eurealist.co.uk

Europhobia: “Ten concrete actions”:

“Blogging EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has launched what is described as (in typically overly-convoluted EU style) ‘an information note identifying the components of a structured communication and information strategy on the Constitution to support the ongoing ratification process’. In other words, an outline of what will and will not be done by the Commission to ease the constitution into effect.

Unfortunately, it could be seen to be somewhat contradictory:”

….

The Commission promises not to issue propaganda, but then says it must be “pro-active” in showing the benefits of the constitution. Which would mean, by its very definition, issuing propaganda (albeit not necessarily in the sinister sense in which that term is now generally used).

….

Information on the constitution needs to come from impartial sources, not from an institution which is wholly and institutionally committed to the thing. Any information coming from the Commission about the constitution will be - quite fairly - treated with suspicion. It may well be entirely factual, but the fact it will be stamped with an official logo means that it cannot be impartial, and so cannot be trusted.

Full post well worth reading Here :

This looks like a real result, this could be the start of somthing big!

Neil Herron: “March 02, 2005-03-03
Mr N Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA

Dear Mr N Herron

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE SX14067024

Thank you for your letter received today in connection with the issue of the above Penalty Charge Notice.

The circumstances set out have been considered by this office in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991, and I am pleased to advise you that on this particular occasion the Penalty Charge Notice has been cancelled.

However, I must inform you that I will not take a similar approach with any future recurrence.

Yours sincerely

Appeals officer”

previous posts concerning this here here here here

“Budgetary surveillance is a necessary and crucial task to ensure the smooth functioning of the single currency area,”

So says EU Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia Launching his proposal, that Eurostat officials, accompanied by experts from other member states should be able to fly to a State capital and check the nation’s books.

The member state in question would have to have to provide all the necessary assistance to let the EU accountants do their work. Almunia also calls for more transparency from the member states as they present their budgets.

The Westminster government attacked the plan yesterday, insisting that there was no need for further bureaucracy. Britain could also have to comply, even though it is not a member of the euro.

But of course this is not really the point of the suggestion, the whole idea of Monnet`s method is that one area of competence would require moves into other areas, as slowly the states drift towards a United States of Europe.

If this made any sense we would of course expect the EU`s own books to be in order and as we know their own accountants have refused to clear those accounts for the past ten years and the Westminster government in a report today by Britain’s National Audit Office will say that investigators were still investigating nine cases of abuse by Eurostat officials. A leaked memo by investigators described a “vast enterprise of looting” by top officials, entailing the disappearance of €5m (£3.4m) of taxpayer funds in illegal black accounts. Contracts were awarded off-books to a shadowy network of suppliers linked to the officials and their families.

Denis MacShane`s is utterances bear no relationship to the truth, his whole argument is based on the false hypothesis that the States governments are in control of the EU, everything he addresses is slanted from that one delusion. To shore up his delusion he must ignore anything that conflicts with his fantasy.

In his letter to the Times, February 28 he claims that the EJC “cannot use EU law to expand the EU’s powers; it can only reach judgments based on the treaty commitments and laws that member states agree to.”

Among the mass of evidence showing that the ECJ does exactly the opposite of the claims made by MacShane are the following two letters that clearly give the lie to that statement the first is from John Major 1996 then prime minister, the second from J. E. MORGAN, (Fellow and Director of Studies in Law), Christ’s College, Cambridge Times today.

Lord Justice Laws also says of the EU Constitution provisions on the ECJ;

There is one provision in the draft which I feel entitled to criticise. Article I-18(2) lists the institutions of the Union. There are five of them. One is the European Commission. Another is the Court of Justice. The second sentence of Article I-18(3) provides: “The Institutions shall practice [sic] full mutual co-operation”. Now, as is well known, the Commission is a frequent litigant before the Court of Justice. How can it be right for the Court to be placed under an express duty of “full mutual co-operation” with a party over which it is bound to exercise, in the course of sometimes hotly disputed litigation, an
impartial and dispassionate judgment?

This clause clearly imposes a duty on the ECJ to fully cooperate with the Commision in carrying out its obligations that will flow from the constitution. We would be well advised to not to forget exactly what the member states have fully accepted as “treaty commitments” because when it becomes a matter of a judgment from the ECJ the court has already made clear that it will consider any judgment in the light of these basic commitments;

Believing that reunited Europe intends to continue along this 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,

Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions, and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny,

Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common. The Union shall coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives, and shall exercise in the Community way the competences they confer on it.

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These values are common to the Member States in a society of pluralism, tolerance, justice, solidarity and non-discrimination.

The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, and a single market where competition is free and undistorted.”

The Union shall work for a Europe of sustainable development based on balanced economic growth, a social market economy, highly competitive and aiming at full employment and social progress, and with a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of children’s rights.It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

“Following the principle of loyal cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Constitution.”

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives set out in the Constitution.

…………
His Excellency Monsieur Jacques Santer

10 DOWNING STREET
LONDON SWIA MA

12 November 1996

ARTICLE 118A OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING

THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

My intention in agreeing to the Protocol on Social Policy at Maascricht was to ensure that social legislation which placed unnecessary burdens on businesses and damaged competitiveness could not be imposed on the United Kingdom. The other Heads of State and Government also agreed that arrangement, without which there would have been no agreement at all at Maastricht.

However, in its judgment today, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the scope of Article 118a is much broader than the United Kingdom envisaged when the article was originally agreed, as part of the Single European Act. This appears to mean that legislation which the United Kingdom had expected would be dealt with under the Protocol can in fact be adopted under Article 118a.

That is contrary to the clear and express wishes of the United Kingdom Government1 and goes directly counter to the spirit of what we agreed at Maastricht. It is unacceptable and must be remedied.
-2-

The United Kingdom will therefore table amendments in the intergovernmental Conference to restore the position to that which the United Kingdom Government intended following the Maastricht agreement Those amendments will be aimed at both ensuring that Article 1 18a cannot in future be used in ways contrary to the United Kingdom’s expectation, and dealing with the specific problem of the Working Time Directive.

I attach the utmost importance to these amendments and I shall insist that they form part of the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference. I do not see how new agreements can be reached if earlier agreements are being undermined.

Meanwhile, I urge the Commission to refrain from making proposals under Article 118a which properly belong under the other Member Slates, Agreement on Social Policy

I am sending copies of this letter to heads of State or Government of European Union Member States.
John Major

Times Online - Comment

From Mr Jonathan Morgan
Sir, The Minister for Europe shows a lamentable understanding of the historical development of EU constitutional law when he writes (letter, February 28):

The (European Court of Justice) cannot use EU law to expand the EUs powers; it can only reach judgments based on the treaty commitments and laws that member states agree to.

The twin pillars of EU constitutional law are the doctrines of supremacy of European over national law, and EU law’s “direct effect” (ie, applicability in the national courts of the member states). Neither of these fundamental doctrines was anywhere stated in the Treaty of Rome.

Rather, they were discovered to be part of the spirit and purpose of the treaty by the ECJ, in its celebrated decision in Van Gend en Loos (1963). This despite the vigorous arguments to the contrary of several of the national governments who had signed that treaty only a few years previously, and which might have been expected to have a good idea of what its objectives truly were.

These particular doctrines have become widely accepted, but the lesson remains. We must openly acknowledge that the ECJ, like every constitutional supreme court, enjoys very significant influence over the fundamental norms governing the political system, written constitution or not. That the ECJ is well known for its loose style of teleological interpretation, and for consistently preferring the interests of the Union over those of member states, suggests that the minister`s argument is disingenuous and misleading.

Yours faithfully,
J. E. MORGAN,
(Fellow and Director of Studies in Law),
Christ’s College, Cambridge CB2 3BU.
March 1.