eurealist.co.uk

Getting ready for a “no2 Wouter Bos, head of the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA), said in an interview. If the Dutch vote ‘no’ to the treaty, ‘we will have to see if the Netherlands stands alone, the Netherlands could then organize a second referendum. So vote yes this time or we will just keep on asking until you do as you are told.

The Hansard Society committee a team comprising MPs, academics and journalists headed by the Labour peer Lord Puttnam. The commission was set up after the 2001 election, when the turnout plunged to 59%.In a report out today says:

“There is an extraordinary confusion between the role of parliament and the role of government. People genuinely now see parliament and government as one and the same. “We’ve got an executive with increasing and enormous powers but we don’t have parliament with sufficient self-confidence or [a] sufficient relationship with the public at large to check those power the report makes a total of 39 recommendations aimed at making parliament more prominent and relevant to people’s lives.”

As one might expect in a committee led by a film producer the real problems of parliament are swamped in a plea for more and better media coverage, more angles to shoot from, more areas to shoot in, more freedom for the TV crews to wander about the place, more intrusive coverage, almost as if democracy depended on a TV produces power to interpret parliamentary process in a way that they feel makes it more exiting.

“Parliament should relax its rules on TV coverage to allow voters to see “reaction shots” of MPs, also calls for more interviews shot in and around the palace of Westminster - which are currently tightly restricted - and an end to the ban on still photography. The report says: “The rules of television coverage in the chambers should be relaxed to allow, for example, further reaction shots, appropriate use of close-ups, more panning shots of back benches and a wider range of options during division.”

Other recommendations include a new website to replace the current, confusing, parliamentary portal - which Lord Puttnam dubbed a “anoraks’ site” - a new specific communications service to publicise the activities of the Lords and Commons, headed by a joint committee of peers and MPs, and an increase in the number of media passes allowed.

The report calls on ITV and the commercial sector broadcasters to reassert their commitment to regional and national news and current affairs, while recommending that the BBC integrate its Parliament Channel better into mainstream broadcasting, and report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on how it will provide “engaging, innovative and accessible” coverage of parliament.
The report also demands more filming of non-chamber parliamentary proceedings, such as select committees. TV cameras were first allowed into the Commons chamber in 1989 - barely a decade after audio broadcasts of debates on the radio.”

How any of this enhancing the power of the media to show what they want to show, and not to show what they do not, will help in the battle to make government accountable to the people via their elected representatives is anyone’s guess. I would hesitantly suggest that the fall off in support for our political process has gone hand in hand with the broadcasting of parliament, although it would be churlish of me to suggest that is the cause.

The idea is sound, that we the people should see how our laws are made and become involved in the process through television, but as we have seen the only coverage we are offered, are the sound bites the TV producers wish us to see, often with a journalist using the recordings to make the point they wish to make. The coverage of Prime Minister Question Time on Radio 5 live has become a joke and made so, not by the politicians but by the commentators who see it a battle of who is top dog each week, who scores the best points against whom.

Perhaps if the politicians we elect did begin to hold the executive to account, then we would see a revival in the peoples interest in politics, but that of course depends on the ability of the government to make the laws in the first place, as it stands at the moment with over 70% of our laws emanating not from Westminster, but from Brussels, the MP`s we elect to Westminster have no power to influence those laws whether they hold the government to account or not.

Lord Puttnam and his team can suggest ways of making the parliament circus more acceptable to the media hacks, but that ain`t going to make the goings on in Parliament more relevant to peoples lives, unless you are one of those who consider soaps to be relevant, or alter the basic problem with either parliament or peoples perceptions of the place, which seems to be about right, that it is an expensive waste of time, that has become no more than an enabling committee for the European Union.

Iain Duncan Smith answers the arguments for changes in the Tory leader rules.

Two main arguments have been advanced against the current membership-based democracy. The first is that it elected me. I am happy to take this on the chin. But let’s face it: the parliamentary party controlled the election of Margaret Thatcher, John Major and William Hague, yet each of those three leaders suffered from attacks from the very MPs who installed them.
The second argument is one against the membership. High-ups who have criticised grassroots activists appear to have quickly forgotten the sacrificial efforts of members to elect MPs. Members have been caricatured as unrepresentative of the country at large, extreme in their opinions, and uninformed about the qualities necessary in a leader.
The Conservative grassroots may be “unrepresentative” insofar as any organisation made up of people who are interested in politics will be unrepresentative. Most Britons are not interested in politics. But the voluntary party may turn out to be more representative than the MPs. It is rooted in every walk of life, comprising soldiers, teachers, doctors, businesspeople, full-time and working mothers, churchgoers and students. They staff advice centres, deliver meals on wheels, volunteer for local charities. They are certainly older than the average age - but so are the people who vote. The party has more women than men, just like British society. The male-dominated parliamentary party is composed overwhelmingly of lawyers, bankers and career politicians.
In the days when the party had MPs in every corner of the country, it might have been reasonable to argue that they should elect their leader. It is questionable whether that argument is as appropriate today. Our seats are overwhelmingly in the shires and suburbs of England. If Conservative MPs have the final say, Scotland will have one vote in the election. Wales will have three. England will have 97 per cent of the electorate. Even more importantly, none of the electors will represent Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham. Furthermore, constituencies we must win at the next election will have no voice.
The second criticism made of the membership is that it is ”too extreme”. This is often code for ”Euro-sceptic” - as Michael Heseltine made clear at the weekend when he urged a change of rules. That is not the impression I get from meeting local activists. While there is no doubt that the membership is anxious about the drift towards the European superstate, that anxiety is shared by the country at large. And the membership shares the country’s other anxieties, too.
Whenever I attend constituency events I am as likely to be asked about schools, crime or the NHS as about Europe. My guess is that the membership has more exposure to public service failure than the Westminster political class.
The final criticism is that Conservative grassroots are “uninformed” about the qualities required in a leader. I gently remind those critics that, two weeks ago, ”uninformed” members of the public were trusted with the election of our government, not Westminster insiders.
Moreover, the criticism is an argument for the wholesale centralisation of the party. Why should the volunteers choose parliamentary candidates, if they cannot choose the leader? The 2005 intake of new MPs is the best I can remember.
The fundamental problem with public institutions is their centralisation, and the degree to which unaccountable elites accrue power at the expense of people. The victims of this centralisation are children trapped in failing schools, pensioners trapped in failing hospitals, and families suffering the debilitating effects of over-bureaucratic policing and a welfare state that discourages personal responsibility. The country needs more local democracy - and so does the Conservative Party.
I am concerned that this debate about the leadership will be seen in the narrowest of terms. In fact it should be part of a bigger debate about the direction for the party - and how we go about our politics. Yesterday I published a paper that urges the party to look beyond the Westminster village and adopt a commitment to social justice.
This commitment is all about making politics work for the hardest-hit communities. We need to be seen to be on the side of Britain’s conservative majority. The people that Australia’s John Howard calls the battlers - the hard-working people who suffer most from the political establishment’s failure to tackle pensioner poverty, drug addiction, violent crime and family breakdown.
These people have suffered from an overcentralised welfare state oblivious to their aspirations, needs and experiences. A welfare state that has too often damaged the social cohesion of the welfare society upon which our wellbeing depends.
Being on their side will broaden and complete our Conservatism so that we are seen once again as a party that cares for the whole nation. So people see a Conservative Party that is good for them and also for their neighbour. Polls show a hunger among the electorate for a party that embraces an agenda of social justice. Only when our policies are seen to work for every member of society will we break through the glass ceiling that has kept our support below a third of the electorate at three successive elections.
Whatever the party decides to do with the rules, I will support the outcome, just as I supported Michael Howard throughout his leadership. But we must have a vigorous debate before we decide those rules and before we decide who will be our next leader and what party strategy should be. Members must not be cowed into abdicating their powers. It is they, in unison with my parliamentary colleagues, who are the future of the Conservative Party.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he is “extremely concerned” about the latest polls both in the Netherlands and France, where 52 percent of voters are set to vote against the constitution on 29 May.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said “The government is very motivated, we are in the final phase and we will do what we can to get the ‘yes’.

This includes a government’s allocation of EUR 3.5 million to the ‘yes’ campaign for the 1 June referendum.

The provision has caused annoyance in the No campaign who are taking the government to court because they say this allocation breaks the Dutch referendum legislation which states that only EUR 1 million may be allocated to government campaigns and that the independent referendum commission must divide the funding between the pro and anti-campaigns.

The No campaign will request the court ban the State from using the extra funding, prevent the distribution of a new information brochure and order the removal of pro-constitution television, radio and press commercials.
If the court rules that the committee should be granted equal means to conduct a ‘no campaign’, it will not demand the aforementioned bans.

Lord Owen writing in the Times suggests three ways to limit the damage of the EU Constitution in the event of a yes vote, the three methods he proposes are at the behest of our own government. The opportunity for improvement is presented by the Government’s European Union Bill. Intended to pave the way for a referendum, it can be amended to do much more.
Lord Owen accepts the reluctance of those who are opposed to the constitution to do anything to make it more palatable. “They may prefer to leave it as it is, feeling that unchanged it is more likely to be rejected by voters.” But he says “against the temptation to do nothing is the responsibility to do everything to ensure that the self-governing, democratic nature of this country is not put at risk by the constitution’s hotchpotch of new commitments and extensions of EU power.”

Democrats need to prepare themselves not only for a referendum, but also for the possibility of a British “yes”. It is important that we do whatever we can now to limit any damage the constitution might do.

Lord Owen says, “Sadly, we cannot change the words that have been negotiated in the Treaty of Nice but there are democratic safeguards which Parliament can insist on by amending the European Union Bill.”

Firstly, an amendment to the Bill to ensure that no decision to move to a common European Union defence policy — which has far-reaching consequences for Nato — could be taken unanimously in the European Council without there first being a specific Act passed by the British Parliament. This would mean that parliamentary approval would be required before a British Government could exercise its voting rights in the European Council on this vital issue.
Secondly, we need an amendment to ensure that no British minister could agree changes to the constitution without going through the full existing ratification procedure in the UK involving primary legislation and, on occasions, a referendum. This would include such matters as the substitution of qualified majority voting for unanimity, such as in the area of taxation.

This amendment would overturn the effect of the simplified revision procedure, the new form of “passerelle” clause — which gives the right to the Council of Ministers acting unanimously to abolish national vetoes — without changing the text of the Treaty. Instead of only ministers deciding, Parliament, as at present, would have to pass legislation before any ministerial agreement in the councils of the EU.

Thirdly, the Government should add an “interpretative declaration” to the European Union Bill. This would, among other things, include an explicit wording that ruled out the new post of President of the European Council being held by the same person who is President of the Commission. It is important that this is ruled out because bringing together the executive powers of the President of the Commission with the intergovernmental power of the European Council (the heads of government) would be a big step towards integration.

The Government’s explanatory memorandum to the EU Bill deals with this, but it has no legal force. An interpretative declaration, by contrast, would have the full force of British law, indicating the Westminster Parliament’s understanding of the meaning of the words in the Treaty. A breach could thereby be appealed to the newly established UK Supreme Court. That court would then be able to uphold Parliament’s understanding of the specific words in the constitution, as set out at the time of passing the legislation. The court would not be imposing its own interpretation of the words — an important distinction for those who do not want our Supreme Court to develop along American lines.

Only by adding an interpretative declaration would the British courts be able to negate a judgment of the European Court of Justice, if the ECJ ever ruled in favour of double-hatting these two presidencies at some future date. Without this power the UK would be unable to stop a qualified majority vote for what would be a major move towards integration, one which the Dutch Government and others want and believe is allowed for in the text of the constitution.

There are many other instances where the wording of the proposed constitution is unclear, as has been shown by experts in the recent House of Commons European scrutiny committee report. Some of these hazy wordings could be clarified in the interpretative declaration — for example, stating Parliament’s understanding that all aspects of a common foreign and security policy are outside the power of the European Court of Justice.

Lord Owen “I do not pretend that these suggested amendments would make the constitution acceptable to so many people that it would prevent a “no” vote in any referendum, but they would make it easier for the UK to prevent some of the constitution’s more damaging aspects being realised. Parliamentarians, irrespective of their views on the European constitution, have a duty to introduce these democratic safeguards.”

Lord Owen has pointed out some of the dangers in the Constitution and has suggested some reasonable democratic safeguards, which would have the effect of maintaining the power of our own elected MP`s in the face of intergrationalist policies emanating from the EU. It will now be interesting to see what Tony Blair’s real intentions are based on Lord Owens benchmark. If Blair does not include these safeguards then we will know for certain that he intends to use the powers the EU Constitution grants him to undermine the authority of the British Parliament.

Telegraph opinion “A No vote is a vote for repatriation of power” I saved this last week intending a comment but got to busy at the time, I still think it is worth considering the argument, although basically wrong it does put into context the idea that Blair and co advance, that a No vote in the referendum, if we ever get one, is a vote to leave the EU. This is an attempt to frighten the children, by offering only the vision of a Britain sidelined in Europe with no say in the direction of the EU and no alternative on the table, the Pro-Constitutionites hope that we will vote to accept their vision of a United Europe because we have nowhere else to go.
The real case is that if we vote “No”, we will still be in the EU, and the present treaties will still stand, the only problems created by a no vote would be problems for the EU elites, who have failed to communicate their desire for an integrated United States of Europe to the people, and would then have no alternative other than to ratify the constitution anyway over the heads of the people, or to go back to the drawing board.
The Telegraph makes the point that the constitution is not simply the latest in a series of treaties: it alters the legal basis of the EU. On the day it enters into force, all existing treaties will be dissolved. The EU will cease to be an association of states, deriving its authority from its constituent members, and instead draw its legitimacy directly from its own founding charter. It will acquire almost every attribute recognised by international law as a feature of statehood: legal personality, treaty-making powers, a head of state, external frontiers, accredited diplomats.
So we are not simply being asked to vote yes to a new treaty, but the change of our own constitution the basic way in which we will be governed in the future.
Anyone who thinks that we exaggerate should read the text (available online at www.euabc.com). You need only look at the first dozen or so clauses to get a sense of what the constitution is about: “The Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the Member States” (Article I-6); “The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence” (Article I-12). Then comes the list of areas where Brussels is to have jurisdiction: transport, energy, agriculture, fisheries, trade competition, asylum, immigration, social policy, employment law, foreign affairs, defence, space exploration, justice and home affairs. No wonder Tony Blair spent the election blathering about schools and hospitals: they’re pretty much all he’ll have left.
This point is not made flippantly. European integration was a malign if unremarked presence throughout the recent campaign. There it sat like Banquo’s ghost, invisible to most voters, but shaking its gory locks at the party leaders, who knew that they had to draw up their manifestos within the parameters allowed by EU law. There was a spectacular illustration of this when Michael Howard pledged that a future Conservative government would set an upper limit for immigrants and a separate quota for refugees, only to be told that such a policy was not compatible with the EU’s “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice” (1984-style nomenclature is very much a feature of Brussels life).
Equally, no party could promise to revive our countryside (because of the CAP), rescue our fishing communities (because of the CFP) or deregulate our labour markets (because of the social chapter). No party could take up this newspaper’s proposal to replace VAT with a local sales tax.
Ah yes, say the supporters of the constitution, but these are not new grievances: they mainly derive from past treaties. Perhaps so. But the fact that the constitution entrenches a number of things that we already disliked is hardly an argument for voting “yes”. When Mr Blair says that this is a referendum on the wider question of Britain’s relationship with Brussels, he is right. Since this is the first time that we have been asked our opinion in 30 years, it is only natural that we should wish to express a view on the various transfers of power to the EU that have happened over that period. But having thus defined the contest, Mr Blair must accept the logic of his own position. A “no” vote would not simply be a vote for the status quo: it would be a vote for the wholesale repatriation of power from Brussels and the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. If he cannot bring himself to accept this, Mr Blair will surely have to make way for someone who can.

Absolutely stunning article by Larry Elliott in The Guardian

Back in the mid-1980s a mighty war raged between Pepsi and Coke. Fearful that its supremacy in the global fizzy drink market was under threat, the Coca-Cola company changed its formula and came up with New Coke.

Coke was sure that this was precisely what the punters wanted. It was wrong. New Coke was a disaster. It bombed, and within three months had been withdrawn. Coca-Cola listened to its customers and acted fast, putting the old brand back on the shelves.
What it didn’t do was sit around pretending that the real problem was that customers simply did not understand just how much better New Coke was than Old Coke. This story is retold by Paul Ormerod in his new book, Why Most Things Fail*, and is especially pertinent in the light of the referendums being conducted in France and the Netherlands next week on the new European constitution.

Imagine for a moment that those masterminding the future of Europe had been running Coca-Cola in the 1980s. How would they have responded to the crisis caused by the public’s obvious lack of appetite for New Coke? Would they have picked up the glaringly obvious signals coming up from the marketplace or would they have carried on producing New Coke regardless, assuming that consumers would eventually get the message? The answer is pretty clear. As far as Europe’s elite is concerned, the customer is never right or at least not unless the customer wants what the producer is willing to provide. And that’s why Europe has a huge political as well as economic problem on its hands.
……..
Ormerod says, there is no iron law of success but there is an iron law of failure, and that law is pretty simple - adapt or die. Supporters of the new constitution say that this imperative is well understood and is the reason why there should be a ringing endorsement from two of the founder members of the European Union in a few days.

A Europe of 25 countries facing tough and growing competition from Asia cannot operate in the way it did when there were six countries operating in the more confined economic environment of the 1950s and 1960s. Europe, it is said, cannot stand still; it either has to go forwards or go backwards. Europe has been a bulwark against fascism, is a beacon of social democracy and a counter-balance to the hegemony of the US. All this success will be put at risk if the constitution is rejected.

One sign of success, certainly, is that more countries want to join. Nevertheless, it is considered bad form to state the blindingly obvious; that Europe exhibits more signs of failure than of success.
First, there is the constitution itself. Nobody is quite sure whether the new blueprint is an Anglo-Saxon Trojan horse or a device to enshrine high taxes and inflexibility across the continent. The lack of clarity suggests a dearth of vision and a surfeit of fudge.

Second, there is a reality gap between what people want, hope and expect Europe to deliver and what it is actually delivering. The acid test of social democracy is unemployment, because if you are out of work you are far more likely to be poor and marginalised. In the 1960s, unemployment in France and Germany was around 2% - half the US’s.

Today in the eurozone’s two biggest economies it is above 10%, while America’s unemployment rate is little changed. High and persistent levels of joblessness have proved fertile breeding grounds for the extreme right: fascism is now more evident in Europe than at any time since the second world war.

As for the argument that Europe will be a cuddlier, gentler superpower, that doesn’t appear to be the message from the one area where Brussels does punch at the same weight as Washington - trade. Despite all the pro-development rhetoric, Europe has the same self-interested, mercantilist view of the world as does the US.

Third, there’s the hard evidence of Europe’s recent past. The sequence goes something like this. Originally, there was a free-trade area, but that was not exciting enough a project. So, the idea for a single market was born. Once this was up and running (after a fashion because it is still not actually completed), it was decided that
Europe needed a single currency to make the single market work.

Now that Europe has a single currency, it needs greater political integration to make the euro work. This is very much the Gosplan approach to life; a group of central planners get together and decide what should happen. The comparison with the Soviet Union is not idle; at each stage of this process, the European Union has grown more slowly. The US has shown it a clean pair of heels in every year bar one since 1991.
……

The single currency is Europe’s New Coke; it’s a failing brand. Unlike the Coca-Cola corporation, however, the pretence is that all is well and that no policy response is needed. Does this mean that the collapse of the European Union is inevitable? Not at all: nothing is inevitable. What is clear, however, is that the danger signs are flashing red. Some pro-Europeans have seen this coming for some time. Caroline Lucas, one of the UK’s green MPs has constantly warned of the dangers of building from the top down rather than from the bottom up.

Many people in Europe are voting with their feet. They are walking out of the store. If those running the joint conclude that the people are stupid and need to be re-educated they will be making a serious mistake. Perhaps even a fatal one.

Scoop Independent News says the EU is jumping on the Eurovision bandwagon
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S DELEGATION TO AUSTRALIA is offering party packs so that Aussie fans of Europes kitsch night of nights cracking out the champers (French of course) and crowding around the TV come this Sunday night, the European Union’s representation to Australia is giving away a pile of Eurovision Party Packs via a competition on SBS official Eurovision website.
Chock full of all sorts of kitschaphrenalia, from soccer balls, fake tattoos, plastic watches and blue and yellow balloons, the packs even have a set of swanky EU beer coasters, perfect for that mid-screening glass of $5 Lambrusco.
The party packs, donated by the Delegation of the European Commission to Australia and New Zealand, will also be given out as prizes at public Eurovision parties in Brisbane, Melbourne and Canberra.

No comment!

I have posted on this before but it deserves repeating. Today George Trefgarne in the Telegraph suggests the real reason why we are to be blessed with a constitution is the same reason for the USA constitution “it was the need to underpin the currency that led to the development of the constitution of the United States in the first place. Several of the individual states that now make up America defaulted on their debts after the revolutionary war against the British in the 1780s. Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury secretary, was among those who successfully argued that the states needed a common financial system and central government to avert a crisis, and so the United States was born.” So although we are told that the constitution is to make the EU work better, prevent the return to Nazi style concentration camps, return power to the nation states, and all the rest of the spin, the real reason is to prop up the Euro, which itself was a step towards a United States of Europe, those who promoted the Euro knew that without a state or at least a constitution to back up the currency, the Euro has no solid backing and could collapse, so we have a classical EU situation as envisioned by Monnet, where cooperation in one sphere will require the cooperation in anther field and so on until eventually a united Europe will be formed. Trefgarne thinks that unlike the USA 300 years ago “Such a disaster as the collapse of the currency in Europe is remote, but not that remote. Growth throughout the euro zone has been slow to non-existent since the mid-1990s. Alarming political strains are developing, notably in Italy and Portugal. Italy’s exports are depressed thanks to the high level of the euro, and it is in the midst of its second recession in two years. Its budget deficit is ballooning. And Silvio Berlusconi, the prime minister, cannot balance the books and is clinging on to power by his fingertips. In Portugal, matters are even worse. The country is running a massive fiscal deficit of nearly seven per cent of GDP and the socialist government is embarking on another round of unpopular spending cuts.” “Without the constitution, the legal framework behind the euro will depend on existing treaties. But the Stability and Growth Pact, which once provided the rules, was torn up in March and the few remaining strips mean euro member states can effectively behave as they like. There could soon be little to stop Italy and Portugal bailing themselves out by borrowing more, which could push the euro lower, set off turmoil in the bond markets and drive up interest rates for everybody else.” “The woes of Italy and Portugal illustrate the dangers that will confront the EU should the constitution fail. It could respond by finding a cunning way of ratifying a replacement. But that would be to act in defiance of the wishes of not just millions of citizens, but perhaps entire nations. Or it could abandon the constitution altogether, and leave the euro adrift, without a nation or a government behind it.” If Trefgarne is right and we find that the constitution is rejected by either France or Holland in the next week then the Euro will be the only currency ever not to have a state to back it up. This situation is not sustainable in the long term, so the real plan “B” as suggested by Delores, will be to force through plan “A” by putting pressure on the dissenting states to reform their ways and vote again, after some cosmetic changes to the text, the alternatives are simply to problematic for the internationalists to consider. We have almost reached the point where there can be no turning back, which is the whole point of the step by step approach to integration in the first place.

Bernard Bot, the Dutch foreign minister, is surprised at the strength and amplitude of the opposition to the proposed EU constitution, when out canvassing he met a woman who said there was no point in trying to convince her, she was going to vote no. “I asked her ‘Why?’ and she said

‘I just feel good saying no for once.”

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the former student radical who is now a German member of the European Parliament, put it:

“The feeling of the people is that we want to say no to what exists to prove that we exist.”

Leon de Winter, a Dutch filmmaker and political commentator, said “How can you create a constitution for a nonentity?”

He was expressing the common sentiment in the Netherlands that a Europe stretching from Portugal to Ukraine and likely to include Muslim Turkey is a kind of illusion, a figment of the bureaucratic imagination with very little in the way of a unifying purpose or a unifying vision, and it should not attempt to have one.

“I don’t want Europe to be a unified power,” de Winter said. “I don’t want Europe to have a foreign minister, or to be a competitor for power with the United States.”

The political elites told us that the multicultural thing would be an enrichment,” de Winter said, “but most people have seen the reality - unemployment, ethnic ghettos, high criminality and the rise of radical Islam. So there’s a basic feeling that we don’t believe what our politicians tell us.”

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/22/news/eu.php

The messages are being sent to the political elites that the people do not belive them, do not want their countries to be dissolved into a soup of the United States of Europe. The people want to know that the politicians they elect, speak for them and not some supra government of Europe. We will have wait and see if the politicians are listening, my bet is they are not and will not, until we demonstrate clearly that we are fed up with them treating us, the ones who have to pick up the bills as mere cannon fodder.

President Jacques Chirac yesterday dragged the rebate - known in France as “the British cheque” - into the French debate on the EU constitution.

Mr Chirac emerged from a summit with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany and President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland to urge the French public to vote “yes” and to vow that all three countries had agreed to “demand rediscussion and renegotiation of the British cheque”.

Without the rebate, Britain would have paid 14 times as much into EU funds as France or Italy since 1984. As it is, Britain still pays more than two and a half times as much as France.

The Guardian runs a story about the leaked memo from MacShane;

Tony Blair was warned last month in a memo drawn up by his then Europe minister, Denis MacShane.

The document, which was circulated to key ministers including the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and the industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, was leaked yesterday at a sensitive moment in the French referendum campaign.

Article continues

Its publication will embarrass Downing Street, which has been anxious not to appear to intervene in the close-fought French battle.

The memo, dated April 8 and also sent to the prime minister’s European adviser, Kim Darroch, accused the French political class of a “lack of leadership in explaining, defending, promoting the EU … not as extension of France and French interests”.

“Bashing a commission president is now a French as much as it was a British pastime,” it claimed.

Mr MacShane, a knowledgeable pro-European, lambasted the French yes campaign for “the incoherence of its campaign with its mixed messages and lack of enthusiasm or positive argument for the treaty.”

He also claimed that French ministers were undertaking a belated bid to turn the position around by “making crude UK-bashing arguments”.

In his note Mr MacShane, who lost his job as Europe minister in the reshuffle - after the memo was written - went on to urge the prime minister to change the tone of British relations with Europe.

“[Britain's] EU presidency in 1998 was when the new Labour government walked on water,” he said. “That is no longer the case … John Bull and Whitehall-speak needs to be parked for the six months of the presidency.

“Britain’s Europe policy will need a step change to move away from the defensive-boastful language of red line, vetoes, [and claiming] Britain is way ahead of the rest of Europe,” he wrote.

“If the UK is to rise to the responsibility of helping to lead Europe out of crisis we will have to find more of Churchill’s magnanimity and worry less about the Rothermere-Telegraph shadows in the cave”.

If France did vote yes, Mr MacShane added, Britain would have to run a distinctive pro-Euro campaign in which the comedian Eddie Izzard, Sir Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, and Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, would be more important than any cabinet minister”.

The last paragraph seems to have been picked up by BBC

Sir Fred Catherwood who was an MEP15 years writes to the Telegraph

Sir - Of course the proposed European Constitution contains much that we dislike, as do our own British laws. But it is what we and our partners agreed before the arrival of a dozen new states, each with a vote and a veto at the council table. Diplomacy does not allow the real reason why existing governments back a constitution that embodies all those hard-won agreements and prevents the dozen arrivals from using their new power to reopen whatever agreement does not suit them.

If the constitution is not supported, the founding states of the EU will form a tight alliance to protest their interests. As a young chief executive, I remember how tough it was for Britain to be left outside that powerful group of trading nations. Today’s generation deserves better.

Sir Fred Catherwood, Cambridge

You can see that this was written by a politician, but what on earth is he saying, apart from the gaff, if that’s what it was, in the first paragraph (We can do something about our laws by getting rid of the government)

The constitution was agreed at the convention before the new entrants were allowed to take part in the debate, so the new entrants did not have a chance to decide their futures. This then was obviously a stitch up! But International relations will not allow him to reveal the need for the stitch up.

If the Constitution fails the founding states will form a tight alliance to protest (or protect) their interests. Today’s generation deserves better, better than what, better than having to accept a stitch up, or better than being left outside.

With the recent French Polls indicating that those who say they will vote against is growing, thus worrying the promoters of the Constitution so much that they a bussing loads of German Students across the border to warn the French people that a rejection of the constitution could lead to a German retreat back into its old history.” Which to some threaten “if you take it to its logical conclusion – “vote ‘yes’ or we’ll invade France – again”

But three days after the French have either caved into the threats or stood firm, there is the other big test, a new Dutch poll on the referendum indicates that 63% will vote against and only 37% in favour of the EU constitution. Although numbers vary between polls it seems the pollsters no longer believe a turnaround is possible and without exception predict a negative verdict on the first of June. The Dutch Government however still claims to be confident in a positive outcome.

no campaign bulletin - 20 May
New cross-party no campaign launched
French and Dutch referendums on a knife-edge
UK government confused on referendum, but other countries won’t take no for an answer
1. New cross-party no campaign launched

The Centre for a Social Europe and the Vote No campaign have joined forces to launch a major new cross-party campaign to prepare for the referendum on the EU Constitution.

The new campaign website lists over 550 business leaders, trade unionists, economists, Greens, Labour MPs and activists who support the no campaign.

The no campaign has also published a new pamphlet which sets out for the first time the cross-party case against the Constitution. It features a range of personalities, including Labour MP Kate Hoey, former UN ambassador Sir John Weston, Green MEP Caroline Lucas and NEXT plc Chief Executive Simon Wolfson. As part of its launch activity, no will be mailing fifty thousand copies of the pamphlet to target voter groups across the UK.

A new poll for the no campaign published this week finds that voters are nearly two-to-one (54 - 30) against the Constitution. It also shows that a majority of the supporters of all the major political parties are against the EU Constitution. Of those who say they plan to vote no to the EU Constitution, 26 percent are Labour voters, 25 percent are Conservatives, 9 percent are Liberal Democrats and 9 percent vote for other parties, showing the cross-party range of support for a no vote.

The no campaign is planning a summer advertising campaign, following the referendum in France.

To visit the website of the new campaign click here: http://www.nocampaign.com

2. French and Dutch referendums on a knife-edge

With the French referendum less than 10 days away, the yes and no campaigns appear to be neck and neck in the opinion polls.

At the end of 2004 the French yes campaign had a 38 percent lead in the polls, and was ahead by 69 percent to 31, but since then support has fallen as the campaign has gone on.

However, the yes campaign in France is now being bolstered by heavy government advertising spending, plus a series of sweeteners handed out by the Government, and it is benefiting from a disproportionate share of TV airtime.

French journalists have found that reliable figures on Government advertising spending are hard to obtain. In January Le Figaro reported that the French government planned to spend 10 million euros promoting the EU Constitution. However, by February the planned budget had swelled and L’Humanité reported that the government would be spending 11 million euros on TV adverts alone. In March, Le Monde reported that the government’s spending would be bolstered by a further 10 million euros from the European Parliament.

The French government has also spent more than a billion euros on sweeteners to boost the chances of a yes vote. On 21 April Le Figaro reported that the government had spent 420 million euros on substantial pay increases for public sector workers to try and boost support. This week President Chirac unveiled plans to give farmers two week holidays and tax breaks worth 740 million euros. The government also managed to get the EU Commission to agree to subsidised and free air travel for residents in French overseas territories, and the government is also pressing the EU for a reduction in VAT on restaurant meals.

The allocation of airtime to the campaigns has been unfair. The official French broadcasting authority, the CSA, has called on French TV channels to rebalance their coverage, after it found that the yes campaign had had enjoyed nearly two thirds of the airtime in the campaign so far (63 compared to 37 percent of the time). This week a delegation of journalists sent a petition signed by almost 15,000 people to the President of the CSA - denouncing the “Yes plugging” by the media. (Le Monde 19 May)

However the bias looks set to continue, as the French Government’s referendum rules allow the ‘yes’ campaign 90 minutes of airtime during the last two weeks of the campaign, compared to only 50 minutes for the ‘no’ side.

French ‘yes’ campaigners are celebrating the Constitution as a French victory, while the UK Government continues to claim that the French see the EU Constitution as a “victory for Britain.”

During the campaign the French government has argued that the EU Constitution will prevent reform of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. The government’s website states that, “the Constitution protects the CAP. French farmers therefore have every reason to support the Constitution”.

The government also argues that the Constitution will stop Turkey joining the EU. The French government’s website says, “The adoption of the Constitution will make the accession of Turkey very difficult… Turkey’s entry is incompatible with the construction of a political Europe founded on a project of European civilisation.” It argues, “Article 57 of the European Constitution creates the position of a privileged partnership specially aimed at countries such as Turkey which want a strong association with the EU. Saying ‘yes’ to the Constitution will give us the means to say ‘no’ to Turkey.”

This week the new UK Minister for Europe, Douglas Alexander, told Parliament, “across the channel, at the moment, its opponents are arguing that the treaty is too British. in short, too much a model of an Anglo-Saxon European Union.” (Hansard, 18 May)

However, the opposite is true. French yes campaigners have insisted for months that the Constitution represents “Europe à la française,” and more recently Chirac called the Constitution “essentially French”. (Le Figaro, 15 April)

The French Government’s website argues for a yes vote to precisely to avoid what it argues is the British vision of a lighter Europe. It states that Constitution is “the crowning of what one could call the French vision for Europe, against the Anglo-Saxon vision, which is. intergovernmental and sovereignist.”

However, it is not only the French who consider it to be a ‘French’ Constitution. This week Polish President Alexander Kwaznieski said that the Constitution “is considered in Poland to be a French child. A negative French response would be difficult to explain to the Poles.” (AP, 19 May)

Boosted by government funded advertising, sweeteners, and biased media coverage, the French yes campaign may well still win the referendum. But the result - after the plunge of the yes side during the campaign - will still undermine any attempt by the British yes campaign to claim that there is huge enthusiasm for the EU Constitution elsewhere in Europe.

3. UK government confused on referendum, but other countries won’t take no for an answer

The Government’s line on the consequences of a no vote appeared confused this week. New Europe Minister Douglas Alexander gaffed by suggesting that a UK referendum would still take place even if other countries voted no. Jack Straw later said that the Constitution would be abandoned after a no vote, and as a result there would be no referendum.

The EU Constitution can only legally come into force if all 25 EU countries ratify it. However, some EU leaders have already indicated that the referendums scheduled in other countries will go ahead even if the French reject the text.

Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said at a meeting in Copenhagen, “If France votes no, then other countries must continue the fight for a yes”. (EUObserver, 4 April)

Danish Foreign Affairs Minister Per Stig Moeller has said, “The Danes will go to the polls, whatever the result of the French referendum”, and the Danish Prime Minster has said, “Denmark will give its verdict on the Constitution with complete independence and will not let itself be influenced by France or other countries.”

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker - who currently holds the EU presidency - has said, “The French vote is important, but I don’t think it will be able to stop the ratification procedures underway in the other countries.”

An unnamed Commission official was quoted in Le Figaro saying that a halt on the other countries planned referendums “Is in theory possible, but is politically unlikely”, and an unnamed official from the EU Council of Ministers made the extraordinary claim that abandoning the Constitution after a no vote, “would be prematurely aborting the treaty and showing disregard for other countries’ votes.” (All Le Figaro, 21 April) The pressure to implement the Constitution regardless of a no vote - even from France - suggests that there will be intense pressure on any smaller countries which vote no.

The UK Government wants to avoid a referendum, because it knows that the overwhelming majority of voters oppose giving the EU more power. Some ministers would clearly prefer another country to vote it down, and would then argue for it to be abandoned. But some EU politicians would refuse to take no for an answer. Threats to go ahead anyway, even after a no vote, make a mockery of democracy.

4. Britain in Europe “rebrand” themselves as “Yes”

The pro-euro Britain in Europe campaign announced this week that it had paid branding consultants 5,000 pounds to come up with a new name: “Yes”.

Lucy Powell, campaign director of “Yes”, told the Financial Times, “Yes symbolises positivity and a whole range of emotions. We’re creating a new image for the organisation.”

The move may be an attempt to shake off the campaign’s reputation for gaffes and non-credible spin. However, despite the name change, the campaign is still led by the same people, and is expected to continue to make the same arguments.

Eurealist :: Main Page: “The three reasons for Europe
by Eurealist on May 19, 2005 10:20AM (BST)

Give Europe more weight in the world The three reasons for Europe By Javier Solana

Argues for an increase in military capabilities
The three reasons for Europe
by Eurealist on May 19, 2005 10:20AM (BST)

Give Europe more weight in the world The three reasons for Europe By Javier Solana

Argues for an increase in military capabilities

They taught us that diplomacy not backed by credible threats was no match for determined ultra-nationalists. And when we finally took action, together with the US - in Bosnia and later in Kosovo – Europe’s weakness in military capabilities stood out

For further enlargement

Best of all, enlargement is not over. Europe as a transformative power has further to go. Romania and Bulgaria have just signed their accession treaties. If the appropriate conditions are met, Turkey and Croatia will start their negotiations later this year.

And our long-term vision is eventual accession by all Balkan states to the European Union.

Moreover, Europe’s power of attraction remains strong further afield. Think of Georgia in 2003. Think also of Ukraine in 2004 where the EU played a major role in ensuring a peaceful and democratic outcome to the political crisis. This was EU foreign policy at its best: robust in its support for European values; staunch in its defence of the democratic aspirations of Ukraine; open and frank in our dialogue with Russia, and pragmatic in the co-operation between capitals and Brussels. Moldova has also chosen the path of closer links with the EU. And who knows what is still to come, for instance in Belarus next year? When I met with Belarus opposition groups last month, I detected a strong desire for European values and democracy.

And for Europe is to become a global power.

Gaza, Darfur, Belarus, Uzbekistan and Myanmar: each requires a different response. But being a bystander, accepting the status quo, that is not the European way. This is a troubled world. Europe has to be engaged. First, there is really no such thing as doing nothing. If you do nothing, people often believe that is our deliberate policy. The genocide in Rwanda happened in part because the perpetrators thought we, the international community, would do nothing. Second, it would be unreasonable to leave the US as the sole global actor - or to create that impression in Washington. America needs help and support just as much as a responsible Europe deserves respect and influence. And third, in our globalised world, things that happen in far away places, such as Afghanistan, can and do affect our security in unexpected ways. Distance and borders offer no protection.
All this he tells us will be ours if only we vote yes to the EU Constitution

Firstly, the Constitution offers a massive improvement in our ability to tackle old and new security threats. Think of the solidarity clause which will cover both terrorist and natural or man-made disasters. Then add enhanced cooperation on civil protection and structured co-operation on defence. Both promise a more capable Europe, addressing today’s and tomorrow’s problems.

Secondly, in terms of effectiveness, the Constitution inaugurates a new way of preparing and taking decisions. Perhaps the biggest innovation is the proposed EU Foreign Minister which will combine, in one person, the ability to mobilise all the different components of EU external relations. To ensure more consistency, the EU Foreign Minister will also represent the Union abroad. Our partners will thus have one interlocutor – something which is long overdue.

Finally, the Constitution foresees the creation of an EU External Action Service. Europe will thus have a single team working under one roof and answerable to one person responsible for the full range of EU external relations.

The only problem is that he claims that “the second rationale for the European project is to spread this zone of peace, democracy and prosperity to all corners of our continent”.

Its that word democracy that stands in the way when is the EU going to spread democracy to itself.
e”

Eurealist :: Main Page: ” Blair and Brown and the EU
by Eurealist on May 19, 2005 09:51AM (BST)
View Article Blair and Brown and the EU

Patrick Dunleavy, professor of politics at the London School of Economics, is reported as seeing Brown’s approach to Europe as muted. “He seems to be developing a well worked out plan for the premiership succession and certainly wants to start by making a big impression,” Dunleavy said. “There is much talk about what that impression might be, but nothing has been said about any plan for Europe.”

He said the consensus is that Brown is currently neither pro- nor anti-Europe but is simply technocratic. “Theories of a closer union pass him by. That has been his attitude all along, and there is no sign that it has changed. Europe is simply not on his radar,

But as Walker point out “it is the very issue of Europe which could elevate Brown to 10 Downing Street before the next run to the polls. Next year, Britain is scheduled to vote in a referendum on the EU constitution, and there is little evidence to suggest that Blair can swing the historically euroskeptic nation behind a “yes” vote.”

Alasdair Murray, deputy director of the Center for European Reform think tank, said where Blair will likely fail, Brown could succeed. “Brown is the only way to a ‘yes.’ He’s more credible because he’s more of a skeptic. Blair is too pro, so Brown should lead the campaign,”.

Opinion about the tack Brown will take when it comes to campaigning for the referendum is divided. Some analysts believe any deal Tony Blair might have struck with his current chancellor about his future premiership would require Brown to milk his popularity, give the campaign his all, and steer Britain towards approving the constitution.

If the strategy were to fail, it would be a mortal blow to Tony Blair, leaving Gordon Brown to take over but not take the rap because he would only have been the side-kick in the campaign. If, however the referendum scored a “yes” vote, Blair could back out in a final glow of glory.

But others say Brown will keep a healthy distance from the whole issue of the constitution ballot. “He will not choose to undermine the referendum, nor will he put himself in the front line. But it is a short-sighted policy, because if Britain votes against the constitution, he will have a lot of clearing up to do,” Murray said.

Although I do not go along with this idea that Brown is sceptic, the point that someone who was, would have a better chance of getting a yes is one that bears reflection, it really boils down to trust, someone like Blair who is gung-ho for the Constitution and the EU in general, is not likely to look at the down side of the Constitution and will paper over the inconstancies whereas a sceptic will not, so their agreement carries more weight because you would tend to think that they have asked all the right questions and have been satisfied with the answers.

Eurealist :: Main Page: “Voices from the Crypt
by Eurealist on May 19, 2005 09:18AM (BST)

A few days after the last Pope died I was a bit disappointed to see that there were several comments in the Press that he would have voted for the EU Constitution, after all if only we had asked him a few weeks earlier he would have been able to clarify the point. I thought that it was very unfair of those people to wait until he died before claiming his agreement with their political intentions.

Churchill is the British leader who creates a similar controversy, the pro-EU brigade like to claim that he supported the EU, and point to a couple of his speeches to confirm their claim to his authority, unfortunately he also made several speeches and comments that could and are used to show that he was against the EU. So the battle for Churchill rages on with all of us trolling through his speeches to find evidence that he was really on our side.

It would seem that a similar battle for the authorization of the dead is being fought out over the EU Constitution in France, in an amusing article in the Manila Times, of all places Sophie Nicholson writes that “EU charter debate stirs voices from the crypt”

Even the dead are having a say in France’s heated debate over whether to ratify the first European Union constitution.

The voices of great leaders from France’s past—Francois Mitterrand and Charles de Gaulle - are being summoned by politicians of both camps as France debates whether to say “yes” or “no” to the historic charter in a widely watched May 29 referendum.”

EU Referendum: “The People’s ‘No’ Campaign

At last, we’re ready. The official launch of The People’s ‘No’ Campaign (against the European Constitution) is to take place at 2 pm Wednesday 25th May 2005. It will be held at The Conference Room, Abingdon House, 13 Little College Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3SH. The launch has been sponsored by Lord Stoddart.

The ‘No’ Campaign has been created as a genuine non/cross-party grassroots coalition to help deliver an overwhelming and emphatic rejection of the European constitution. Campaign Director, Neil Herron states:

It is essential that a genuine grassroots campaign helps to deliver the reasons for saying ‘no’ in a plain, no-nonsense style, free from party politics. We are creating the broadest coalition from across the socio-political spectrum and intend to replicate the achievement of the North East No Campaign which rejected the Government’s and John Prescott’s proposals in the recent Regional Assembly Referendum by the biggest margin in modern political history.

The Constitution represents further surrender of power to Brussels and this is quite simply unacceptable. The debate preceding the referendum will be the first opportunity for the British public to examine the true nature of the whole ‘European Project’. A full examination of the consequences of political and economic integration. A debate that we have been denied for over thirty years.

Dr Richard North, Research Director, states: ‘This is a genuine, important and fundamental move by the people of Britain to reclaim their own destiny.’

The timing of our launch is to show solidarity with the French ‘No’ Campaign, and to send a message to our domestic politicians that they will not be in for an easy ride. If the French vote ‘oui’ on 29th May then it is ‘game on’ for our domestic Constitution referendum battle.

Details of the growing alliance will be posted on the website shortly, where we have a full analysis of news and events as they unfold. of news and events as they unfold. More statements to follow.

Contact: Neil Herron, Campaign Director. Office 0191 56517143; Mobile 07776 202045. Registered Office: The People’s No Campaign, 12 Frederick Street, Sunderland SR1 1NA.

Eurealist :: Main Page: “EU French Referendum
by Eurealist on May 17, 2005 08:55AM (BST)

With two of the latest opinion polls released Monday indicated that a majority of French voters would reject the EU constitution, as official campaigning opened and with less than two weeks to go before a May 29 referendum it is looking like a nail biting wait is in store for all us EU watchers. The No campaign has been steadily gaining ground since March, but along with the increased yes campaign spending in late April came a lift for yes campaigners, this seems to be now dropping back a bit, giving the No`s a two per cent increase since early May.

Of seven other surveys since the start of May, three predicted a win for the “yes”, three for the “no” and one an even 50-50 split. Once the margin of error is factored in, the polls suggest a statistical dead heat.

We should bear in mind that within 10 minutes of the Maastricht polls closing the French government had already informed No. 10, that the official figures showed the yes side had squeaked in by 51% of the vote. It is obvious that the French have a super fast counting system, we can only hope that speed does not incur a penalty on accuracy.

One thing that intrigues me is that opponents have repeatedly argued that the treaty could be renegotiated should the “no” camp prevail, this has been steadfastly denied by the yes campaigners, almost that is, until this weekend when according to EU Referendum, Jacques Delors let “Le chat out of le sac” by admitting that the EU constitution can be rewritten, if it is rejected at the 29 May referendum. But Convention leader and some say the main instigator for the whole constitution, former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing squashed that idea and ruled out rewriting when he said

“There will be no new text because it will be impossible to ask all the other countries - the majority who ratify the constitution - to forget their votes,”

To me that argument holds no water, because what the other states decide, has no relevance to the French vote, if the French do vote no, it matters not one jot that some others have voted yes, the whole thing must go back to the drawing board for renegotiation. Giscard d’Estaing may want immortality and statues himself in village squares all over Europe, as the man who produced the first Constitution for Europe, but telling obvious porkies like this will mean that those statues will have some very long noses.

British EUsceptics are divided on the issue of the French Referendum, many feel that a French no will mean that the Constitution will be shelved for the time being, but the main parts will be accomplished by inter government cooperation, thus we will not have a chance to put down a marker against our own governments involvement in the project, it is quite certain that Blair will drop the referendum at the first chance he gets, for him it’s a no brainer.

I do not belive that Blair offered us a referendum because he believes in democracy, or out of the goodness of his heart. In the early days he was absolutely set against a referendum “it was just a tiding up operation” “those who are campaigning for a referendum might as well put away their placard now because they are wasting their time” Pressure was applied to our Prime Minister, and that was the only reason he suddenly found a reverse gear. Perhaps his legal department pointed out that if he were to ratify without a referendum, as the decisions of one government cannot bind a future parliament the constitution could be challenged at a later date, this argument loses it potency if he ratifies after a referendum. Or, and I personally think much more likely, the pressure was applied by the palace, this is not as far out as some would think, the Monarchy although denuded of most of its powers, still has a residue of influence, and there were newspaper reports around the time of the change of Blair’s policy, that the palace was becoming concerned, and had asked for the papers relevant to the Constitution, since then we have heard not a dickey bird.

Even if the French do eventually accept the Constitution, three days later on June 1st the Dutch people have a chance to throw a spanner in the works, and that one is looking even dodgier for the yes men. One thing is a fairly safe bet, that is at some time one country or other is going to vote No, and then we will see, depending on which country has the honour of slaying this particular beast, how certain those claims are that there can be no renegotiation.