eurealist.co.uk

Neil Herron: An apology from BBC’s Jeremy Vine

To: Jeremy Vine Show
Re: Bill of Rights and Mr. De Crittenden

Dear Mr. Vine,

I was somewhat perturbed at your very unprofessional attitude on your programme (1.40pm 16th February) when dealing with Robin De Crittenden. Not only did you mock the Bill of Rights 1689, you failed to even get Mr De Crittenden’s first name correct.

What you failed to pursue, and something which your researchers were fully aware, that this wasn’t some dusty old forgotten statute, but something which was highly relevant and applicable to the modern day after reference in the case in 2002 Thoburn vs Sunderland…more commonly known as the Metric Martyrs case.

The Divisional Court ruling in the case of the “Metric Martyrs” (sections 62 and 63) said:
“We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were “ordinary” statutes and “constitutional statutes”. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689 … Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…”

Thus, the Divisional Court ruled, the European Communities Act 1972, requiring metric, could and must repeal the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (allowing pounds and ounces), because the former was a “constitutional act” and the latter “ordinary”. This is the point on which Sunderland greengrocer Steven Thoburn and his co-defendants were convicted as criminals for selling in pounds and ounces.
Herein lies the conflict. If the Divisional Court’s ruling is true, every Local Authority, Government agency and police force that fines people through the post, or on the spot, is now acting unlawfully, since the Bill of Rights Act 1689 was specifically classified as a “constitutional Act”. The Road Traffic Act 1991 and others like it are, by contrast, “ordinary” Acts. Unless the road traffic acts expressly refer to the fundamental rights laid down by the Bill of Rights Act (which they do not), they must fall by the wayside since, according to the Divisional Court, the Bill of Rights Act cannot be impliedly repealed. It is a constitutional Act that protects our “constitutional rights”.

So, if constitutional Acts like the Bill of Rights and the European Communities Act cannot be impliedly repealed, why are local authorities still collecting penalties from the public without conviction? Presumably, local authorities do so because they do not agree with the Divisional Court; they believe that the Bill of Rights Act was repealed impliedly by the Road Traffic Act. But, if this is so, what is the legal basis for prosecuting traders using pounds and ounces?

Also, on 21st July 1993 in the House of Commons the following was stated…
“The House will be aware that following a recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of Pepper versus Hart, the courts now allow themselves to assess the significance of words spoken in the House during the passage of Bills in order to assist the interpretation of statutes. That has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in a way that was previously thought to be impossible.
There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights and that Act places statutory prohibition on the questioning of our proceedings. Article 9 of the Act reads: “that freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside Parliament.”
I am sure that the House is entitled to expect when the case referred to by the Right Honourable Gentleman begins to be heard on Monday that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the court.”

May I humbly suggest that next time you get a fit of the giggles you make sure that you have done your research first then you may have a better grasp of the subject matter otherwise you may end up just simply looking foolish.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund

FT.com / Home UK - Brussels consults experts in their thousands

Brussels consults experts in their thousands
By Andrew Bounds in Brussels
Published: February 18 2005 02:00 | Last updated: February 18 2005 02:00

How many experts does it take to change European law? Tens of thousands, it appears. The European Commission has just published a list of the almost 1,700 advisory groups it has set up to look at issues as sensitive as Europe Union-wide business taxation and European citizenship.

Generally, group members include government officials, academics, business executives, lobbyists, consumer groups and charity workers. They are unpaid but receive expenses from the European taxpayer. The budget was €25.1 in 2004 and is expected to hit €30.6m this year.

Underdogs? More like the fat cats
By Lucy Powell
Published: February 18 2005 02:00 | Last updated: February 18 2005 02:00

From Ms Lucy Powell.
Sir, Neil O’Brien of the No campaign (reports, February 16 and 17) has been quoted to the effect that “in terms of spending power we are clearly the underdogs in the coming referendum”.
In both meanings of the term, this is a bit rich. The No campaign has boasted in recent months about having “already built a war chest of several million pounds” and has also bragged that “we are going to be able to raise millions without trouble”.
In November, Vote No raised £500,000 at one dinner. It has been spending cash on expensive treats such as cinema advertisements aimed at the audience of Bridget Jones: the Edge of Reason. This rather belies Mr O’Brien’s bleat that his pressure group is “focusing on the arguments while the EU is wasting its money on ludicrous cartoon characters”.
Conveniently, he neglects to mention the years of negative campaigning carried out by the Europhobe press. This propaganda-in-kind is worth millions and dwarfs any attempt to set the record straight. On balance, the No lobby is more a fat cat than an underdog.
Lucy Powell, Campaign Director, Britain in Europe, London SE1 2EL

Err Fat Cats? The words pot and kettle spring to mind.

And please Ms Powell don’t for get the Governments “serious amounts of Money” and the EU not on Propaganda, and the EU parliament and the EU Commision and every one of the Government ministers who will be working for the yes side, not to mention the president of the USA. Oh yes and the BBC and the independent and the Guardian etc. or do you prefer things as they were in 1975 when the yes side outspent the no side by 10 times and all the media and government officials got together each morning to decide how to spin the days news? Yes thought so.

For Real Fat Cats with real connections may I present for your entertainment the BIE…

Britain In Europe
Personnel
• Chair: Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, Chairman, British Airways
• Acting campaigns director: Lucy Powell
• Vice-Chair: Baroness Greengross of Notting Hill
• Vice-Chair: Lord Simon of Highbury, former Chief Executive and Chairman, BP
• Vice-Chair: Adair Turner, Vice Chairman, Merrill Lynch (Europe)
• Treasurer: W. Guy Walker, former President, Food and Drink Manufacturers Federation
Advisory Board
• Malcolm Bruce MP, Liberal Democrat Trade and Industry Spokesperson
• Chris Bryant MP,
• Sir Michael Butler GCMG, former UK Permanent Representative to the EC
• Niall FitzGerald, Chairman, Unilever PLC
• Rt Hon George Foulkes MP
• Lord Hollick, Chief Executive, United Business Media plc
• Lord Howe of Aberavon
• John Monks, General Secretary, ETUC
• Sir Bryan Nicholson, Chairman, Cookson Group plc
• Lord Radice of Chester-le-Street
• Lord Sharman of Redlynch, Chairman, Aegis Group
• Sir Martin Sorrell, Group Chief Executive, WPP Group plc Ian Taylor MBE MP, former Minister for Science and Technology
http://www.britainineurope.org.uk/templ.phtml?id=1c
[edit]
Funders
• Mr Paul Adamson
• AEEU
• ALSTOM UK Ltd
• Mr Rod Aldridge
• BAE SYSTEMS
• BMP DDB
• BAT
• Professor K Bhattacharrya
• bmi british midland
• British Telecommunications plc
• Bunzl plc
• Cookson Group plc
• Dyson Appliances Ltd
• Mr Vernon Ellis
• European Movement
• Ford Motor Company
• Kimberly-Clark Europe Ltd
• Lord Haskins of Skidby
• Lord Hollick
• Lord Howe of Aberavon
• ICL plc
• General Utilities
• Kellogg’s
• KPMG
• Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge
• Mindshare UK
• Nestle (UK) Ltd
• Sir Gulam Noon
• Mr Lindsay Owen-Jones
• Philips Electronics (UK) Ltd
• PricewaterhouseCoopers
• Ravensale Ltd
• Reuters Group plc
• Lord Sainsbury of Turville
• Lord Sharman of Redlynch
• Mr Barry Townsley
• Mr Adair Turner
• Unilever plc
• United News & Media plc
• Xerox Ltd

Myth One: Britain would lose control of Foreign Policy
It strengthens Britain’s influence in the world FOC Myth
We won’t be forced to follow an EU policy through ‘loyal cooperation’. FOC Myth
The EU can’t take our seat at the UN FOC Myth

Towards a single EU foreign policy? Gerard Baker argues in the Times that the British Government’s attempt to persuade the US that the EU Constitution would aid its foreign policy goals is “a combination of naivety and misplaced confidence about its ability to control things European… The real leaders of the EU – in Paris, Berlin and Brussels, are quite clear about where they want this newly united Europe to go, and it is not in London’s direction, still less Washington’s.” Baker says that the EU is intent on becoming the principal interlocutor for EU-US relations if the EU Constitution is approved.

The Sun and Mail report on comments yesterday by Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero. He said, “We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity”. In a speech on Tuesday, Zapatero hailed the text as “the first transnational, suprastate Constitution”. In his interview, with Spanish national radio, he also said that it “is more important than elections… to vote in the referendum on the Constitution. In elections we elect a government for four years, later we can change it or maintain it. But a Constitution is a model of coexistence for, perhaps, the whole life time of many of us.”

From Vote No

Not a Penny more not a Penny Less

As noted yesterday the Government in Westminster has told the Government in Brussels not to spend a single penny on EU propaganda in Britian, OK as they say it is only keeping us informed! but the EU is spending an inordinate amount of money already to keep us informed this has been highlighted several times yet the money just keeps pouring in.

A recent investigation by The Times
shows that the European Commission has been funding a series of seminars, leafleting campaigns, theatre activities and “celebration days” about the European constitution across schools, libraries, think-tanks, local government and pro-European pressure groups around Britain. So it is already spending large sums promoting the constitution, and has insisted that it will still fund general “information” campaigns about the EU in Britain. The Commission will also continue spending more than €1 million a year on pan-European federalist campaign groups and think-tanks that have members in Britain or influence debate here.

It gave 10,551 to Hull University to raise awareness and understanding of the constitution, and 25,000 to Liverpool Hope University College, to help school pupils and students to find out about the constitution.

It gave the Foreign Policy Centre 38,318 for a conference on the constitution last July, and 48,601 to the Institute for Citizenship in London to hold a series of seminars on it.

Grants to public authorities include 27,291 to Yorkshire Forward, the regional development agency, to pay for a conference called Europe Alive with Opportunity.

It also paid 18,233 to Europaworld, a non-profit company in Wales, to set up a website to educate people about the constitution and send information to secondary schools.

The Federal Trust, a British think-tank, was paid 42,005 to promote the enlargement of the EU, including the production of 100,000 information cards. Its advisory board includes Andrew Adonis, Tony Blair policy adviser.

The European Commission promised not to spend money promoting the constitution, but insisted that it would still spend money providing information about the EU. A spokesman said: We have every right and obligation to promote information about our activities, and we will continue doing that. We are not going to shy away from our duty.

The Commission will continue to fund the Europe Direct Information Network in Britain, which costs 840,000 a year, to raise local and regional awareness of the Unions policies and programmes.

And it will continue the Spring Day for Europe to celebrate the constitution in British schools.

It will also continue spending more than  million a year on a network of think-tanks and pressure groups that promote further European integration, including the International European Movement, the Union of European Federalists, Friends of Europe, Young European Federalists, the Centre for European Policy Studies and the European Policy Centre. They are all based in mainland Europe, but most have member organisations in Britain.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION GRANTS TO BRITISH ORGANISATIONS TO PROMOTE EU
ALL SUMS QUOTED IN EUROS
Europe Direct Information Network 840,000, Federal Trust 42,005, Europaworld Ltd 18,233,Foreign Policy Centre 38,318, Institute for Citizenship 48,601, Edinburgh City Council 93,734, Chapter Arts Theatre, Cardiff 65,000, Liverpool Hope University College 25,000, University of Hull 10,551, Northamptonshire County Council 32,689, Croydon Council 55,683, Yorkshire Forward 27,291,

COMMISSION GRANTS TO PAN-EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONS
International European Movement 450,000, Union of European Federalists 120,000, Friends of Europe 100,000, Young European Federalists 35,000, Festival of Europe (May 9) 155,000, Centre for European Policy Studies 150,000, European Policy Centre 150,000,

And this is just the tip of the iceberg consider the Monnet centres of excellence
University of Wales, Aberystwyth, University of Sussex, Queen’s University Belfast, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Manchester, Loughborough University, University of London, London School of Economics, University of Liverpool, University of Leeds, University of Kent, University of Hull, University of Glasgow, University of Essex, University of Cambridge, University of Birmingham, University of Bath.

So when we hear that Professor so and so has written a report that shows this or that about the EU, then we had best check to see if that professor is funded by the EU.

Those who are so keen to point out that some people are not objective because they have a vested interest suddenly fail to see the same applies when it comes to EU funding, almost as if magically EU money for your pet project or even your pension, means that you are still capable of independent and fair assessments, whereas funding that is independent of the EU has the opposite affect.

Oh yes we must not forget the BBC.

So Who Is telling Porkies

As previously mentioned on this blog here and here the Constitution is being sold to each country on different and often conflicting bases, this means either they are talking about different documents or as Jack Frost would say somebody it telling porkies.

As noted on E U Referendum the Times has now picked up on this story

AS SPAIN prepares to hold the first of at least ten national referendums on Europe’s new constitution this Sunday, an odd impression is emerging: voters in each member state are being asked to ratify a very different document.
From Dublin to Warsaw, governments are tailoring their portrayals of the constitution to maximise its appeal to their particular electorates, while opponents are doing exactly the opposite.

Given that the treaty contains 300 pages of legalese and more than half of the EU public professes no knowledge of it, there is ample scope for presenting the constitution any way one wants.

One would never guess from all this that the original purpose of the document was to provide one clear, simple, unambiguous definition of the Union and its powers.
The most glaring contrast lies between Britain and France. President Chirac plays up the treaty as the consecration of Europe as a superwelfare state along French lines.

Tony Blair, by contrast, depicts it as a guarantee of British sovereignty, complete with vetos and inviolable “red lines”.

Confirmation of this comes this morning From England Expects

Speaking on Radio France’s main morning news bulletin on Monday Noel Mamère, a leading French Green politician and Yes campaigner said,
“The good thing about the European Constitution is that with it the United Kingdom will not be able to support the United States in a future Iraq”.
This is one of the main selling points for the ‘Yes’ campaign in France and comes at a singularly worrying time.

The Government in Westminster and UK Europhiles will have us believe that this Constitution changes nothing important but sets out and sets in stone the powers of the Union over the nation states making the Union work better whilst at the same time giving the states more power of self-determination and that it clearly puts the States in the driving seat, in fact everything we could have possible wanted. Yet at the Convention Britian made 275 suggested amendments to the draft and all but 11 of them were rejected, this means that the British government had to accept that in 264 cases they were not going to get what they wanted and what they thought at the time would be best for Britain. We now hear that in one case when they thought they had a veto on the EU prosecutor, the EU is already moving ahead with plans for this post obviously ignoring the British Veto.

Meanwhile many French Danes and Dutch regard the treaty as a dangerous open door to Turkey, and Muslim immigration.
To counter this the President of the Commission has told the French that they will be able to change the rules on weighted voting if Turkey was to be allowed in, so that France could remain one of the major powers, and the French have themselves offered a Referendum to their citizens on any further enlargement to the Union, which is either a totally meaningless gesture, or it would give France alone the right to accept or reject any other country, this cannot be sustainable. But the British Government would like to portray the Constitution as the final word.

In Luxembourg, the treaty is viewed as a welcome step towards political union. That opinion is shared in Belgium. In Germany, the public sees the constitution as the creation of a political voice for Europe to face down the United States.
For the Spanish and Irish, the constitution is a promise of further aid-driven prosperity, with a continuing stream of euros from Brussels. Wolfgang Schuessel, Austria’s Chancellor, argues that the constitution protects smaller member states: “If the constitution fails at this point, the big countries will be able to carry out plans that we have been wanting to prevent.”

The same argument can be heard in Prague. President Klaus, one of the Union’s biggest sceptics, sees the constitution as a dangerous infringement of sovereignty, while Stanislav Gross, the Prime Minister and his political opponent, says the Czech Republic badly needs it because “if we say no, we will stand alone”.

The British government keep down playing the development of the EU as a state telling the exact opposite of the truth when Tony Blair tell us “The constitution is an expression of Europe as a union of nation states . . . the rejection of Europe as a federal superstate”

Someone should ask him how he squares that with what the other leaders are saying.
“The constitution will create a political and institutional framework from which no one will be able to withdraw. It is a big step towards a more Social Europe” Jacques Chirac
“Prosperity will be reinforced by the constitution. It puts in place a social model which endeavours to be the most just and most advanced in the world” José Luis Zapatero of Spain
“This is a great step forward for the EU to become a true political union” Jean-Luc Dehaene of Belgium
“Europe is a story of friendship and partnership. The constitution seals this.” Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands
“The constitution is a massive infringement of our sovereignty” Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic
“This constitution allows Europe to take giant strides forwards in terms of defence.” Chirac

“Enormous, qualitative step forwards in the process of European integration” Zapatero

“A positive step for workers” and that it “reinforces the European social model.” Jacques Chirac

“The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State.” - Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister, Financial Times, 21st June 2004

“Our constitution cannot be reduced to a mere treaty for co-operation between governments. Anyone who has not yet grasped this fact deserves to wear the dunce’s cap. “- Valéry Giscard,

“The EU must take on new responsibilities. And these new responsibilities call for intensifying the integration process. “Romano Prodi

Our continent’s unification is at hand and we must stand to account. “Romano Prodi

“We are involved in a constitution-building process of historic importance. The Convention should mark a new stage in European integration.” Romano Prodi

“We have sown a seed… Instead of a half-formed Europe, we have a Europe with a legal entity, with a single currency, common justice, a Europe which is about to have its own defence. “Valery Giscard

“There is really quite an inherent danger in the traditional British view that the council of ministers and inter-governmentalism is your protection against the federalist superstate.” - Gisela Stuart MP

“The European Union is a state under construction.” - Elmar Brok,

“Our task is nothing less than the creation of a new constitutional order for a new united Europe.” - Peter Hain, MP

“The European Constitution will be an essential stage in the historic process of European integration.” - Gerhard Schröder