eurealist.co.uk

Just to drive home the point made in the previous post, why is it that if the EU Constitution is not the basis of a European State the French need to change the French Constitution to make way for the EU Constituion?
ABC News: French Parliament Tackles EU Constitution

PARIS Feb 28, 2005 — France’s two chambers of parliament meet Monday in a special joint session to clear the way for a referendum on the European Union’s constitution.

Meeting at the Versailles Palace outside Paris, both houses must back changes to the French constitution required for the EU treaty vote, a week after Spanish voters overwhelmingly endorsed the charter for the 25-nation bloc.

French President Jacques Chirac was expected to secure the three-fifths majority required. All major parties back the EU constitution and both houses already have passed the measure by large majorities in their respective houses, the Senate and National Assembly.

The Ten Commandments

The British government is alone in portraying the EU Constitution in the way that it does, a glance across the English Channel will reveal a totally different appraisal of the proposals….

Hans Martin Bury, the German Minister for Europe, said “I think, the EU Constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe.”

Now the Czech President Vaclav Klaus has assessed the consequences of the Constitution and his interpretation exactly opposes that which is offered to the British people.

EU constitution changes Europe into state of Europe

The European constitution is a step which will change Europe of many states into a state of Europe, Czech President Vaclav Klaus says in the daily Mlada fronta Dnes.
He presents his “ten commandments,” on the basis of which he is opposed to the first European Union constitution.

1. Under the new Constitution European Union, states will lose their current exclusive right to form their own laws and the Czech Republic’s weight in the voting procedures will fall compared to the current state.

2. The European Union will become one state, and its members will be mere regions or provinces in this newly-established state of federalistic type.

3. The EU Constitution will be superior to the member countries’ constitutions.

4. The very term of the constitutional treaty is imprecise and is only temporary because after the ratification, the document will become a real constitution.

5. The current concept of shared sovereignty will be abandoned and new, pan-European sovereignty will appear in which the EU member countries will lose their exclusive right to form their own laws.

6. Citizens of individual countries will become citizens of the state of the European Union with the rights and obligations directly towards the institutions of this European state.

7. EU member countries will only be able to exercise those powers that the EU constitution will leave them, and not the opposite way as was an original idea of European integration.

8. It will be the EU and not its member states that will conclude international agreements with other countries.

9. In the voting procedures, the weight of small EU member countries, including the Czech Republic, will be decreased.

10.Even those areas of decision- making in which EU members will keep their right of veto in the future, this right could be transferred to the area of a majority voting any moment. It will only be enough for the presidents or prime ministers of the EU member countries to agree on this, without the possibility of the national parliaments to make their own decision on the issue.

When compared to the FOC Seven Myths it begs the question what on earth is going on, when two governments can independently find exactly opposing views about the same document. Of course to be fair the Czech Republic does not have the history of misdirection about the Union, which has been the hallmark of the British since the late 1960s.

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Clarke acts to head off terror revolt:

“Charles Clarke will this morning rush out a ‘clarification’ document on his new anti-terrorism proposals in a last-ditch attempt to head off an embarrassing rebellion in a Commons vote tonight.

The document will cover the role of judges, standards of proof, safeguards in the number of control orders proposed and whether measures short of house arrest would still constitute deprivation of liberty.”

Often this government will offer “Briefing Notes” along with their controversial proposals, the problem is that whilst the act itself gives the government powers to do something, the notes suggest that these powers would only be used under certain circumstances or suggest that there will be safeguards, but the conditions do not appear in the Bill itself, so in fact there are no constraints placed on the act. The “briefing notes” should be considered as no more that sales particulars or government spin.

When the Civil Contingencies Bill was before parliament the government issued a consultation document “clarifying” the ways in which the powers would be used and suggesting that there would be a “Triple Lock” on the use of the powers.

The House of Commons Defence Committee report states on this point

“The consultation document claims that before using the emergency powers, Ministers “must be satisfied” that the triple lock criteria are met. But no such requirement appears in the bill and the consultation document does not ask for views on this point”

Powers of this type should only be used when absolutely necessary. There is clearly scope for these powers to be misused. It seems to us that the bill which provides the powers should also provide the necessary safeguards on their use.