eurealist.co.uk

Taking a leaf out of the EU book on denigrating the opponent, the Labour party has just issued its latest election ploy, instead of the EU myth where everything that is detrimental to the image of the EU is goatishly labelled a myth, the labour party has decided to label any policy coming out of the conservative central office as getting on the bandwagon.

As encouragement to those who want to join in, Labour has released its top ten on the “Michael Howard Bandwagon Watch”.

And you are also invited to send in your predictions as to what bandwagons Mr Howard may chase in the future.

Submit your predictions here:

http://labour.org.uk/bandwagon
Here are the current top ten favourites for his next bandwagon:
1. Howard pledges new “ATM bill” to deal with people who take too long getting money out of cashpoints.
2. Howard to ban hosepipe bans.
3. Howard to double limit on items allowed in “six and under” supermarket queues.
4. Howard says Premiership abuse of referees has grown under Labour, and promises a new “Graham Poll” bill.
5. Howard pledges to press Channel Four to move The Sopranos to 9pm.
6. Howard urges The West Wing to have a Republican President - preferably one who will meet him.
7. Howard to outlaw “push polling” - except by the Tories in this campaign.
8. Howard calls for royal wedding memorabilia profits to go to charity.
9. Howard pledges new bill to force pop stars to sing lyrics clearly.
10. Howard pledges streamlining of choice in coffee shops.

Make your own suggestion here: http://labour.org.uk/bandwagon

Quite obviously Labour do not want to enter into any reasonable debate on either their record or Conservative policies.

Even though surveys show 70% of European consumers oppose GMO foods, green groups have warned The European Union could see a series of new biotech foods quietly approved with no authority from EU states. As they cannot overcome years of deadlock over genetically modified (GMO) foods the EU states will see the Commission stepping in to authorise these foods over the heads of the governments.

To my mind if the states say no that is not a deadlock but a refusal to accept these new biotech foods, the only deadlock seems to be the States do not want them and the interested parties in the EU do.

Geert Ritsema of Friends of the Earth said this would be riding roughshod over public opinion “The Commission is not giving a lot of space to member states in the process. They are overruling an overwhelming majority of member states and the public, who say ‘We don’t want them’.”

EU member states have not themselves approved any new GMO since 1998 as no decision has been taken, it falls to the Commission to approve the new GMO, under a intricate procedure that allows the EU executive to step in if member states cannot reach a decision themselves. The European Commission will hold its first debate on GMO policy on Tuesday and appears keen to push a backlog of GMO requests through the EU’s complex authorisation process.

Even more evidence, if it were needed, of the Commissions place as the real government of this country. A thought has just occurred to me, as we are holding a general election in May (we assume) perhaps the EU Commission would like to stand as a political party in order to gain a democratic mandate for their aims and ambitions for the people of the UK? No! Thought not.

Neil Herron: Local Authorities becoming worried over their ‘illegal’ parking regimes.:

“As more and more peeople are beginning to challenge their parking tickets in decriminalised enforcement areas using the Metric Martyrs Judgment and Bill of Rights defence that we have used here in Sunderland, more and more local authorities are becoming increasingly worried.”

Neil Herron seems to have found a loophole in the statutory fines regime to which we are all increasingly being subjected.

Basing his arguments on the Metric Martyrs case when Lord Justice Laws, said that there is a hierarchy of laws and that some constitutional laws cannot be repealed by implication only by expressed repeal.

Mr Herron has noted that unless the acts brought in to subject us to these automatic fines, state that they have the affect of repealing the 1689 Bill of Rights, then the authorities are acting without the law.

The facts of the various cases are not really at issue, it is the legality of the fines, the Bill of Rights clearly states that a conviction is necessary before a fine can be imposed.

As neither the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes any reference whatsoever to expressly repealing the Bill of Rights 1689 these fines are in effect illegal.

But the further argument is, if it can be shown that these acts are in fact legal, it must also follow that Lord Justice Laws was wrong and the Metric Martyr’s conviction must be overturned.

For the authorities it is a catch 22 situation

Jose Manuel Barroso blames the French elite for treaty problems

The president of the European Commission yesterday launched a scathing attack on the ruling classes in France for allowing public opinion there to turn against the draft European constitution. He demanded the political leaders of France “do their job”, and “make an effort to explain the constitution” to French voters, who are turning against the treaty.

President Jacques Chirac, as leader of the Yes camp, has said he believes the directive is “unacceptable”, and told Mr Barroso to “silence” members of his commission pushing for economic liberalisation.

Here we have it yet again there is no place for public opinion in the EU, as Tim Worstall comments “not that we should do what the people want, but that the people should be persuaded to do what we want. Interesting, no?”

We really do have to decide if we wish to continue to be members of a union that so blatantly removes the power of the people at the ballot box to choose their own governments and policies.

Not dealing with the Question

In November I wrote to my MP (Mathew Green) about the lack of any democratic mandate for regional assemblies. Although he agrees that It is most important that funding decisions of the sort currently made by regional government are made democratically, by accountable, elected representatives. It would seem that the official line is that these assemblies do constitute the democratic voice of local people. As I have and the other locals have no means of controlling who is represented on these quangos, it seems that the new EU version of democracy is spreading like a virus through all systems of government.

Dear Mr Green

As you have helped me in the past I thought it appropriate to send you the enclosed letter from a contact, who clearly states some of the objections many of us have about Britain’s lack of democracy. Yes we can vote for whom ever we wish, but there seems to be a point beyond which we cannot affect a particular policy, all main political parties are intent upon.

The people of the North East have just completely rejected the case for the regionalisation in this country, we in this area will now not have the opportunity of making our own feeling known, because the government will not now chance another rejection of their policy, this means we are left with the regional assembly as an unelected and unaccountable government Quango, this is not acceptable because these assemblies were intended to be the nucleus of an elected regional assembly, we have not asked for this, yet we have to pay for the assemblies their offices in Brussels and everything else that goes with them. So to quote the enclosed letter WHERE IS THE DEMOCRACY?

Yours Sincerely

Ken Adams
The Waterdine
Llanfair Waterdine
Nr Knighton
Shropshire
LD7 1TU

Address removed
13.11.2004.
Dear Mr Prescott,

Why is the government trying to force “democracy” on to the people of Iraq and now, even the Palestinians while this government is intent on destroying ‘democracy’ here in the United Kingdom?

The people of the North East Counties have spoken loud and clearly that they want their own Local and District Councils to remain because they truly ‘bring democracy closer to the people’ and our Counties and Councils should have the power and money that have obviously been available to the Union’s Regions.

The democratically elected Members of Parliament are forever (whinging) on about the “unelected” House of Lords (even though, having removed the hereditary peers had the opportunity to “elect” peers yet preferred not to) now is the time to remove the undemocratic unelected Regional Assemblies, closing the existing Government offices in the regions and scrap the Regional Development Agencies altogether.

According to Hansard the Electoral Commission have spent £100,000 of taxpayer’s money on the “Yes” and “No” campaign. The Boundary Commission a further £6 million, another £5 million on your Department’s “Your say” campaign, quite apart from various ‘visits’ from those in high office to help the “yes” campaign. Yet we are led to believe that you are going to ignore the people’s referendum, and continue with the Quango set up in 1998. (All a waste of money and time- to which you and your department should be accountable) The people’s vote was a rejection of this country of England being split up into Regions, a democratic vote by the people, which you sir, appear to be ignoring. Do you wonder why people do not wish to vote at elections?

The Prime Minister made a great play on the word “democracy” whist he was in America at the White House; he wants Iraq and now Palestine to have ‘democracy’, and the latter a “state” in its own right as long as it embraces “democracy”.

So what is this “democracy” that we are so proud to share with others and want others to have too? Is it all that it is ‘cracked up’ to be? We have fought and many have died fighting for freedom in this country, and many of our brave soldiers are laying down their lives now, fighting for strangers we have never met, so that they too can have a slice of freedom and this magical ‘democracy’ they have heard so much about. To be able to vote freely for their leader. To actually “take part” in what they are being led to believe, is the running of their Country.

It is not democracy when government does not listen to the people. It is not democracy when people we vote for cannot stop EU legislation from destroying our industries. It is not democracy when our Prime Minister signs for a new constitution for this Country when he knows without doubt that the people do NOT WANT IT. It is not democracy when a Government deliberately sets about destroying the very people’s Common Law Constitution that even the Government are supposed to observe and protect. It is most certainly NOT democracy to deliberately continue further and deeper integration into what you know will eventually become a federal State of European Union in the full knowledge that it is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people in this country. It is not democracy when a National Government puts the undemocratic European Union before their own Country. Even as you sir, are doing now by ignoring the democratic votes of the people so recently taken.

We have lost the true ‘democracy’ and freedom we once had and I ‘pray’, I really do pray, that it comes back naturally without having to fight once more for both. The people are beginning to fight back as shown in the democratic referendum on the North East Counties last week. It was a ‘legitimate and legal’ fight, please remember that fact.

Slowly, over the years in government through the so-called democratic vote of the people, the Government have systematically overruled the law above the law, the very basic foundations of this country, its Constitution, yet the present government would eagerly take on board an EU constitution that, even as a democratically elected Government of this Country, they would no longer have the power to alter one dot or comma of that EU constitution. So where, since we have democratically elected this Government to represent us, is this magical wonderful democracy now?

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer.

To The Rt Hon John Prescott MP
Deputy Prime Minister,
House of Commons,
London,
SW1A OAA.

Copy to Hon Bernard Jenkin MP,
Shadow Secretary of state for the Regions

Mathew Green MP Ludlow
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
16th February 2005

Dear Ken,

Regional Assemblies

Your letter expresses concern over the lack of democracy created by having unelected Regional Assemblies.

You are right to oppose the continued existence of unelected regional government.

Unelected regional government has existed in the UK for over 20 years. It was set up by the Conservatives, who established regional quangos as a means of distributing regeneration funds. These bodies are directly responsible only to the Secretary of State. Liberal Democrats oppose unelected bodies making funding decisions — that’s why, when the government announced plans to set up elected regional bodies, we supported them, but only on the grounds that these bodies were given real powers, and that regional assemblies were small and efficient. We also argued that regions should accurately reflect local needs and priorities. Most Shropshire people do not think of themselves as part of the West Midlands, an arbitrary region whose boundaries were determined by the Conservatives. I have argued that, if we were to have a regional assembly in our area, it should be a Severn Valley region, comprising Shropshire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire.

It is most important that funding decisions of the sort currently made by regional government are made democratically, by accountable, elected representatives. Many of these decisions and programmes could be run effectively by local councils. If we are not to have directly elected regional assemblies, I would support the redistribution of the functions of regional government, to the most appropriate level of government — whether that be local or, in some cases, central.

I hope my comments help to address the concerns you raise. Additionally, I have passed on your letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, asking him to comment on your views. As soon as I receive his response, I will of course contact you again.

Yours sincerely,

Mathew Green MP

Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister
Creating sustainable communities
Phil Hope MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
26 Whitehall, London SWIA 2W11
Tel: 020 7944 4400 Fax: 020 7944 4339 E-Mail:

Matthew Green Esq MP
House of Commons
London SW IA 0AA

www.odpm.gov.uk

16 MAR 2095

Thank you for your letter of 23 February enclosing correspondence from your constituent Mr Ken Adams of Address Removed, regarding regional assemblies and regional government.

Regional assemblies are not government quangos, but voluntary bodies. Most are funded in part by local authority subscriptions (or benefits in kind, such as office accommodation), and in part by government grant for the undertaking of specific functions on behalf of Ministers, such as regional spatial planning, and scrutiny of the Regional Development Agencies. They are responsible to their members, who include Local Authority elected members and other stakeholders representing a wide range of regional interests including business, environmental groups, and the voluntary sector.

Voluntary regional assemblies exist in all eight English regions outside London, including the North East of England. The referendum held in that region in November was on proposals for a directly elected regional assembly which if it had been established, would have exercised a number of executive functions in the region not undertaken by the existing voluntary regional assemblies.

There are and will continue to be issues which must be dealt with below the national level, but which need to be co-ordinated over an area larger than any single local authority. We want to continue the progress that has been made by the existing regional! Assemblies, who now play a valuable role on housing planning, transport, economic development and skills and training issues across their regions. If the people in the regions are to have a voice and an input to the development of strategies that cross local authority boundaries then clearly we need the regional assemblies to continue to work for the benefit of their regions.

Further details about the work of the West Midlands Regional Assembly are available on their website: www.wmra.gov.uk I enclose a short extract for your information.

PHIL HOPE

Accountability of regional assemblies - Comment - Times Online

Accountability of regional assemblies
From Dr Matthew Portal
Sir, I share Mr Iain Campbell’s disquiet about regional assemblies (letter, March 15). I was recently sent a questionnaire by “Your Shout” on behalf of the South East England Regional Assembly. This apparently includes representatives from 55 district councils from Oxfordshire to Kent, as well as “representatives from business and voluntary groups”, and is responsible for “regional planning, acting as an advocate for the region and holding the region’s development agency to account”.

This seems to be a considerable amount of power and influence for the assembly to arrogate to itself, without the safeguard of being directly elected. If the assembly is an invention of EU bureaucracy (which is unclear from the information provided) I do not want such a body to hold anyone to account, let alone take a major role in planning and development in an already overcrowded part of the country.

I also see that there are plans on transport, waste and energy, that are “ . . . already agreed . . . to 2016 with Government, following earlier consultation”. Surely all voters might wish to have the opportunity to express a view — but at the ballot box, not through bogus consultation by an offshoot of the EU.

Yours faithfully,
MATTHEW PORTAL,

“Bogus Consultation” is the way of the EU, lacking any democratic legality as it does, it would like us to be stupid enough to accept that its consultation exercise are a satisfactory replacement for democracy.

Horse Trading

The President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso has stepped into the ring to announce that the British Rebate is now no longer justified. He said a way would be found that met Britain’s legitimate concerns. Although Britain could use its veto to block proposals that removed or diluted its rebate, but doing so would risk undermining alliances on other issues.

Arguing that part of the reason for agreeing the rebate was to compensate Britain for taking proportionately less in agricultural subsidies than other large countries such as France. But that too had changed as the Common Agricultural Policy took up less of Europe’s budget. The rebate was found for Britain because there was legitimate concern of Britain, almost 70 per cent of our expenditures in the European Commission were with agriculture. And now in the proposal that we are putting forward it will be about a third.”

I would have thought that the overall increase in expenditure in other areas would not affect the original concern, unless the actual expenditure on CAP had fallen. Barroso seems to be making the point that because the other expenditure had increased this somehow undermines the relevance of the rebate.

Without it the rebate, Britain would have paid 14 times as much as France or Italy to the EU according to the Treasury forecasts, even with retaining the rebate, Britain’s net contribution will nearly double from £2.6 billion this year to £5.1 billion in 2007-2008. A House of Lords report says Britain gets a worse deal from the European Union, paying more money in and getting less out, than almost every other member state. The report shows that without its rebate Britain would be the largest net contributor to the EU, and even after the rebate it is the second biggest after Germany.

Another point is Structural funds, distribution of EU funds regional development money, accounts for the second-largest share of the EU budget and Brown wants to shift such funding back to national governments. Although all of us taxpayers contribute to the EU budget, only those groups selected by the EU get money back. This control of funding is one of the ways the Commission has used to increase its influence over our national policies, as the money is only given to those groups which meet Commission approval on several fronts, the funding advances the power of the EU to the detriment of the nation state. At the very least it allows the impression to develop that it is the EU which is spending its money in the UK, which is a bit rich considering it is our money in the first place.

A cost-benefit analysis of EU membership has been refused by Tony Blair however one published by Civitas estimates the annual burden on Britain of regulation, the CAP and the budget at four per cent of GDP. This burden will become more onerous if the constitution is ratified.

One thing is certain the cost of our membership of the Union is set to double in the next two to three years, and with the likely loss of the rebate added in on top of this, Gordon Brown’s budget forecast will be blown of course and an increase in tax will have to be made to meet the shortfall. So any arguments of the benefits of the Union, must be balanced by these increasing costs to every taxpayer in the country.

The EU is launching a fully fledged foreign service, with missions to third countries and the United Nations, Euro-ambassadors, trade attachés, a diplomatic training college, the works. The fact that it is doing so without any legal basis does not seem to bother anyone.

So says Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph today “EU’s ‘illegal’ diplomatic corps is edging out our national embassies”
Hannan continues “It is true that the proposed constitution allows for such a development. Article III-296 creates the office of EU foreign minister and specifies that “in fulfilling his or her mandate, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be assisted by a European External Action Service (EEAS)”.
But the constitution, as you will have noticed, is not yet in force. Ten countries have still to hold referendums on it, and in at least five - Britain, France, Denmark, Poland and the Czech Republic - the result is too close to call.
Still, Brussels rarely lets a little thing like public opinion stand in its way. As far as most MEPs and commissioners are concerned, the constitution must now be implemented regardless of how the national electorates vote.”

The intergrationalist claim that they have the right because “The fact of signing the constitution in Rome has imposed an obligation on the member states, in accordance with the general law of nations, to refrain from any action that might impede entry into force of the constitution.”

This is of course is utter nonsense a Treaty cannot have force until it is ratified, and as the constitution is not yet ratified there is no legal right to proceed. The governments may well be obliged not to “impede entry into force of the constitution” but they are not obliged to allow clauses within the constitution to be pre-empted in this way.

Nor does this go only for the EEAS. Large parts of the constitution pertaining to justice and home affairs are also being implemented in anticipation of the voters’ verdict, while the Charter of Fundamental Rights is already being treated as a justiciable document despite the fact that only four of the 25 member states have ratified the constitution that gives it binding force

Not that any of this much matters. Says Hannan “The EU traditionally advances by extending its activities into a new area and then retrospectively legalising the power-grab in a treaty. It is a clever tactic; by the time we notice what is being done, the Euro-sophists are able to say: “Look here, this has been working informally for years, and you’ve never complained before.”

Last year Gian Luigi Tosato and Ettore Greco produced a paper in which they described the ways that the constitution could be pre-empted..

“The EU Constitutional Treaty: How to Deal with the Ratification Bottleneck”

Part Two;
Anticipated application of some Constitution innovations

In this section they argue that even though the Constitution is not ratified it is essential that as many of the reforms be implemented before the ratification which gives the EU authority to make them.

“There are three reasons why it would be advisable (where legally possible) to introduce some of the innervations in the Constitution even before it is ratified, first,
the reforms in it are urgently needed,
second, they could be facilitated by anticipated application
and third anticipated enactment of some reforms could actually facilitate ratification” In fact some of the innervations are currently the object of intense political debate in a few countries.

So from the intergrationalist point of view this political debate and any democratic choice must be avoided, and the best way to do this is to proceed with the innervations regardless of any opposition.

This mindset that even the slightest nod towards any democratic fancy must be squashed, or at the very least undermined by any means available, clearly indicates the unaccountable nature of the EU institutions, it is our democratic choice this is totally removed in the EU system of governance

Other
Suggested Innovations that could be enacted before ratification
Legal personality
Precedence of the Council
Minister of foreign affairs
Euro Group
National Parliaments
Inter-institutional Cooperation
Consultation during the legislative process
Defence policy
Space of freedom security and justice, Introducing mechanism for assessing domestic security and setting up a European prosecutor’s office Closer cooperation with the EU parliament on Immigration police and judicial matters.

Address Removed

19.3.2005.

Dear Mr MacShane,

Re your Speech European Law and Integration.

Joining the then European Community believing it to be about trade and a free trade area is, according to you a “myth”. You quote various snippets from some of the debates in our Parliament from before we joined the European Community. Whilst I agree with you that the legislators in both Houses knew, and that it was perfectly clear that they were about to take (using your own words) “a step that had serious implications in terms of “sharing” sovereignty in some areas covered by the then constitutional treaties defining the European Community” and that there was “no doubt that European law and the European Court would have been superior to British Courts”, this certain knowledge was, without doubt, most certainly kept from the then gullible public.

In the Government Research Paper 96/82 page 40 reinforces my one point, “For many years the UK courts managed to avoid having to pronounce directly and unequivocally on the supremacy or otherwise of Community Law in relation to traditional Diceyan sovereignty. Some early case law even suggested that the doctrine of ‘implied repeal’ still applied so that later UK statutory provisions would prevail over inconsistent Community law after 1972. Generally though, potential conflicts between UK and Community law were reconciled and resolved through techniques of statutory interpretation and construction, although this approach had its limits if the conflict was apparently irreconcilable. This point came to widespread public and Parliamentary attention in the Factortame cases concerning Spanish owned fishing vessels, (see esp. Lord Bridge [1991] AC 603, 658-9) where the House of Lords appeared unequivocally to accept the supremacy of European law in appropriate cases”.

There is more of course but it kind of shoots down your argument that we knew or were told that the European Community was to become a full political and social Union, in fact should the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” be ratified, it will, as you well know, eventually become one State of Union for it is most definitely not, “just another Treaty”. It is the other “treaties” that will be repealed should the “Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe” come into being leaving only the EU constitution and the mechanism with which to install it.

Up until the present time, we, the people have been told that all we would have to do to come out of this Union would be to repeal the European Communities Act. (See Lord Denning’s ruling on this-repudiation of the treaties also) You give the impression that this method would also apply if we accepted the EU Constitution. Why then, is there an ‘exit clause’ that, having ratified the EU Constitution with that clause in, and accepted that method of withdrawal, how on earth could you go on pretending that the EU constitution “is just another treaty”? It would take about two years to come out and even then it would need all the other countries to agree.

Your constant childish ‘name calling’ of people that are true to their allegiance to their own Country as “Anti-European”, is not worthy of a man of your years or position in government, and eventually may bring about the retort from those that prefer to be governed by a British Government, as Anti-British.

Looking back at old records of the debates on the subject of the European Community, and remembering that there was no “Internet” then, the same arguments were going on in Parliament all those years ago that are going on in this present day. Let me see, if I can, how much the people were told about the Community in those days?

I will commence with 3rd August 1961 and by Mr Shinwell, “In the course of the Lord Privy Seal’s speech, I ventured to ask him a simple question, quite relevant to his speech. It was whether he would state precisely the conditions upon which negotiations were to proceed. His reply was astonishing. He said that it was not in the public’s interest to disclose the Government’s intentions. What does that mean? It means either that Government have no clear idea of what they intend to propose in the course of consultations or negotiations with the representatives of the Common Market, or that they are asking the House for a blank cheque.”

The electors are not to be allowed to express an opinion about whether the Government’s policy is right and desirable in their interests. There is no question, even when the negotiations are concluded, whether satisfactorily or not, of asking the electors to state whether they accept the Government’s decision”.

16th November 1966. Sir D Walker-Smith. “Two truths are surely apparent-first, that over a wide range of our national life there would be an immediate abandonment of sovereignty and our constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. The second truth is that, so far, the British people have very little idea of what is involved.”

Further on a Mr F Bellenger said, ”We must make it clear to the British public just what they will have to face if we join the Common Market, and while I am sure that an immense task lies ahead in relation to the legal references made by the right hon., and learned Gentleman, particularly in terms of changes in our statute law, the British people at large must understand precisely what is happening. I agree, nevertheless, that we must consider the legal implications, including the question of Britain’s sovereignty”.

Mr Orm in the same debate, “It has been said that the British people do not fully understand what is involved in our entry to the Common Market. This is true, and I am hoping that the continuing debates on this matter will get the facts across to our people. It is not just a matter of an increase in food prices, serious as they may be; it is not simply the effect on our economy, the distribution of our industry and our future development, or our social services. It is also to do with how the Community is operated and controlled. The Community is undemocratic”. (So the legislative knew that fact even then)

Mr Jennings, “The question of sovereignty or loss of sovereignty and political union in a political union in a federal United States of Europe has been swept nicely, beautifully and quietly under the carpet. It is almost a sin to talk about it.” (And there it stayed, “under the carpet”). And a little later on he goes on to say, “But the ordinary man in the street has no conception of what he will lose in rights and privileges that he now enjoys, even in a denigrated Britain, which is the attitude that many people tend to adopt”. …….”It is easy to talk glibly about going into Europe. That is the way that it is put over to the electorate. “Let us go into Europe” is the theme. We never attempt to say what we mean by going into Europe, but just what do we mean? Do we mean trade? Is that all?”

Mr Thomson quotes “from my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. He said, “The whole history of political progress is a history of gradual abandonment of national sovereignty…One cannot talk about world government on one breath and then start drooling about the need to preserve national sovereignty in the next….The question is not whether sovereignty remains absolute or not, but in what way one is prepared to sacrifice sovereignty, to whom and for what purpose. That is the real issue before us. The question is whether any proposed surrender of sovereignty will advance or retard our progress to the kind of world we all want to see” (Official Report, 3rd August 1961: Vol 645, c 1667) And you sir, speak of Pooling Sovereignty? World Government eh?

There are many, many more quotes, and yes, I have many pages of them, and as at Maastricht when Parliamentarians were reputed not have read the actual treaty they were about to ratify, in these old debates too it becomes obvious that many MP’s of those days had not read the Treaty of Rome that applied to the “Common Market” they were trying so hard to join, in fact there is quite an argument about it.

You say reading of the debates (you quoted) gives lie to those who claim that Parliament was unaware in 1972 what it was agreeing to. I agree the LEGISLATURE knew very well indeed what it was getting into, but the people were not told the truth then and they are not being told the truth now. Remember this bit Mr MacShane? “ The Common Law will remain the basis of our legal system, and our Courts will continue to operate as they do at present. In certain cases however they would need to refer points of Community Law to the European Court of Justice. All the essential features of our law will remain, including the safeguards for individual freedom such as trial by Jury and habeas corpus and the principle that a man is innocent until proved guilty, as well as the law of contract and tort (and its Scottish equivalent), the law of landlord and tenant, family law, nationality law and land law.”

The Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Civil Contingences Act and now the Serious Organised Crime Agency that is going through Parliament will remove much of the above and the latter, as they will not swear allegiance to the Crown, will eventually come under Europol.

We have heard the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights likened to “the Beano” comic. That even Golf Clubs have “Constitutions”, and that the EU constitution is “just another Treaty”, and that most of what is IN it, has already been in previous Treaties. No Mr MacShane, the people have not been told the truth at all, nor the effect incorporating the EU Constitution into our system will have on our Country.

To really find out what effect saying “Yes” to the EU constitution would do, I suggest that you and the people of this Country take heed of what Hans Martin Bury, the Foreign Minister for Germany has to say on the subject. He said,” This Constitution (not “treaty”) is, in spite of all justified calls for further regulations, a milestone. Yes, it is more than that. The EU constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe”.

I will make one observation, and that is the extraordinary welcome by this Government to Sinn Féin a few years ago, and how it is viewed now. Yet this Government knew all along that “Sinn Féin sought an end to partition which is, in their eyes, the cause of conflict, injustice and division in Ireland and that Sinn Féin is an Irish Republican Party. Their objective is to end British Rule in Ireland. (that is from their Website) Just as all those that wish to integrate fully in every way into the European Union and happily destroy this Country’s Constitution in order to do it. To all those that belittle those that would protect their own County’s Constitution and be true to their oaths of allegiance to their Queen and Country, I say that the tide will turn and soon the situation will be as it is with the Irish Republican Party at present.

The EU will disintegrate, whether before the EU constitution is ratified or not remains to be seen, but it will end in terrible bitter conflict. The fault will fall on all those that did not dare to spell out the true meaning of the requirement for a European Constitution.

While we are busy reducing our forces, the army, navy etc, and while we are eagerly following all EU Regulation re competition, etc, other Countries are not. While we are disarming and reducing our forces, others have conscription and rearming quite strongly. To me it is déjà vu, the 1930’s all over again.

All of our Members of Parliament, will have to decide soon, do they want to govern this Country, to actually earn the money the people pay them, or do they want to go down in history as the government that has given this Country away and continue to have laws and an alien constitution foisted upon us, which nothing we can say or do can alter or block them. Or, do we obey our own Constitutional laws we have had in this Country for hundreds of years, even though we have had to fight to keep them rather than be ruled by others in the past, and which we are duty bound to fight to protect and keep.

The myths you speak of Sir, are your own, especially ”The Constitutional Treaty is not only a simplification of the existing forest of interlocking Treaties, but encapsulates many of these British themes”. As Minister for Europe, you appear to have forgotten the meaning of a “True Brit”, that is your loss sir, not mine. My solemn oath of allegiance remains to the Crown and this country for all time coming.

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer.

As this is about our Constitution, this is an open letter

MEP`s had allotted a total of £80,000 for the campaign in the UK to spread “information” about the EU Constitution

A spokesman for the European Parliament said the campaign was concerned with spreading information on the “main aspects of the constitution”. “We will explain to the public how the constitution will benefit them in their every day lives.”

MEP`s believe they have a right to disseminate their views because the European Parliament has voted in favour of the EU constitution.

The UK Local Government in Westminster says it has already rejected any cash which could be seen as “pro-constitution propaganda”. But obviously because it is only the local government, its wishes will not be considered important by the real government in Brussels.

Considering there is an agenda within the European Parliament to get people to vote for the constitution it will be interesting to see the spin these MEP`s put on their “information”, they will evidently tailor their message to each state, so we need to be alert to other campaigns claims, as in some states many oppose the constitution because they do not feel it goes far enough.

Anti-sense Investigation

From 2000 to 2003, the EU paid $329 million into the Palestinian budget and $194 million in other forms of assistance.

The headline is “The European Union’s anti-fraud investigation has found no evidence to back accusations that some of the hundreds of millions of dollars in EU aid to the Palestinian Authority was diverted to fund terrorist attacks or siphoned off by corrupt officials.”

Unfortunately the anti-fraud investigation also said…

“The possibility of misuse of the Palestinian Authority’s budget and other resources cannot be excluded due to the fact that the internal and external audit capacity in the Palestinian Authority is still underdeveloped”.

The anti-fraud office did advise the Palestine Authority to move away from funding families of people involved or accused of involvement in attacks on Israel.

“Some of the practices of the past, such as the payment of salaries to convicted persons or the financial aid given to families of ‘martyrs’ as well as the Fatah contributions by PA staff, are liable to be misunderstood and so to lead to allegations that the PA is supporting terrorism,”

So we have a situation that the claim is being made that to support the families of terrorists and to pay the wages of terrorists, is not in fact supporting terrorism? That although the Anti-fraud office cannot actually account for the money, they somehow can also claim “The investigation has found no conclusive evidence of support of armed attacks or unlawful activities financed by the European Commission’s contributions”, that there is at least one account in Tunis for which the PA was not yet able to clarify either the origin or the owner?

The European Anti-Fraud Office said “the Palestinian Authority has made significant progress since 2002″ to put its books in order.

The Israeli government said that, beyond the issue of abuse of EU funds, it was convinced that, under former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, funds were used for terrorist attacks.

“In the period when Mr. Arafat ran the Palestinian Authority, there was incontrovertible evidence that in a continued and ongoing way, the Palestinian Authority channeled money to groups involved in terrorism,”

As they cannot show where the money went but admit that some of it did goes toward paying terrorists or supporting the families of terrorists, or funding terrorist groups, how on earth can they also make such a clear statement that there is no evidence? As usual the EU it turns reality on its head.

Non-Euro Europe (washingtonpost.com): “Non-Euro Europe
How do you make your painfully weak dollars go further? Take them to a euro-free zone.”

There’s a smart way for U.S. travelers to Europe to cope with the pinch on the pocketbook caused by the euro: Don’t use it.

Pay in Polish zlotys. Or Hungarian forints. Or Bulgarian levs.

For Americans, those and other non-euro currencies often stretch twice as far as the euro.

These days travelers are paying $1.34 per euro, compared with $1.22 a year ago. If you thought you couldn’t afford a trip to Europe this spring or summer, consider taking the less-traveled road into Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia and other countries outside the euro zone

“We’re booking tours to great destinations in Croatia for around half what they would cost to nearby Italy,” says Judy Koblenz, an agent at Kollander World Travel in Cleveland, which organizes customized and group tours throughout Europe.

Trailblazing in unfamiliar and often less-developed countries outside the heart of Europe is not for every traveler. While many of the non-euro countries are moving quickly to build a tourism infrastructure, the progress is mixed. Outside major urban areas, the biggest barrier probably will be language. Hard-to-reach places like Lviv, Ukraine, or Levoca, Slovakia, have pristine charm, but it’s never certain if hotel clerks will speak English or museum placards will be written in anything but the native tongue. As a veteran traveler to many non-euro countries, I’ve found that patience and a good phrasebook can usually get you a decent room and a meal, even in rural areas.

Be prepared to discover sights that parallel, if not exceed, heavily touristed venues in Great Britain or on the Continent. The architectural splendor of Prague’s Golden Ring ranks with the grand vistas of Rome. The Chopok slopes in the Tatra mountain region of Slovakia are as attractive to skiers as the Alps of Austria or France. White sandy beaches in Cyprus are a suitable alternative to those along Spain’s Costa del Sol or France’s Cote d’Azur.

But remember that not all of the non-euro countries are a bargain. Although Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland and Great Britain have opted against using the euro, hotels, restaurants and other attractions in the major urban areas of those countries are among Europe’s priciest.

Regional assemblies - Comment - Times Online

Regional assemblies
From Mr Iain Campbell
Sir, You report (March 4): “The North East was the first English region to hold a referendum on establishing an assembly.”

The referendum dealt only with the question as to whether it should be a directly elected assembly. Despite the large “no” vote the North East still has an assembly by any other name, as do all the other so-called English regions.

It appears that we are to be governed by an unelected EU Commission operating through unelected regional assemblies, something the EU has been trying to achieve for years.

Yours faithfully,
IAIN CAMPBELL,

It would appear that 14th March 2005 was National Identity Day

Madeleine Bunting sets the scene with an article in the Guardian “Beyond Englishness”

“Our national identity has always been taken for granted, but now it is being sidelined by new local bonds,
says Madeleine Bunting”

Six hundred kids in schools in four English towns were asked about their identity in a Joseph Rowntree Foundation study to be published on Wednesday. Those from ethnic minorities didn’t hesitate with their answers - black, Pakistani Muslim, Muslim, Asian - while the white majority were left stumbling. “I’m sort of tanned,” said one. “I’ve aquamarine eyes,” said another. Some of the white kids could describe their heritage - “I’m a quarter Scottish” or “I’m an eighth Japanese” - but they couldn’t label the identity it gave them. Being “English” meant nothing to them.
Does it matter that Englishness has so little pull on these children? Ask yourself, when was the last time you described yourself as English?

But there is a growing school which argues that questions of identity are critical, and the “doughnut” problem - the absence of a strong, meaningful sense of Englishness - is a real handicap.

Then a returning David Blunkett makes a speech, in which he argues that the left’s skepticism about nationalism has left an open door that can be used by a rightwing racialist agenda with dangerous consequences for mutual agreement and foreign policy.

Commenting on the speech Madeleine Bunting says “Anxieties about identity get swiftly projected on to issues such as immigration and asylum seekers. Neal Lawson in the recent Compass pamphlet, Dare More Democracy, quotes focus-group participants who again and again insisted on returning to the subject of immigration and asylum and complained about “foreigners” benefiting from health, welfare and education resources that “should be going to the people who paid into the system”. They said that Blair is “anti-English and supports any country and religion except the English… and is ruining our country - England”. Lawson concluded that this issue animated the focus groups more than any other.

Questions of identity are not just abstract concepts, but act as organising principles for a gamut of domestic and foreign policies, from levels of taxation to community cohesion and Europe”.

David Blunkett later appeared on BBC Newsnight in the company of LibDem and Conservative spokesmen who were called in to comment on the short film portraying Gordon Browns reflections on the meaning of a British National Identity.

Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian suggested that this insecurity is the elephant in the room in the identity debate. It is driven at the macro level by an intensely competitive globalisation that has put most of the country’s economic life beyond the power of the nation state, and at a micro level by individual economic welfare built on debt and a precarious jobs lottery. The Elephant in the room was also used by the BBC (who said this organisation was not biased towards the Guardian view of the world) to describe the same problem.

But the real Elephant in the room was hardly mentioned, that is for the past thirty years we in the UK have seen our own powers of self determination being suppressed on the altar of the European Union. As a passing parade of petty politicians have removed our right to elect those who make our laws, whilst at the same time they have been undermining everything that we once took for granted, increasingly imposing the will of the unelected assembly in Brussels to align Britain with the Continental norms to more easily install Britain into the United States of Europe.

Is it any wonder why a public who have been constantly bombarded with the view that to even think of ones self as either English or British is tantamount to xenophobia and is at the very least racism, should now be floundering about wondering where the next blow is coming from.

So what is all this about? A very big clue can be gleaned from the Guardian “The best we can hope for is several, possibly even conflicting, accounts of English identity around our ways of life. The sense of solidarity and belonging at a national level can only occur intermittently - football matches, the Olympics, royal funerals - although it is never fully inclusive. For the rest of the time, local identities around cities and regions are a more powerful connection point, more vivid in people’s everyday lives. They have more impact on that elephant in the room - their deep sense of insecurity.”

It should be remembered at this point that National Identity is not National Power these are two distinct and separate concepts, what is being attempted is the imposition of a false sense of national identity to replace the power we used to posses as a basic right, and that is to live under the rules and laws that we accept under a government that we elect, that was the basic cement which defined us all as British subjects we knew that no matter what, we could all take part in the very fabric of our Nation it was our Government they were our Judges and it was our Law. These belifes have increasingly come under attack from within as well as from the EU and this is the major contributing factor to the malaise in which we now find ourselves, when we no longer believe that our own prime minister will protect the nation. The guardian commented that the issue that animated the focus groups more than any other was that “Blair is “anti-English and supports any country and religion except the English… and is ruining our country” They should have said not English but United Kingdom.

The only thing I find beyond comprehension about all this is why we do not fully understand that all of this has been set out, that everything that is happening today was foreseen, well before Edward Heath took this Country into the Union.

FCO paper 1971
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes within the member states and effective Community regional economic and social policies will be essential.

This article appeared in The Times 19 June 2001 but is worth revisiting, its sentiments are clearly against unaccountable governmental systems, more akin to management than a political government, which are increasingly removing our powers to elect those who would rule over us. As such it defines many of my problems with the elitism that is found in the EU as it becomes a much greater force in our daily lives.

WE CREATED THIS BUREAUCRATIC MONSTER
The Gothenburg street fighters were driven to violent protest Roger Scruton’s sympathies waver when he sees riots against unaccountable legislators, particularly the bureaucrats of the EU. By Roger Scruton

I awoke to politics in May 1968 in Paris. Observing the street battles between truncheon-wielding policemen and stone-throwing students, I was moved for the first time by political indignation. It was not the police who inspired this feeling: on the contrary, I applauded their determination to give as good as they got. I was indignant at those well-heeled children of the bourgeoisie, who were burning the cars and stoning the sons of the real working class.

Since that moment, I have changed in many ways ; but not in the outlook that then crystallised. I became aware that nothing is of greater political value than the rule of law, that authority is not an evil but an indispensable good, and that private property is the precondition of freedom. Law, authority and property were all threatened by the spoilt brats who chanted in the streets below my window. And whenever now I come across balaclava-wearing youths confronting cordons of policemen, I instinctively conclude that, whatever those youths are against, I am for it.

Observing the recent protests in Seattle, Prague and Gothenburg, however, my instinctive opposition has begun to waver. Of course, many of these are the same kind of people who revolted me in 1968 - privileged layabouts protesting against the system that guarantees their privileges, including the privilege of protest. But I share their opposition to the things that anger them, and recognise that violent protest is probably the only instrument through which they can make this opposition felt.

For the people of modern democracies are being steadily disfranchised, and the institutions responsible exist in a haze of unaccountable decision-making, where nameless Olympians sit in judgment on all mankind. For the first time in living memory, the majority of the laws of our country are made by people whom we cannot eject from office.

We know who Tony Blair is. We know what he thinks, how he behaves and what is his ultimate agenda. On the strength of this, we can vote for him or against him at an election. His party and government have a legislative programme, but it can pass into law only after the scrutiny of Parliament, and only after committees and revising bodies have had their say, against a background of public debate in which all of us participate.

But do we know who is in charge in the WTO or the European Commission? Have we a clear perception of the personalities who wish to legislate, from the security of those offices, for the people of our continent? And if we do, have we the faintest idea how to influence their decision or, failing that, to vote them out of office?

The fact is that trans-national bureaucracies offer an unprecedented opportunity to obtain power without accountability. And the participation of our elected governments in the resulting farce is something against which we should protest, since it is a betrayal of trust. Our politicians were elected to legislate for the people of this country. They were not elected to endorse laws made outside the kingdom, by people who are effectively accountable to no one and who need never make themselves known.

That issue of principle is surely what underlies the protests against the EU and its dictatorial commission - now responsible for the major part (and by far the worst part) of our legislation. But it is not only the EU that is at fault. All over the world, the habit has arisen of granting legislative or regulatory powers to institutions that are answerable to no particular electorate, but that can impose laws on us all.

The WTO is one extremely dangerous instance. It has put in place the mechanism whereby America can penalise any country that tries to protect its local agriculture from US agribusiness. It has therefore sounded the knell for local markets, local food production and the kind of restrictions on the free flow of food that might be necessary to save our planet. But how do we, mere citizens of a democracy, register our protest?

Other trans-national institutions have a comparable imperialist agenda. Even the World Health Organisation, devoted to the seemingly blameless cause of helping the developing nations to overcome contagious diseases, spends far more time and energy trying to legislate against smokers. It now seeks to control the fiscal policy of national legislatures, since nothing less than this will satisfy the anti-smoking fanatics who occupy its seat of power. You don’t have to approve of smoking to believe that tobacco legislation and taxation should be decided by our elected government in Westminster, rather than by unelected bureaucrats in Geneva.

Of course, there are problems that can be solved only by treaty, and treaties must have legal force. But every treaty signed by our government is a diminution of sovereignty, and an erosion of the democratic franchise. Hence the ruling principle must be to retain national sovereignty until it can be conclusively shown that a wider jurisdiction is necessary, if the problem is to be solved. There is another reason for this, which is that mistakes made by national legislatures can be rectified. Mistakes made by trans-national bureaucrats - the CAP being one supremely telling instance - cannot.

So yes, the demonstrators are right. They have been disfranchised, and what can they do except protest? Voting makes no difference, since no politicians - not even Margaret Thatcher - seem willing to take a stand against the new forms of global governance, once in office. And when national governments hold referendums - as the Danes, the Swiss and the Irish have done - the bureaucrats immediately signal their intention to disregard them.

But still, I remember my reaction to the student rioters in May 1968. What angered me was not their goals, but their determination to impose their goals on the rest of us. This determination is shared by the new forms of bureaucratic government. And maybe it is shared by the protesters in Gothenburg. After all, it is the original sin of politics.

If we value democracy, it is surely because it places procedures above goals, and consent above force, in the scale of political values. Maybe the greatest disservice done by the EU to the future of Europe is that it is causing us to value goals above procedures, and therefore, as in Gothenburg, force above consent.

Two items in the Telegraph about EU accounting
Telegraph | Money | EC’s ’sordid accounting’ damned in email from top auditor:

“EC’s ’sordid accounting’ damned in email from top auditor”

The European Commission has a “chronically sordid” accounting system and is still unable to keep track of the EU’s £73billion budget after a decade of financial scandals, according to a top EU insider.

An internal email obtained by The Telegraph paints an ugly picture of an autocratic body with an “incestuous esprit de corps” that uses its bureaucratic muscle to “trash” any official who dares to question its methods.

It said the Budget Directorate was in “persistent denial of the real nature and depth of problems” it faced, choosing “cavity filling solutions where root canals were called for”.

The note was written by the former director-general of the commission’s Internal Audit Service, Jules Muis, who retired last year after attempting to spearhead the EU’s reform drive.

He said the Budget fiefdom relied on non-qualified accountants to manage funds, allowing it to “get away with” practices that breached its own laws. It operated a “perverse incentive structure” that rewarded staff if “they managed not to discover financial malfeasance”.

The Dutch-born Mr Muis, recruited from the World Bank as a trouble-shooter to clean up Brussels, said the commission still took “no responsibility for whether the accounts are right in the end”.

“Ten years after the Commission first failed to get normal audit blessing on its accounts and controls, it still does not have a proper accountability construct. This extraordinary situation is the major cause of the chronically sordid state of quality accounting,” he said.

And…

Email confirms what we always suspected: something’s rotten in Brussels

The email is the smoking gun de nos jours. A few paragraphs written by an official in a bad mood can say more than any number of formal enquiries, and the words, once released into the internet, cannot be recalled. An internal memo which we reveal today from the European Commission’s former audit chief, Jules Muis, confirms what so many suspect - that Brussels still cannot take reasonable care of the £73billion entrusted to it by taxpayers.

What’s worse, in a way, is how Mr Muis exposes the machine as a surprisingly nasty and vindictive outfit. The EU budget runs with a “chronically sordid” accounting system and is still culturally incapable of accepting any fault with the way it behaves, even after a decade of complaints from the European Court of Auditors.

A fraud scandal brought down the entire Commission in 1999. Three years later, a pair of whistleblowers exposed the disappearance of £3m at the Eurostat data office, in a racket described by investigators as the tip of “a vast enterprise of looting”. Yet Mr Muis reveals that even now the Commission has “systemic control weaknesses” and rewards officials for turning a blind eye to graft. The EU may even have “slipped backwards”.

The Commission is at last ditching its single-entry booking system, just 700 years after the Venetians made it obsolete. In theory it will no longer be possible to transfer money without trace. If this reform actually happens, it will be greatly due to the efforts of Marta Andreasen, the former chief accountant sacked by the Prodi Commission in a valedictory settling of scores.

The Muis email confirms that her disciplinary hearing was a crude, but highly successful, mechanism to smear a critic. “Might makes right” are the words he uses. At least the Commission is now promising to do what she recommended, even if it gives her none of the credit

Javier Solana on Democracy

“To succeed, democratic movements have to be home-grown and adapted to local conditions. Each society must find its own path and move forward at its own pace.” So says the EU foreign Minister designate. Setting aside the EU`s major conflict with the USA attempts to bring democracy to parts of the middle east, attempts that have had a dramatic influence on the very areas Solana now says the EU wishes to play a role and can help create a context conducive to political change and once change is under way, it can support and reward reformist forces”.

Solana waffles on; “Playing that supporting role suits Europeans well. The values of democracy and human rights are in our collective DNA. They are enshrined in the constitution and have been the basis of the EU since it began. The wish to belong to this democratic community has been a powerful factor for both change and stability in Europe. Membership of the EU played an important part in the consolidation of democracy first in southern Europe and then in central Europe. Not many revolutions are entirely peaceful and few result in stable democratic outcomes. That we achieved this result in central Europe was in part due to the existence of a democratic community in Europe”.

It does rather ring hollow when the EU own Foreign policy spokesman talks this way of the constitution, when over half of the people will have no democratic choice in the matter and will simply have the constitution forced on them by their own governments, and the rest of us will have massive EU spending on vast amounts of EU propaganda and governments intervention on the processes of media information, to control the outcome of the various referenda, is that really democracy?

The EU talks a great deal of democracy, yet talk is cheap and real democracy is totally lacking in the EU, it is not so much non-democratic but is in fact anti-democratic. Javier Solana holds his position not by any democratic mandate, but by the decisions of the elites, who have absolutely no intention of allowing democracy to stand in the way of their plans.

To use democracy as a watch word for a union that simply could not exist if it were democratic, is just sickening and shows exactly the kind of mindset that is inherent in the EU`s totalitarian system of government.

EUobserver.com:

“We need a set catalogue of criteria so that organisations that are clearly against the basic principles of the EU, do not get any more money’, says Ms Koch-Mehrin, for whom the bloc’s economic goals are an EU principle.” So says the deputy head of the Liberals in the European Parliament, Silvana Koch-Mehrin, has said it is “scandalous” that EU money has been used to fund the anti-globalisation movement, Attac.

Ms Koch-Mehrin told FT Deutschland that there should be a change in the way EU support money is allocated.

“After all, Attac is a massive critic of the EU”, said the liberal MEP, who has written to the Commission asking how the situation arose.

Between 2001 and 2003, Attac received 59,000 euro of EU money which is a tiny fraction of the overall amount that the Commission uses to support NGOs.

FT Deutschland notes that Attac is co-organising a large demonstration - expected to attract up to 50,000 people - next Saturday against the EU’s economic policies.

Well that`s OK then, just as long as only those who do agree with the so called basic principles of the EU, are the only ones who have to pay in the money the EU is using to promote itself.

Instead of a catalogue of criteria so that organisations that are clearly against the basic principles of the EU, do not get any more money perhaps we could have a voluntary EU tax, then those of us who do not agree with being ruled by a gang of unelected unaccountable Eurocrats would not have to support them or their system. We would then see how much support there really is for the EU and its basic principals.

Police Bill needs ‘robust scrutiny’ - Comment - Times Online

Police Bill needs ‘robust scrutiny’

From the Chairman of the Police Federation and the President of the Police Superintendents’ Association
Sir, The horse-trading over the Prevention of Terrorism Bill was unseemly and the same fate threatens the Serious Organised Crime and Police (SOCAP) Bill (report, March 12), legislation that fundamentally changes the way we police in England and Wales and which has its second reading in the Lords on March 14.

As the representative bodies of police officers who pick up the pieces of cobbled-together laws, we are deeply concerned that the SOCAP Bill will not be given the robust parliamentary scrutiny that it deserves.

During the committee stage of the Bill, parliamentarians of all political persuasions have expressed grave concerns about plans to remove the office of constable from officers transferring to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Hansard, January 11, cols 22-38). This would mean a loss of political independence and direct control of operational policing passing to the Home Secretary for the very first time. Moreover, since all the staff of the agency would be employees rather than officers, the spectre of a wholly unionised workforce combating serious and organised crime raises a question of epoch-changing proportions: what would happen in the event of industrial action?

Decisions of this magnitude about the future of policing must be debated in full and should not be dictated by a pre-election Westminster stitch-up.

Yours sincerely,
JAN BERRY,
Chairman, The Police Federation of England and Wales,
RICK NAYLOR,
President, Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales,
c/o 15-17 Langley Road,
Surbiton, Surrey KT6 6LP.
March 7.

In place of Democracy!

Usually a government gets to know the opinion of the public every five years, they either still have a job, or they do not. The EU of course does not work along democratic lines, therefore they feel there is a need for something to replace that gap so they can continue to claim a democratic mandate, so instead we find we are ruled by polling. Unfortunately the results of polling depend heavily on the questions asked and the form in which they are presented, unlike democracy which depends on votes actually cast for a particular party or policy. Polling also has an added advantage for the EU, because they can choose which questions to ask about which policies they want, and then they can choose to ignore any results they do not like.

Public opinion and European Constitution

In order to get to know and understand citizens’ attitudes to the future of the European Union and the Constitution, opinion polls are conducted by specialised organisations both at European level and in each Member State.

At European level, these polls are carried out in the context of the “Eurobarometer”, which puts the same questions to citizens on the basis of representative samples. The Eurobarometers are managed by the European Commission and carried out, in practice, by specialised companies under contract.

A number of “Eurobarometers” have been carried out in the 25 EU countries on the subjects relating to the European Constitution, the Convention and the future of the Union.

Surveys on the same subjects are also carried out independently in a number of countries on the initiative of the poll institutes or the media, using a wide variety of techniques and samples. By way of example, the results of several of these surveys are given here, country by country.

This information is not exhaustive and is not binding on the European Commission.