eurealist.co.uk

Eurealist :: Democracy will hinder the EU

The International Herald Tribune carried two articles on Saturday, the first written by Christine Ockrent

blaming the French politicians, right and left, for the rise in the no campaign standing in the polls.

“It was almost pathetic to watch President Jacques Chirac, the other evening, trying to convince 80 young French people from all walks of life to vote for the European constitution. It’s not that his performance was bad: However fluctuating his European convictions may have been in the course of his long political career, his arguments sounded right to all of us interested in and familiar with the unique political process of the Union.

The problem was that Chirac did not make sense to those he was supposed to convince. His words seemed to bounce like marshmallow against a wall of anxieties that had little to do with the constitution but more with the policies of his unpopular government. As to Europe, what these young people were expressing was not so much disaffection as ignorance”

“Brussels technocrats have been convenient scapegoats, easy to blame whenever unpopular reforms had to be made. Consensus-building - the essence of the European intergovernmental process - is alien to French political culture.

The president himself and his ministers often talk about “victory” over partners who then sound like enemies. They never acknowledge that many European regulations that they have negotiated have been the most effective way to impose change in a country that prefers to talk about it rather than implement it”.

“It remains to be seen, of course, whether these French who express such apprehension about the state of their country and our globalized world will form a majority. If they do, they are not the ones to blame. It is the arrogance and deceit of too many French politicians that need to be addressed. Sharing the responsibility are all those of us in the mass media who for too long have also failed to explain the complex issues of the European process.”

“It should be no surprise that the French referendum on May 29 will not be about the text that Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and his fellow convention members, representing all of Europe’s nationalities and opinions, strenuously negotiated. The French will use the occasion to express their mood about their current economic and social situation. They will also react to the enlargement of the Union to Eastern European countries - a process that was finalized a year ago but was never submitted to them and hardly explained”.

The problem with this sort of analysing is that it completely misses the whole point, the French people have every right to give their opinion on the state of their domestic government, and to try to equate that disaffection with their supposed ignorance of the Constitution is ignoring the fact that much of the unpopular policies of the French Government is as a direct result of the EU. This argument always try’s to suggest that the EU is above and separate from state governments and has no baring at all on the policies being pursued. To the French people it matters not a jot whether the text represents the best that could have been achieved after strenuous negotiations, they are already seeing the fruits other negotiations, that supposedly represent all the peoples of Europe, and they do not like what the see. This is the problem; the elites fail to recognise in their push for a united States of Europe, the French The Germans the British and all the others, naturally are interested in their own way of life, for an elitists argument that this way of life has to change because the leaders have made an international agreement only confirms that the leaders of the European process are out of touch with the people.

It is not the arrogance and deceit of too many French politicians that need to be addressed; it is the arrogance and deceit of the whole Elitist drive for integration at the cost of democratic choice of the people. Blaming the politicians and the media for having failed to explain the complex issues of the European process now that it is becoming evident that the people are concerned about the loss of their sovereignty at this stage, is about as much use as a wet blanket in the thunder storm, the evidence shows the more the process is honestly explained the more the people dislike the whole development.

The other article by Giles Merritt

Argues that if the French vote no and the European political leaders still insist that there is no Plan B, the reality is that they will have to face two questions. First, can they somehow sneak the key elements of the constitution past European electorates a second time around? Second, should they also try to ensure that future EU decision-making is settled by parliaments and not the people? For it seems that the European Union’s ambitious constitutional treaty, running to almost 500 legalistic pages, will be torpedoed by public incomprehension.

Thus exactly demonstrating the elitists arrogance that will override the democratic choice of the people, Merritt says “Ironically, the idea behind these referendums, and indeed behind the constitution itself, has been to “bring Europe closer to the citizen.” EU policy makers have become sensitive to criticism that they are engaged in a surreptitious plot to create a European superstate that will do away with national sovereignties and hand power to Brussels and its unelected bureaucrats” so to prove that this is not the case and everything is the democratic choice of the people who so obviously want this unification, Merritt suggests “there is a more fundamental question to be answered, too. It concerns the wisdom of inviting national electorates to have a direct say on EU-level matters. The conclusion being drawn from the constitution’s increasingly uncertain fate is that these issues are too complex and technocratic to be of interest to most people, and that the cause of greater European unity and closer economic integration is more likely to be endangered than strengthened by direct democracy. This is a tough lesson to learn, because it runs contrary to Europe’s present political consensus. The EU’s “democratic deficit,” and concerns over the remoteness of its decision-making process, have in recent years preoccupied a good many politicians, and their response has been to call for the greater involvement of voters in EU policy decisions.

Given that an estimated four-fifths of the new laws and regulations that affect Europeans’ lives are nowadays agreed consensually in Brussels, an increase in direct democracy had seemed entirely appropriate.

Today, however, it looks a lot less attractive. EU governments may well want to find ways of getting the genie of popular referendums safely back in the bottle.”

As the elitists do everything in their power to prevent democracy having a place in the unification process, it is little wonder that they will grab any excuse they can to justify their own decisions, but to say that democracy will endanger their plans so should be refused, is mind numbingly crass, as these are the same people who claim a democratic mandate for their actions. Of course the choice of the people will endanger the political plans of some people, the far left communist style parties, or the far right racist parties, for instance, to argue that the democratic choice of the people is to be refused to enable the EU plans to succeed, is absolutely no difference in effect than that of any other despotic government, What leads these elitists proponents believe that their way is best Stalin, Hitler and all the other world despots also thought their way was best and used exactly the same arguments.

Eurealist :: EU Constitution is of great significance to the future of European Monarchies: “EU Constitution is of great significance to the future of European Monarchies
by Eurealist at 07:09AM (BST) on April 17, 2005 | Permanent Link | Cosmos

From England Expects

According to former MEP, professor and senior member of the Constitutional Convention that drew up the dreadful document Olivier Duhamel, the Constition has great significance in relation to the constitutional position of monarchs as heads of State. Talking on his monthly TV political column on the Frankenriech TV channel Arte, ‘Standpunkt’ Duhamel pointed out that the EU is not only formally a republic, but there is supposed to be considerable citizen participation as well. In this regard the EU Constitution is of great significance to the future of European Monarchies. From what I understand he suggested that they would have to be stripped of any remaining Constitutional role as it would be incompatible with the democratic process.

(Religious equality –Act of succession – male primogeniture)

My response to these English Common Law based thoughts on the monarchy;

“If the foundation is a monarch, however, you have many more options - you are not constrained by fixed, abstract ideas. Legitimacy is still ultimately is found in the loyalty of the people to the monarch, and the government it empowers, - (a good basis for democracy) but you are not hemmed in by fixed and outdated notions about society and government.”

In some respects this is true, but within the context that set up the present monarchy and formed the basis for its legitimacy and thus the basis for the constitution, there is some inflexibility. Or rather I should say there is supposed to be, if we have a system of government which is self protecting that is in itself an inflexible system.

The one place that this inflexibility shows strongly in an outdated notion about society is the prohibition on Catholics in the royal family. Within the top on hundred people in line for the throne today, I believe eleven are excluded because of their Catholic links. This prohibition was not imposed in the first place, simply because the Catholics were hated, they may well have been, but rule was included for what a Catholic King stood for as apposed to their religious belifes.

The system of government in the UK is based on English Common Law and depends on a circle of power, we the people accept the monarch, which gives legitimacy to the government, which rules the people, within this there are other safeguards against any part of the system becoming to powerful. The elected chamber must have the approval of the lords for its laws, if both chambers agree the monarch has the final say in passing legislation all parts of Government are subject to the rule of law and the law lords are independent. The people have the right to elect and dismiss the elected chamber and also the right to be tried by a jury if accused, and eventually the jury was given the right of ignoring an unjust law, thus the real power lies in the hands of the people not the government, and the whole system demands sovereignty to be held within the territorial confines of the state.

A Catholic believes the Pope and their church to be the final arbiter of power, therefore a power above country, at the time Catholic Kings believed in the divine right of Kings, in other words a pyramid of power, flowing down though the various levels of government. We had at the time just rebelled against the divine right of Kings as it is inconstant with the concept of English Common Law. Hence the clause that no Catholics being allowed to become monarch was written into the Bill of Rights.

Although the Bill of Rights is still law in the UK and has not been basically amended, about the only remaining prohibition that has an affect is the clause that discriminates against Catholics.

Within the debate about the Monarchy, as the power of the Monarch, the House of Lords and the independence of the Law Lords, has been reduced to such an extent that the present system cannot intrude to maintain even the protection of the British people against the increasing power of the short term elected chamber, then I would suggest that the English Common Law system has been reduced to a meaningless hotchpotch of conventional hogwash.

As the political parties over the past hundred years have undermined the UK system of government to such an extent that today it can best be described as an elected dictatorship,. That being the case we should no longer accept these people as our Kings and Queens, what really is the point of the entire empty pageantry that surrounds the monarchy of the UK. When our ministers of the crown, swear allegiance to the Queen and to the country, and then go of and undermine the power of this country and the sovereignty of the monarch and the people, by signing international agreement that impose foreign dominance. I would suggest that the Monarchy no longer has a place in the government of this country as such because they are not doing their jobs, their titles should be removed, then Mr and Mrs Windsor and their children and hangers on can if they like support this nation, that has given them so much, by doing the only job they seem capable of and that is playing their part in the tourist industry.

As they will be removed from their position of guardians of the Constitution, they will then be free to marry whom they like, and as the divine right of kings has evolved into the divine right of the Autocrats or Eurocrats we the people have already lost out to recidivist royalists.

The fact is that Monnet would have had no argument with the sentiments expressed in the quote.

I have received an interesting exchange of e-mails about the following quote attributed to Jean Monnet,

‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.’

The reliability of this quote was questioned a few weeks ago on the Yes to the EU Constitution Blog

It seems now that Monnet did not say these words, so far it has been established that Adrian Hilton wrote the following in his book The Principality and Power of Europe

One of the founding fathers of the EU, Jean Monnet, also a devout Roman Catholic, totally rejected the idea that Europe should consist of sovereign nations. He believed in the Catholic vision that Europe should become a federal superstate, into which all ancient nations would be fused. ‘Fused’ is the word he used in a comunication* dated 30th [sic - should be 3rd] April 1952, and is wholly consistent with the language of the Maastricht Treaty. For this to be achieved without the peoples of Europe realising what was happening, the plan was to be accomplished in successive steps. Each was to be disguised as having an economic purpose, but all, taken together, would inevitably and irreversibly lead to federation. After Europe’s coal and steel production were pooled, Europe’s atomic programmes were to be co-ordinated. Then would follow the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Market. After this would come the single currency, and so on. Monnet related on 6th May 1970, that he had explained this to Heath:

‘I told Heath how we had proceeded from the start, step by step, and how we had gradually created the Common Market and today’s Europe, and thaand how we had gradually created the Common Market and today’s Europe, and that I was convinced we should proceed in the same manner”

There may have been no evil intent; Heath and other leaders may have thought they knew best and that the people should simply follow them, uninformed or, if necessary, disinformed.”
3 April 1952 Monnet did say

“The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.”

However the highlighted text above is very similar to the attributed Monnet quote, In reply to a request for clarification Adrian Hilton said;

I do not believe that Monnet ever articulated these precise words, but I certainly never said that he did. Looking at the similarities in phrasing and vocabulary, it appears that some over-enthusiast has redacted my words into a Monnet quotation, and this may have become the source of confusion. Yet even then they have paraphrased my words, which shows a peculiar propensity to literary creativity. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt over the past month (and, no, I am no longer the Conservative candidate for Slough), it is that standing for Parliament causes people to twist, warp and misrepresent all manner of things that one has written, no matter how academic the thesis, or how credible and cogent the argument.

As has been observed, when I am quoting others, I not only place the words in the appropriate punctuation, but in the 2000 edition of ‘The Principality & Power of Europe’ I refer to primary and secondary sources. There is a lesson here (and one I learnt back in 1996 when I stood for the Referendum Party), that there is an imperative for all parliamentary candidates in an age of spin not to undermine the veracity of their campaigns with the use of mythical quotations (or, for that matter, inaccurate statistics…)

Although it is always important to be able to justify our sources, if Monnet did not say “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.” then we should of course not attribute those words to him.

I believe Peter Thornycroft wrote in his booklet Design for Europe (1947);

No government dependent upon a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifice which any adequate plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked, in advance of having received any of the benefits which will accrue to them from the plan, to make changes of which they may not at first recognise the advantage to themselves as well as to the rest of the world quoted by Bill Jamieson in Britain Beyond Europe.

This clearly shows that the thoughts around creating the United States of Europe over the heads of the people were being suggested at the time. The words attributed to Monnet do sit at ease with those of Thornycroft and other quotes of Monnet show that he was of the same mind when it came to declaring openly the final outcome of his dream of a United States of Europe.

At the National Press Club Washington, D.C. April 30th 1952 Monnet said:

Our times demand that we bring the European peoples together and not keep them apart. We are not uniting states, we are uniting human beings.

That we bring the European peoples together seems to clearly indicate that Monnet thought it was up to himself and his associates to bring about this unity.

One cannot wait for the resolution of all contingencies in advance, before bringing one own judgment to bear upon the action demanded by the needs of the present.

This seems to be advocating some form of action towards his USE that did not require a candid statement of the final outcome. This is confirmed in the following paragraph;

In the conduct of our individual lives, we do not wait for action to have the future completely revealed to us. There is nothing more sterile than to pose in a present context a question which will arise only in the future, where the very purpose of our action is to change that context. If we do not act until we know the answers to all possible questions, we shall never act, we shall never achieve the certainty for which we have been waiting, and we shall be swept along by events which we have forfeited the power to control.

Monnet does seem to be advocating if not deceit, at least misdirection and this was before the French put paid to the idea of the European Defence Community, the words attributed to him, do describe the strategy behind the Monnet Method, imprecise and steady redirection of power from the nation states to a European Level.

The point is even if Monnet did not say Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. That is exactly what has been happening, and that is exactly the Monnet method in action, Monnet did want a united Europe and was clear in his ideas that the people should not be allowed to stand in the way. The fact is that Monnet would have had no argument with the sentiments expressed in the quote.

Myrto Tsakatika University of Essex

Monnet`s aim was to unite Europe so that the devastation of war and economic destruction that it witnessed during the two world wars of the twentieth century would not be repeated. This was not a new idea; what was new was the way, or “the method” which he envisaged for the uniting
of Europe. Europe, Monnet writes in his Memoirs:

will not be built all at once, or as a single whole: it will be built by concrete achievements which first create de facto solidarity. (Monnet, 1978: 300).

The way to unite Europe would be to show the States their common interests and convince them to act on these interests, pursuing them on a permanent basis. Concerted action was to be a “concrete achievement”, insofar as there was continuity and institutionalisation of a variety of partial projects of co-operation on economic and social issues the common projects that would result from it. These projects would habituate European states and their citizens in co-operation. Gradually co-operation would be needed on other projects and whole sectors of common activity, due to the inter-dependence that would emerge from initial co-operation.

Given time, Europe would become united without realising it, as common projects would lead European states to pool their sovereignties.

The Monnet plan stood on two clearly distinguishable intellectual premises. The first premise was neo-functionalist incrementalism: In the fifties and sixties, neo-functionalism was highly influential in attempts to explain the impetus towards European Integration. Since then, although it has gone through modifications and reappraisals, it has been and continues to be one of the most influential approaches to European integration. At its core was the concept of ‘spillover’, the prediction that once initially triggered, European integration, at least at the economic level, would be self-sustaining. Initial co-operation on partial, but well-focused projects would get the internal dynamics of the community going, leading it to further, co-operation. Cooperation in one sector would gradually require co-operation in other sectors (Lindberg, 1963:

10-11). Economic inter-dependence would be the drive behind this movement towards integration, which would proceed quasi-automatically ˜functional spillover”, not political decision, i.e. an overarching public political agreement or a constitution. The consideration here was that the political sphere can be separated from the socio-economic sphere and that political union would come, if at all, at the end of a long process of economic engagement and intradependence.

Citizen allegiance and support was not initially necessary; rather it would follow from the spill-over process, as loyalties would be ˜redirected” from the national to the European level (Haas, 1958: 16).

The second intellectual premise of the Monnet plan was technocratic elitism: Jack Hayward claims that Monnet was: accustomed to the manipulation of politicians whose expectancy of high office in any government was likely to be short-lived and of bureaucrats more inclined to inertia than innovation (Hayward, 1996:252).

Monnet`s general preference for governance by a technocratic elite, in other words, was due to his experience of the Fourth French Republic and to the operation of the French Planning Commission, which he headed after the war (Page, 1997: 5). Monnet experienced the instability and inefficiency of the governance of France, which was due to the radical and conflict-ridden parliamentary politics of the time, and he sought not to inflict the new European project with those shortcomings. Instead, he was in favour of governance by a small group of experts, because technocratic governance had been, in his view, the stable, long-term oriented and ˜responsible element throughout the Fourth French Republic (Duchne, 1996: 51-53). It is

possible that his Fourth Republic experience led him to assume that selected technocrats are more likely to be responsible than political agents.

Eurealist :: Anything to declare, Mr Barroso?: “Anything to declare, Mr Barroso?
by Eurealist at 07:40AM (BST) on April 24, 2005 | Permanent Link | Cosmos
Telegraph | News | Christopher Booker’s notebook When it emerged last week that two EU commissioners, Peter Mandelson and José Manuel Barroso, the Commission’s Portuguese president, hadn’t declared hospitality received on the yachts of two billionaires, it was inevitable that British media attention would centre on Mr Mandelson. But far more serious are the issues raised by President Barroso’s admission that last year, just before he took office, he spent six days on the yacht of Spiros Latsis, one of the richest and most powerful businessmen in Greece. José Manuel Barroso José Manuel Barroso The previous week, all 25 commissioners had agreed that Mr Barroso’s holiday posed no conflict of interest. Yet what they may not have known was the substantial involvement of Mr Latsis’s group of banking, petroleum, engineering and construction companies in the new Athens International Airport, at £1.6 billion the most expensive airport project in Europe. This was constructed by a German company Hochtief, with the aid of nearly £900 million-worth of funding from EU taxpayers and the EU’s European Investment Bank (EIB). Although Hochtief and the Latsis group are partners in a series of part-EU-funded construction projects in Greece, the European Commission’s chief spokesman said last week that she was ‘not aware that the group had benefited from EU funding’. Even more relevant is the ongoing controversy over EU funding of the airport at Spata, near Athens, on which I reported here as long ago as March 2004, and in which it now emerges that the Latsis group has significant interests.”

Eurealist :: Electioneering for power at a local council: “Electioneering for power at a local council
by Eurealist at 09:09AM (BST) on April 25, 2005 | Permanent Link | Cosmos

I have been away for part of the week and then to busy to post much, as I have been relying on the main BBC news for information on the election, it has evident that the EU does not figure at all in the election debates. I did note on Sunday the article in the Telegraph “Europe is missing” a point taken up by William Rees-Mogg in the Times today.

How is it that at a time when we are being asked to elect a government, the biggest and most important issue to face every aspect of our lives, is pushed so far to the sidelines that no one is even prepared to debate the affects EU membership has on the policies of that government, this is a no go area, all of the main parties and the media, are for their own reasons refusing to enter into the debate. It is as the Telegraph says, only to be expected, given its marginal presence in the campaign and is perhaps the reason why an ICM poll shows that only 4 per cent of voters regard Europe as the most important issue in the election.

As Richard North at EU Referendum notes “Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the leader in The Sunday Telegraph today, rejoicing in the title ‘Europe is missing’, is that it was published at all.

In common with the political parties, the media itself has been at pains to avoid bringing the European Union into the cockpit of general election politics, yet it is precisely that phenomenon which the is remarked upon by the Telegraph.”

The Telegraph say “it would be a shame if European policy did not play a significant part in voters’ deliberations, as it is one of the areas where there is a pronounced difference between the two main parties. On the economy, for instance, Labour and the Tories quibble over whether the State should spend 42 or 40 per cent of the nation’s income. But on Europe, Mr Blair and Mr Howard offer quite different visions.”

Perhaps this is the point, conceivable it could be argued that the Conservative policy on the EU is intended not as a real alternative to Tony Blair’s Pro-EU and Pro-Constitutional stance, but is merely a sop to the Consevative core vote, in an attempt to attract voters back from UKIP. Thus it is not something the Conservatives want to make a big deal over, just in case they have to actually implement the policies of repatriating powers if elected. As any attempt at renegotiation is going to be rejected by the EU, failure will be that much more damaging to the party, if the Conservatives were elected on a clearly articulated policy, especially as Howard also says that he will not take Britian out of the EU if his negotiations fail. This part policy is looking less like promise to the people of this country to do something to repatriate powers from the EU and more like electioneering for power at a local council.

Eurealist :: Why are the Conservatives so reluctant to play to their strengths: “Why are the Conservatives so reluctant to play to their strengths
by Eurealist at 07:50AM (BST) on April 25, 2005 | Permanent Link | Cosmos

William Rees-Mogg asks in the Times “Why this baffling silence?”

NEXT MONTH there will be historic votes both in Britain and France; the British general election on May 5 and the French referendum on the European constitutional treaty on May 29. In both countries the Government is in favour of the European constitution and supports ratification. In Britain, the Conservatives are the only major party opposed to the constitutional treaty.

In France, the past three months have seen a large and rapid swing of opinion against the constitution. Earlier in the year the “Yes” vote had a majority of 60 to 40 per cent in the polls; that has been reversed and the “No” campaign is now in a 60 to 40 majority. In Britain, where the European issue has played hardly any part in the election campaign, there has been a small increase in the Government’s lead, from around 5 to 6 per cent. The European issue has moved public opinion massively in France, but the opposition campaign in Britain has so far failed to prevent a small seepage of support back to Labour.

The European issue has gripped the imagination of France. If there had been a similar 20 per cent swing in Britain, the Conservatives would be in the lead by a wide margin. This actually happened last June in the European elections. The Conservatives came comfortably first. The combined Eurosceptic vote, including both Conservative and the UKIP, won 45 per cent of the vote to Labour’s 23 per cent.

Europe is a big issue for Britain and for France. Whatever view one takes of the constitutional treaty, it needs to be argued through. The United Kingdom cannot lose its liberty in a fit of mere absent-mindedness.

It is argued, mainly by the small minority of Conservative Euro-extremists, that voters are not interested in Europe, that William Hague’s Eurosceptic campaign in 2001 did not help him much, and that the electorate is content to leave the euro and the constitutional treaty to future referendums. Since the Conservatives have refrained from campaigning on the European issue, we may never know whether these arguments are valid. I doubt it.

I was reporting on the 2001 general election mainly in the West Midlands, but also in Scotland and the West Country. My view is that the opinion polls at the time did reflect some reality, though they always exaggerated the Labour lead. They recorded a huge Labour lead in the middle of the campaign, whittled down in the last ten days when William Hague was emphasising the issue of the euro. On May 24, MORI in The Times gave Labour a 25-point lead; on June 7 Labour won the election but with only a nine-point lead. MORI may have been exaggerating, but there probably was a big swing to the Tories during the European phase of Hague’s election campaign.

I do not believe that British voters do not care whether they become a province of a European superstate, whether European integration is taken further, whether European law is given complete constitutional priority over British law or whether Britain remains a self-governing democracy.

None of the three main parties is campaigning on this issue. I quite understand why the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats do not do so. They are both in favour of joining the single currency, with the loss of control of our own currency and interest rates, and of ratifying the constitutional treaty, with the loss of our national independence. They know that these policies are extremely unpopular.

Last June the European election gave the Lib Dems only 15 per cent of the vote, in fourth place below the UKIP. Yet on the same day, in the same polling stations, the Lib Dems won 30 per cent of the vote in the local government elections. As their European policies lost the Lib Dems half their support, they are wise not to talk about them. The same is true for Labour.

It is the Conservative failure to make an election issue of Europe that is impossible to explain. The Conservative policies are perfectly sound. They are against joining the euro, which in principle the Government wants to do. They are against ratifying the constitutional treaty, which the Prime Minister has already signed. They want to recover powers from Europe, particularly in fisheries and immigration.

That really is the big question, why are the Conservatives so reluctant to play to their strengths, why are they allowing the other parties and the media to dictate the issues that will be aired in the election debate. The tactic agreement not to debate the areas of policy that the British government no longer has control is making a mockery of the pretensions that the decision we make on May 5 will be important for our futures.

If Howard has bowed to “the small minority of Conservative Euro-extremists” then obviously he is not clear enough in his own ideas on the future place of Britain in the EU, and will not have the strength to see through the negotiations that will be required to return the areas of power to the British Parliament, thus he is perhaps inadvertently confirming the view expressed by Dennis MacShane that the Conservative policies have no chance of being implemented if they were to be elected.

Howard says that if elected the Conservatives will hold a referendum on the constitution within six months and if the vote is No, this would give him a double mandate, how can he claim that, if the EU takes no part in the election debate. I think William Rees-Mogg has called the problem right, but feel that because the Conservatives have not built a case against the constitution and the intrusive nature of the EU then to do so now would fall into the same trap, as William Hague, to little to late. This will set back the Eusceptic campaign, because those same Euro-extremists in the party, will again be able to claim without any evidence that the EU is not important to the voters, whilst it is obvious that the Euro-extremists themselves would prefer to see a Labour Government that is in favour of joining the single currency, with the loss of control of our own currency and interest rates, and of ratifying the constitutional treaty, with the loss of our national independence, rather than a Conservative administration that “says” it is opposed, but will not stand for election on that issue.