eurealist.co.uk

England Expects: Here is the Conflict of interest: “Here is the Conflict of interest
European Commission President Barroso stated today that ‘No institution of the European Union can criticise another institution’.
Unbelievable. Henceforward there is no separation of powers in the EU.
Not only that but he also made it clear that no MEP can ask questions about hospitality received by a Commissioner. Thus any gift of any value from anybody is now sacrosanct. This is a disgrace - and one that will be relayed to the people’s of France and Holland I can assure you.”

As expected the MEPs have torpedo motion of censure against Barroso, European Parliament political leaders blasted the campaign to censure Jose Manuel Barroso over the Spiros Latsis cruise, calling the motion “indecent” and accusing its authors of political vandalism.
Barroso said the motion “crossed the line between democracy and demagoguery” and was aimed at undermining public trust in EU institutions.

Is it not strange that a motion calling for more openness, for full disclosure of commissioners’ hospitality and gifts in the face some very suspect dealings, should be condemned as a motion to bring the EU institutions into discredit by Hans-Gert Poettering, this is the same EU that has not had its own accounts signed off by its own accountants for the past ten years, the same EU that has been shown to have supported Terrorism with our money, the same group of MEP that also refused to allow proper accounting of their own travel allowances. And they have the temerity to call this motion a weapon to bring the institutions into discredit a few days before the constitution referendum in France and the Netherlands.
Pottering also said the other MEPs in the group who signed the petition were beyond the pale. Nigel Farage’s was obviously going beyond the pale when he said “We want transparency, we want proper parliamentary procedure and we want the European Parliament for once to stand up and do its job”.
But perhaps the most telling comment of the day came from the president’s spokeswoman, Francois Le Bail, who blamed the recent lack of progress on major legislation on the constitutional referenda, rather than the negative spin surrounding Mr Barroso’s holidays and bodyguards.

“We are in a very particular period just now and it is very difficult to move forward on a number of things”, but in a warning to all of those who are voting on the constitution in the next few days, she said “Things are going to start moving again soon” So the EU commissioners are holding back until they have the French and the Dutch referendum under their collective belts before proceeding with their plans.

Eurealist :: Main Page: “The government’s dirty trick over the Referendum Bill
by Eurealist on May 25, 2005 11:17AM (BST)
Last night the Government published a bill preparing for a British referendum on the EU constitution next year. All well and good, except the same bill, entitled the European Union bill, allows for both the British referendum and for the constitution to be adopted into UK law if approved.

Which means that any MP who does not want the Constitution but wants to vote for a referendum on the Constitution must also vote for the Constitution itself which they really do not want. The reverse is also true that an MP who want the Constitution but does not want the people to be consulted, must in that case either vote against the people being consulted in which case they are also voting against the Constitution which they really want.

So a vote for the constitution is also a vote for the referendum, a vote against the constitution is also a vote against a referendum. Of course just to make sure they have covered as many possibilities as possible the result of a British referendum would not be legally binding on the government, it can if it wishes ratify the constitution even after we have all said “No””

Eurealist :: Main Page: “View Article A COMMON corporation tax
by Eurealist on May 25, 2005 10:55AM (BST)

A COMMON corporation tax could be in place across Europe within three years, the EU Tax Commissioner predicted today. Laszlo Kovacs said those countries that currently opposed such a move, seeing it as an attack on their sovereign right to fix economic policy, would come around.

Skip additional links’My assessment is three years if everything goes well,’ Kovacs told a conference on EU policy in Stockholm when asked when the common corporate tax base would be ready.

He said a working group of senior officials was already looking at different ways that tax bases could be harmonised.

‘At the moment there are 25 different ways to calculate the corporate tax base … If we manage to have only one EU-wide set of rules that will increase competitiveness,’ he added.

He said 20 countries backed having such a single way of calculating corporate tax, with 4 or 5 other countries more reluctant.

‘They are afraid that it is a Trojan horse to implement the harmonisation of tax rates at a later stage,’ he said. ‘We have no ambition and I have no personal ambition (to do that).’

His predecessor overseeing EU tax affairs, Dutchman Frits Bolkestein, made the original proposal on a common corporate tax base last year and finance ministers agreed in September 2004 to study the possible launch of such a system.

Kovacs also said he favoured allowing the 10 new member states of the EU to able to extend the exceptions they have from current minimum VAT rates of 15% when they expire in 2010 in order to stay competitive with the 15 old members, whose derogations from minimum rates have no time limit.

However the Government promise on the FCO EU Myth website:

We control tax and social security
The Government negotiated successfully to keep a national veto over tax proposals.

They also tell us

Our rebate remains protected
We keep a veto over the UK’s contributions to the EU budget. That means we can block any attempt to end our rebate.

Reading the news recently we can assess how much relevance to give that statement!

On a different point but totally incorrect the FCO goes on to say:

Social Security proposals are subject to an effective veto through a national ‘emergency brake’ mechanism allowing any Member State to refer a proposed law to the European Council (the body composed of national heads of state/government) for decision by consensus.

Subsidiarity, is not an emergency break, the only power it gives to the British government is the power to be ignored

Ian Barber, Acting Head of the European Commission in the UK writes in the Telegraph about the grounding of Sally B. He says it is important to understand that the rules were introduced. After September 11, many airline companies found their cover to be inadequate and in several countries the state was obliged to assume the role of insurer. To prevent this happening again, new laws were approved by EU governments and the European Parliament introduced minimum insurance requirements that all aircraft owners are now obliged to take out. Surely it is not being suggested that planes fly without adequate insurance?

Ian Barber is perhaps missing the point the Sally B is not an airliner, it is a World War II bomber as such it is ridiculous to insist that it must fit the criteria set for air liners that carry passengers.
Nobody is suggesting that airliners should fly without insurance, but the question might be asked why individual businesses should be asked to foot the bill for the protection from terrorist actions that are the responsibility of the state. Or why those rules should not be applied reasonably in this situation, the one size fits all preference of the EU has many drawbacks if applied in the way ther appear to be. Another question might be if the EU is so concerned about terrorists why is it that they have clearly financed terrorist organisations in the Middle East.

Ian Barber also says these rules were voted on by British ministers and MEPs, who were intrinsically involved throughout the legislative process, but was the British parliament I think not. And what control do we the British people have on the Council of ministers, who as a body are not responsible to anyone, the MEPs are elected by the people but how is that democratic as they do not offer us a set of policies from which to choose in fact it is a case of vote for me and I will do what I wish.