the legislation of the Community, which would bind the duty of the monarch of legislation of this House, consequent on a legislative programme of the Community, under the intergovernmental parts of the treaty (Maastricht) that require a single process, it would become the duty of the Crown and its prerogative-meaning government, which traditionally has not been completely within the grasp of this House-to concur with whatever the intergovernmental institution decreed? For the first time, the prerogative of the Crown, as well as the Crown itself, would become subject to the macro-treaties of which we speak”.

Later on a Mr Wardle makes clears, “ The Maastricht Treaty does not in any way affect the constitutional position of the Monarch. Her Majesty as an individual would of course enjoy the same rights within the EC as any other United Kingdom citizen”. That statement (to me at least) makes clear that if the Queen enjoys the same rights she will incur the duties of European citizenship and like the rest of us will be so bound. Our Queen, Head of State, the supreme citizen of our political entity, would owe allegiance to some higher, wider authority-a superstate. Did Sir Edward Heath also point out once that the position of the Crown would not be affected by our entry into this Common market?

Just like we are all enjoying those same rights eh? Some remember John Major triumphantly saying that even the Queen was now a citizen of the European Community. We can see that without any doubt whatsoever, like us all, Her Majesty was not consulted, yet it was a decision and a commitment they made that day while debating the Maastricht Treaty it involved not just US, but our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We also know now, without any doubt, that the Union is not going to be an open, decentralise, democratic Union, it is not even to become a federally run United States of Europe, but a unitary, centralised political social European Superstate. A Superstate that wants its own Constitution.

The Queen having been made a citizen of the Community would and especially if the EU Constitution is ratified, make her subordinate to the President of the Commission whoever it might be at that time. She might be called Queen, but as a citizen of that state, he/she will be President of the whole of the European Union. That also poses the question, who will take precedence at official functions?
My goodness yes, EU Citizenship will eventually bring forth many changes, as it was always meant to, for there was absolutely no point in EU Citizenship if it meant nothing at all. Just to enhance? A concept?

From my reading of Hansard, and the way our MP’s debated the subject, it becomes obvious, without any doubt what-so-ever that the Queen was never asked, was never consulted, and was treated in exactly the same way as the people of this Country. As an aside, I will also add that the reading of Hansard books from the 1950’s-1975’s to after the Treaty of Rome was signed, the same thing happened then.