eurealist.co.uk

Brevity favours the Liars
Reading the headline in The Telegraph “How the EU will change your lives”

I expected the article to be a reasonably comprehensive description of the innumerable of ways the EU will affect the people and the government of the United Kingdom. From undermining the power of the Westminster government, and our elected representatives to vote on new laws, how EU citizenship will increase its relevance at the expense of UK citizenship, how the EU social policies will affect our working hours, perhaps the EU Arrest warrant or the extension of the ECJ into criminal law and mutual recognition of other states criminal laws. How the pan-European super prosecutor will affect our rights as British citizens, or our Basic English Law. The affects on foreign policy by the EU foreign minister having to agree an EU position and promote that at the UN, or the eventual EU seat at the UN, the closing of British embassies to make way for the EU embassies. The ultimate aim of pan-European Union tax harmonisation, the extension of QMV, the extension of the powers of the ECJ into so called basic rights, the VAT on Children’s clothes, food labelling, The list of “How the EU will change your lives” goes on and on.

I was a little surprise to find that the Telegraph description of how the EU will affect your life was a short puff for the Constitution, very short, in fact it takes just 59 words to tell us what the Constitution is

“What is it?
The constitution, agreed by EU leaders last year, is designed to make the bloc run smoothly. It is the core legislation of the EU and will become law only if ratified by every member state. The EU expanded to 25 states following the inclusion of 10 new members in May, mainly from central and eastern Europe”

And a further 177 words tells us what is in the Constitution and what it does

“What’s in it?
• A long-term president of the European Council of national leaders to be chosen by majority vote, with a renewable term for two years six months instead of the current six months.

• A foreign minister to be appointed for a five-year term to develop EU’s nascent foreign and security policy and to raise its profile on the world stage. The constitution re-commits the EU to a common foreign policy, which must be agreed unamimously.

• Most decisions will be taken by a “qualified majority” of member states, with unanimity required in fewer cases. More voting power to be given to countries with larger populations, rather than current disproportionate weight of smaller states.

• Charter of Fundamental Rights to be incorporated in EU law, applicable subject to national legislation.

• Preserves member states’ individual vetoes on direct taxation, foreign and defence policy and the budget.

• In essence, it sets in stone the EU’s values and political objectives and makes clear that member states confer power on the EU, not the other way round.”

I could dissect the few words and show how the “long-term president of the European Council” will affect the way the council works how it will diminish the power of the Council and increase the power of the Commision and Parliament. Or the possible ramification of the EU common foreign policy and the veracity of the vetoes on direct taxation, foreign and defence policy and the budget. How the extension of QMV removes the power of the people we elect to do the job we elect then to do, ie. looking after British interests, or the weighting of votes in the council is only a way of increasing the powers of France and Germany so they remain in the driving seat. How the ECJ may use the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to extend its and the Commissions powers into all aspects of our lives.

I could also point out that the EU Constitution will affect; health, education, pensions, transport and public services. Foreign policy and defence, is already affecting the British army, which is being restructured to fit in with the EU rapid reaction force, govern our relations with the world and NATO our control over commercial policy, that fisheries policy will be locked into the Union. With legal personality, the Union would take away most treaty making powers, sign us up to adopting the Euro. That it re-founds the EU on its own constitution requiring us to facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives. That it allows the EU to take any power it decides (Flexibility Passerelle clauses) and removes the power of the people to have a voice in any changes to the Constitution. It also makes the EU constitution and law superior to our constitution and law.

But it is the last point I would like to explore a little because we are hearing a lot about this one way or another and it gets to the heart of the problem.
“In essence, it sets in stone the EU’s values and political objectives and makes clear that member states confer power on the EU, not the other way round.”

This is three different principals rolled onto one, the Constitution does set in stone the EU values, and its political objectives, and makes clear that member states confer power on the EU, as such it is completely unacceptable.
What are the EU Values

The preamble tells us that they are “inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law”

These all sound very fine values, but in which way does the EU Constitution bring about democracy how does it protect our rights how does it increase our freedom or equality and who decides what the law is. The short answer is that the EU removes democracy and sets that in stone, by giving the EU the powers to decide our rights would bring the EU Court of Justice into virtually every area of life and society, family law, property rights, succession, labour law, children’s rights, rights to health and education, the right to legal remedies, all of which will be decided not by people we elect based on our constitution and their election promises, but by unelected and unaccountable Eurocrats in Brussels who would also retain the power to remove any of those rights, in the interest of the Union.

What are its political objectives?

Again the Preamble tells us
The Union intends to continue along the path of civilisation, progress and prosperity, for the good of all its inhabitants, including the weakest and most deprived; that it wishes to remain a continent open to culture, learning and social progress; and that it wishes to deepen the democratic and transparent nature of its public life, and to strive for peace, justice and solidarity throughout the world, that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny, to continue the work accomplished within the framework of the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the Treaty on European Union, by ensuring the continuity of the Community acquis,

“united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny” entails deciding to give up the way we are at present governed by our own parliament that we can vote out, for rule by Eurocratic edict from people over which we have no democratic control.

“ensuring the continuity of the Community acquis” entails never returning power to the state government.

In short the Political objective of the EU is to replace the governments of all the member states and become the full government Europe with one law, one tax system, one central bank, one armed forces etc. everything it has done and everything in the constitution is about removing power from nation states.

The biggest lie that we are expected to swallow is the misunderstanding of the meaning that the “member states confer power on the EU” Yes this is absolutely true the member state do confer power on the EU, but think about that for a moment, go back to the other principal of the Community acquis, this means that once a power is conferred on the Union it remains with the Union, the states then no longer have the power to either remove that authority, or to have any control on how that power is used. In the same way that we the people vote for an MP, once we have given our vote to our representative, we no longer have the power to control that MP. Yes we can write to them and ask them to do something, but no matter how many of us do so, it is entirely up the MP if they wish to act as we suggest. We in fact have only one power and that is the power to decide not to elect that MP again, this of course does mean that an MP knows they must be responsive to their constituent’s demands if they wish to retain their seats. Contrast that to member states granting the Union powers, once granted it has that power for ever, and there is nothing the member states can do about it for all time in the future.

As Richard North said “Brevity favours the Liars”