eurealist.co.uk

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle: “The UN 1503 Procedure
For those of you who wish to follow up my suggestion in my previous posts HERE and HERE of renouncing EU citizenship. The following concerns the ‘1503 Procedure’ of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Under this procedure, citizens are able to petition the UN Commission on Human Rights, in confidence, if they believe that their human rights are being breached and there are no remedies under domestic law.

As all citizens of EU member states have been made, without any individual choice, citizens of the EU, they are liable to the duties and obligations of EU citizenship.

Indeed, the new EU constitution states under Article I-10:

1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in this Constitution.

As the EU itself takes on the role of a state, British nationals are effectively being compelled to become citizens of another country.

If you wish to take up the matter with the UN, I have provided a template that you can adapt. Make sure you check the rules for communications under the ‘1503 Procedure’ Procedure; in particular, you must provide your name, address and date of birth. Anonymous communications will not be accepted.”

::.angus reid - centre for public opinion and democracy.::: ”

(Angus Reid Consultants - CPOD Global Scan) – Fewer adults in France will vote to ratify the European Constitution, according to a poll by BVA published in L’Express. 58 per cent of respondents are in favour of the proposed body of law, a five per cent drop since January.

Feb. 2005 Jan. 2005 Dec. 2004

In favour 58% 63% 65%

Against 42% 37% 35%”

Direct EU Taxation.

The FOC “Myth Series” states clearly that “We control tax and social security”
The Government negotiated successfully to keep a national veto over tax proposals. Social Security proposals are subject to an effective veto through a national ‘emergency brake’ mechanism allowing any Member State to refer a proposed law to the European Council (the body composed of national heads of state/government) for decision by consensus.

Of course, this means that direct taxation should specifically be out of bounds to the ECJ, according to the treaties. But it’s clear from the number of cases the Commission has brought recently, that both the Court and Commission are intent on brushing that rule aside.

Their ultimate aim is nothing less than pan-European Union tax harmonisation. They even have a Commissioner for duties and taxes Laszlo Kovacs, who is pushing to harmonize rules on VAT among the new and old member states of the EU. This would call into question exceptional rules such as the 0 per cent VAT on children’s clothing in the UK. Also the EU Commission yesterday backed moves to tax aviation fuel, purportedly to fund aid to developing nations - a step that would not only increase airfares but set the precedent for an EU wide tax, this will then be used to further the intention of tax harmonisation. .

So we keep our veto, big deal, this does not mean there will be no harmonisation of taxes across the EU, that is what they are pushing for all the time, it only needs Tony Blair to sign a piece of paper and hey presto, they have harmonised tax systems. The EU will then be in charge and have the authority to set the rates across the whole EU, so this government would have removed taxation from the political power of the British parliament and our power to vote for a party that promises to lower taxes or to increase social security spending.

The Constitution makes it clear that the EU will fund its own spending, it can only do that by direct taxation.

Harmonising Criminal Law
The “FOC Myth” series did not mention the fact that under the new EU Constitution, all Member States will have to respect judgments handed down by other national legal systems within the EU. At the same time, membership of the EU will entail an obligation to treat all European citizens “in a comparable fashion”, a principle which will also apply to judicial proceedings.

The FOC only tried to argue on ‘Primacy’ means that the EU controls our laws” basing their opinion solely on issues covering trade, access to markets and common standards, thus ignoring that the constitution also moves towards harmonising criminal law.

This fact is brought home when we realise that the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee is proposing a draft recommendation to the Council calling for better standards of criminal justice in the different Member States. Calling for a Quality Charter for Criminal Justice in Europe to serve as a reference framework for all EU countries.

They say “The Member States’ trust in each other must be strengthened in order to allow for the mutual recognition of judgements and even for Member States to hand over their citizens to judges in other Member States”

The Civil Liberties Committee would like to see an “essential minimum degree of harmonisation” in areas of national legislation such as the minimum rights of prisoners, the possibility for them to serve their sentence in their Member State of residence and the gathering and assessment of evidence. And rules on the right to a fair trial, the right to access to legal aid and the right to be tried within a reasonable time should also be harmonised.

Our own Home Office minister dealing with European evidence warrants Caroline Flint, is singing from the same EU Hymn sheet. She told the Commons European scrutiny committee: “The application of the principle of mutual recognition to orders to obtain evidence is fundamental to improving the existing mutual legal assistance procedures, without resorting to extensive harmonisation of procedure.”

She also said dual criminality was not necessary in relation to search warrants “because mutual recognition is founded on the principles of equivalence and trust in each other’s judicial systems”.

All this means is that a person is accused of committing an offence in another EU country they can be arrested and extradited to face legal proceedings in that country even if no British law was broken.

So we have a situation that in this sense EU citizenship is removing the rights we have as UK Citizens, our own government is colluding with others to disregard its responsibility to its citizens, to whom they owe an obligation that we should only be tried according to our own laws.

Not Propaganda
According to Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, the Commission’s spokesman for communication strategy. The Commission is going to spend 8 million Euros this year on publicity for the EU Constitution the funds should be spent on different projects - like publishing the text of the Constitution or explanatory brochures for the citizens “everything but the propaganda”

Some how I doubt it!
Propaganda
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

As this money is to go where it is most needed to “inform” citizens, the level of knowledge citizens have about the Constitution and how the text is to be ratified in that country will be factors taken into account.

“If a country holds a referendum, it is in a completely different situation, as it needs to provide information to wider network of “stakeholders”, more so than in case of countries adopting the Constitution by parliament”.

So obviously this money is not needed if the people do not have a chance to put a spoke in the wheel of EU advancement, of course the people in those countries do not need to know what is happening. It is only in those countries which could cause a problem by using their democratic votes to object to the EU Constitution that need to be “informed”

Mr Dowgielewicz suggests that as the EU will be helping to spread the message, this in some way would remove any charge of bias, because governments would be communicating the Constitution while also trying to gather popular support for it. Which must put us all on guard against anything our own governments offer by way of “information”. In any case what on earth will the Commision be doing if not trying to gather support. We must never forget this is our money they are going to be spending on their “Not Propaganda” “information” campaigns.