eurealist.co.uk

Philip E. Agre Department of Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles
Writes an article about conservatives “What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?”

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

“From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives”.

Initially I thought Agre had gone off his rocker, I am still not sure, because he seems to be turning logic on its head to arrive at his destination. “Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy”

To arrive at the argument that it is conservatism which is the domination of society by an aristocracy, Agre does what he claims in the article that conservatives do he “twists the language of conscience into its opposite”
For a start the definition of Conservatism is way off beam

The dictionary says conservatism is “A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order” Not as Agre suggests “Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy”.

Aristocracy
A hereditary ruling class; nobility. a. Government by a ruling class. b. A state or country having this form of government. a. Government by the citizens deemed to be best qualified to lead. b. A state having such a government. A group or class considered superior to others.

Of course this argument falls down if Agre uses any of the later meanings of the word . “Government by a ruling class” “Government by the citizens deemed to be best qualified to lead.” “A group or class considered superior to others” then we could use that to exactly describe what is happening in the European Union. Listen to any argument from Europhiles and it boils down to “the people do not know what is best for them so they should leave decision to their betters”. Do these Eurocrats for instance offer their plans for approval of the people? Not if they can help it they don’t, to them we are merely the peasants who need to be guided into a brand new world of EU state benevolence.

So is the EU conservatism, well no because conservatives believe in the established order and basing change on that which has been learned through time, the EU is doing everything it can to destroy the established order and install a new kind of order based on the principals of their class ruling, because they know best.

Many of Agre`s comments about Conservatism can be directly correlated to the European Union.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are

An underlying notion of conservative politics is that words and phrases of language are like territory in warfare: owned and controlled by one side or the other

Although I do not disagree with the main thrust of Agre`s article, I would suggest that to equate conservatives with his argument is to misunderstand what conservatism actually is, and to deny that his arguments can equally be applied to any Toleration or Communist state conditions so they can appear in either right wing or left wing states, the important point that “domination of society by an aristocracy” has no meaning in relation to conservative thought.

My thanks to Cabalamat Journal for the original link.

For a discussion on conservative values.

Conservatism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

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”

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle

Christopher Booker reports in the Telegraph today, on an interesting story as to why the wife of a British citizen is unable to practice dentistry in the UK. Read the full story here

The reason given by the junior health minister Rosie Winterton; Not my fault guv, honest, “its all down to EU regulations”.

Booker concludes: In other words, here is a British minister admitting that a serious injustice has been done to two British citizens but explaining there is nothing she can do to put it right. If ministers and MPs are so happy to admit that they no longer run our country, can she explain why we should vote for them?

“Britain Back” to rule from Westminster, not “Forward” to the rule of Brussels.

Telegraph | News | UK hatred of EU is our biggest challenge, says constitution commissioner:

“Margot Wallström, the EU commissioner responsible for pushing through the controversial European constitution, has likened her task to ‘dressing Frankenstein’s monster’.”

Mrs Wallström said that winning minds was all about communication. She admitted that baffling bureaucracy, excessive use of “Eurospeak” and a culture of secrecy were in part responsible for the negative British perception of Brussels.

Perhaps she should have a word with Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Major and Blair all of whom have constantly lied about the European project to the British people. She may also address the end position of the EU, is it going to become a State with member states locked in or not, if not then we need to see the end of intergration because that is only heading one way. She may also like to tell us about the democratic accountability of the Commission who make so many of the laws we have to obey, and undermining the parliament we elect and our rights to elerct a government we want.

We have had over thirty years of constant misdirection and deceit from our own politicians about the union, no loss of sovereignty, no loss of Habeus Corpus, No Roman Law, etc. all of these are now on the cards for the British people.

Wallström said “Brussels had to own up to its weaknesses, including its bureaucratic way of working, before its image could be repaired.

When a city had to prove it was a city in order to be eligible for EU aid, she said, matters had got out of hand.

“We have to admit to systems that do not work properly,” Mrs Wallström said. “When there is controversy, people shy away.”

They have had plenty of time to address these problems, but now when they need our votes, suddenly it is our fault because we “are filled with hatred towards the EU institutions” Why should we not be when we have learned the hard way not to trust a single thing we are told about the EU.

“one of the protest organisers, said the demonstration was not racist or xenophobic”.

“Our problem is not with the immigrants in general, it’s with the people who arrive here, who don’t speak our language, who don’t mix, don’t take part in the life of the community and who create their own ghettos where they keep them selves to themselves,” she said. “It’s been complete madness over the last few years with foreigners, arriving in incredible numbers.”

I have slightly changed the wording, but the above would be considered both racist and xenophobic had it been said by an English protest organiser.

In fact it was from a report in the Telegraph about the English invasion of a small town in France forcing the price of housing through the roof, I can sympathize with the people who are making a peaceful protest to demonstrate against the destruction of their way of village life.

Around 100 people took to the streets of Bourbriac and called on all “proud French natives” to express their anger at “colonisation”. They demanded more low-cost housing, criticised estate agents for “market speculation” and set fire to piles of property magazines.

The protest was part of a growing backlash against the increasing number of Britons moving to rural France.

Bourbriac is now home to about 700 Britons, 100 Germans and Dutch, among a French population of 1,200.

Maiwenne Salomon, one of the protest organisers, said the demonstration was not racist or xenophobic.

“Our problem is not with the British in general, it’s with the people who arrive here, who don’t speak French, who don’t mix, don’t take part in the life of the community and who create Anglo-Saxon ghettos where they keep them selves to themselves,” she said. “It’s been complete madness over the last few years with foreigners, particularly the Anglo-Saxons, arriving in incredible numbers.
“The result of this has been that property prices have rocketed in the whole of Britanny and Bretons themselves can’t find anywhere to live, whether it’s to rent or to buy.”
She said that the cost of buying a home had risen by up to 600 per cent.

In a Europe without frontiers this sort of thing is going to happen more often.

It has been brought to my attention that somebody who signs themselves PL England has used http://www.eurealist.blogspot.com as link from the British National Party Nationalist Forum.

I wish to clearly state this person has nothing whatever to do with Eurealist, that which they have posted does not originate from Eurealist, I am not and have never been either a member or supporter of the BNP, I believe the BNP is a racist organisation and do not condone their policies. Ken Adams.

It has been brought to my attention that somebody who signs themselves PL England has used http://www.eurealist.blogspot.com as link from the British National Party Nationalist Forum.

I wish to clearly state this person has nothing whatever to do with Eurealist, that which they have posted does not originate from Eurealist, I am not and have never been either a member or supporter of the BNP, I believe the BNP is a racist organisation and do not condone their policies. Ken Adams.

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

French government presses for early referendum. Le Figaro reports that the French government wants to hold the referendum “as soon as possible”, and that, according to the UMP’s parliamentary president, Bernard Accoyer, “the priority now is to do everything so that ‘yes’ wins”.

Looking at the polling you can see why

From Vote No.

Government says EU will spend not a single penny promoting Constitution in UK. The front page of the FT reports that the Government will not accept EU information funds earmarked for Britain. The Press Association quotes a Government spokesman saying We have asked the European Commission to ensure that not a single penny is spent on promoting a referendum, yes vote in the UK, and the Commission has agreed. The FT quotes Vote No saying that the spending of the yes side is likely to dwarf the spending of the no campaign.

The Government spokesman suggested it would be wrong to spend taxpayers money promoting the Constitution. “Obviously it would be completely counter-productive to take Commission money  opponents of the constitution would simply accuse us of putting out propaganda with taxpayers money, no matter how neutral it was.”

The claim that not a single penny will be spent by the Commission is likely to be thrown back at the Government. The Commission has already given donations to pro-Constitution campaign groups including the European Movement, the Yes! campaign, the Foreign Policy Centre, the Federal Trust and the group Federal Union. Will these organisations now have to give the money back? The definition of spending is also likely to come under scrutiny, as the Commission has suggested that it will provide materials, leaflets and support directly. The argument against spending taxpayers money, which the Government spokesman seems to acknowledge, applies equally to the UK Government’s own spending, and the ban on EU spending is likely to focus further attention on the UK Government’s own “information” spending.

I can only applaud this decision by the government let us hope they stick to the principal and do not spend Euros instead.

A senior European Union official called on the Government yesterday to set aside its objections to the creation of a pan-European super prosecutor.

Franz-Hermann Brüner, director general of the European Anti-Fraud Office, cast doubt on the Government’s pledges that Britain could block the creation of the post.

He said preparatory work on establishing the office of European public prosecutor - who would outrank national prosecutors on crimes involving EU funds - was already under way.

Speaking at a seminar at the European Parliament in Brussels, Mr Brüner, a German former judge, hailed the EU constitution for “removing the walls” currently enforcing a strict separation between the union and national criminal justice systems.

During negotiations to draw up the treaty establishing a constitution, Britain tried in vain to block any mention of a pan-European public prosecutor, arguing that the task was best left to national prosecution services.

Finding themselves outnumbered, British negotiators surrendered that “red line”, in exchange for a guarantee that a European prosecutor could come into existence only if all 25 EU nations agreed - a so-called “unanimity lock”.

British officials insisted yesterday that their “unanimity lock” was enough to block the creation of a pan-European prosecutor. But Mr Brüner said: “Hopefully we will have a constitution in 2007-2008, and that will be the legal basis [for such a
prosecutor]. In the meantime, we will continue with the preparatory work.”

So we have a situation where the British Governments objection after being ignored at the Convention, which then struck a deal that we would have a veto on the post of an EU prosecutor, apparently the Constitution is going to be used to force the issue, not withstanding the British objections and the veto they are moving ahead with preparatory work.

This says much for the Red Lines on which Tony Blair bases his arguments that the government is still in control. While the EU legal experts expressed less confidence about Britain’s “unanimity lock”, with one noting that in Brussels, voting rules can change, and have done so in the past.

It would seem that even if they do not change this will not matter, we will get the EU prosecutor no matter what because the ECJ will then decide.

The Government strongly opposed this. At the convention Peter Hain wrote several amendments to this demand but they were all ignored by GISCARD D’ESTAING.

Hain said at the time “We are firmly opposed to establishing a European Public Prosecutor. Unanimity does not mean that this article can be accepted….There is clearly no need for a separate prosecution body at EU level.” In a separate amendment he argued that, “Proposals for a European Public Prosecutor have never satisfactorily addressed a series of objections.

First, any body which would have the power to bring prosecutions in a Member State must in some way be accountable within that Member State.

Secondly, the powers which would be vested in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office are not compatible with respect for the diversity of legal systems, a principle set out in Article.

So the question needs to be asked what is the point of negotiating an agreement when even before the Constitution is ratified the EU is ignoring the fact that it has no authority to proceed with the Prosecutor, ignoring the fact that Britain has a clear veto and intends to use it, and instead is relying on the powers in the Constitution to force Britain to concede the issue. What faith can we the British people have in any of the vetoes and so called red lines, when there seem to be no power of force or inclination to stand on the agreements made.

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.