eurealist.co.uk

Geoff Hoon has decided to hold talks with newspaper editors and journalists to seek ways to restore wider coverage of Lords and Commons so that voters understand that decisions MPs and peers take “have a direct impact” on their lives, to help restore public respect for parliament as one of the “fundamental” institutions of the state which binds society together.

Well perhaps if they stopped telling us all great big pokies that might be a start, then they could reclaim the power they used to have, until they gave it away to the EU. Or alternately they could all retire and save us a lot of money. What is the point of a parliament that does not respect the constitution which gives it power in the first place that even likes to pretend that there is no constitution that does not respect the votes of the people and does not hold an executive to account.

These are the same people who have destroyed the British constitution, treacherously given away power to an outside agency, and then removed the laws that made such acts treason, lied to the British public constantly about the EU, lied to the British people about the war in Iraq. The same people who send a twice dismissed ex member of the cabinet who swore to uphold our laws to the EU, where he swore to obey that master instead, at the same time they send every ex EU Commissioner who have taken an oath to uphold EU law, to our own House of Lords, even thought their EU pensions are conditional on remaining true to their oath to the union. The same people who consider that being in receipt of an EU pension does not constitute a conflict of interest.

We live under an elected dictatorship why should we respect a dictator!

EURSOC: So It Was A Treaty After All!: “So It Was A Treaty After All!

So It Was A Treaty After All!

By EURSOC One
03 June, 2005

As the dust settles after the massacre by the French and Dutch public’s ‘no’ vote, Europe’s desperate leaders and eurofanatics everywhere are scrambling to read the publics mind for a reason.

Anything will do as long as it doesn’t entertain the unthinkable that people actually don’t want Europe itself. It’s the treaty you see, not Europe.

So by pretending that it was one thing or another that upset voters, or merely their frustration on a domestic level, it can be revived, changed, manipulated and the show goes on.

The constitutional treaty was expressedly stuffed full of every possible clause and catch-alls imaginable so that everyone could claim that it represented their political bent. It was the total embodiment of Europe and legally designed to replace all previous treaties. It was proudly presented as a constitution for Europe.

If the French and Dutch had voted the way they were told then we would now be facing the full force of Europe’s leaders, puffed up in the knowledge that they had a mandate for a superstate called The United States of Europe, backed by its own constitution. Presumably President Chirac would be reiterating his earlier point that any country that voted no would have to leave the EU.

Now that the constitution is on death row, readers will note (as predicted by EURSOC) that it is now, conveniently, just a treaty again and even its architects are picking holes and pointing fingers at its faults.

The constitution was only ever a power grab, an attempt to legitimize the mad dream of EU utopia: Mad because anyone who knows Europe in its diversity and aspirations let alone its history will tell you that the one size fits all model is totally barmy.

Furthermore, contrary to what its proponents tell us nearly all European wars have been caused by the very same supranational fantasy of forcing Europeans to live under one roof.

What most Europeans want starts with democracy and freedom guaranteed at a national level, open government and their future firmly in their hands. What they want from Europe could be written on one piece of A4 paper and implemented without the Byzantine machinery of Brussels.

What Europeans don’t want is anybody’s particular vision of how they should live their lives (Mr Blair take note). Europeans want to run their own lives. Is that so bizarre? Grand visions will be strictly for the gallery and the press no one reads.

The European political class is about to embark on a process of setting out competing visions, more - or less - social protection, liberalism or not. All totally irrelevant as none of it will pass the people test and can only be implemented without democratic legitimacy.

Europe’s elite have been found out, the supranational model has no place in the modern world, citizens now inform themselves and make their own minds up: They want more say, not less.

It’s not time for reflection, as the great and good keep saying, it is time to stop the charade. This was a constitution for Europe, not a treaty, the people of France and Holland understood this and politely told them to stuff it.

Next time they may be less polite.

It is quite amazing how people who supposedly understand the constitution make very basic mistakes and then build a whole argument on that mistake, of course being built on an incorrect assumption the argument then fails.

A case in point was a letter to the FT last week written by no less a dignitary than a Jean Monnet Chair of EU Politics. Michael O’Neill, Jean Monnet Chair of EU Politics, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4BU

Initially he writes "The correspondence from Dr D. R. Cooper (Letters, May 20) shows how ill-informed the debate on the European Union constitutional treaty - to give that text its proper name - has become."

 Arguing that even his golf club has a constitution he said "and this august body does not stand above the law of the land"

Thus omitting to mention the difference is the EU constitution actually says that its law that will be  be above the law of the land, where as I assume his golf club does not make such a claim.

The professor then continues;

"In fact, the text under discussion is not intended to be a state-like constitution in the classic sense of the US’s constitution. Rather, it is a power-map of who does what in a complex and novel EU polity, a polity that is not a state, nor aspiring to be a state, but an arrangement where sovereign member states agree to share some of their powers for the general good".

Ignoring the fact that you do not actually share power if it is given to a higher authority, the higher  authority has gained power at the expense of the state. The whole idea of shared sovereignty is an EU concept that conceals what is in reality a transfer of power.

Using as his argument that;

 “The clue to what is intended lies in the carefully constructed title of "constitutional treaty". The critical word here in describing the text is the noun "treaty", not the adjective "constitutional". Few anti-treaty commentators, for whatever motive, acknowledge this significant fac”

 However either by omission misdirection or basic inability to read a title, the professor has built his argument on the wrong title, it is not “the European Union constitutional treaty”  but “A Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe” To turn his own logic back on him if the clue to what is intended lies in the carefully constructed title, then it is “a Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”.

In other words it is a treaty; until it is ratified it then becomes the constitution because the treaty has established it as such, this is confirmed in the Constitution itself because the text say it is:

Grateful to the members of the European Convention for having prepared this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe, Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

He then goes on to make two more incorrect statements, one that supremacy of EU law has been in the treaties since 1952 and two that the constitution will not affect criminal law every aspect of civil law, or national constitutional law, before finishing his letter thus: “By all means let us debate the implications of the new treaty, but let that debate be properly informed and based on accurate information.”

 To which I can only add yes please let the debate be based on accurate information.

Taking account of the Dutch peoples’ overwhelming no, the Dutch parliament has decided not to ratify the EU Constitution. The government has withdrawn the bill without waiting for the European Council meeting mid-June. Le Figaro says that this rules out having another referendum on it in the future.

Gisela Stuart Labour MP and member of the presidium at the convention on the future of Europe, had an article in the Birmingham Post yesterday, in which she argued that, “The Constitution was an overambitious attempt to consolidate an outdated political and economic vision of Europe. Our mandate was to bring Europe closer to its people - and we ended up alienating them even more.” She wrote, “It’s no good saying the Constitution was rejected because it was not understood. Opinion polls in France showed that the more the French discussed it, the less they liked it. The same happened last year in Sweden when they voted against joining the euro, despite the campaign having been backed by the political parties, business and the media.”

After yesterdays revelation that German economics minister Hans Eichel held a meeting to discuss the consequences of scrapping the euro, today there is news that a minister in the Italian Government has said that Italy should also consider leaving the euro.

In Germany the largest selling news paper Bild carried the headline earlier this week“ Is the Mark coming back?”. Eichel however when interviewed in the FT, strongly denied that Germany is considering scrapping the euro.

(Reuters) - Italy should consider leaving the single currency and reintroducing the lira, Welfare Minister Roberto Maroni said in a newspaper interview on Friday.
Maroni, a member of the euro-skeptical Northern League party, told the Repubblica daily Italy should hold a referendum to decide whether to return to the lira, at least temporarily.
He also said European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet was one of those chiefly responsible for the “disaster of the euro.”
The euro “has proved inadequate in the face of the economic slowdown, the loss of competitiveness and the job crisis,” Maroni said.
In this situation, the answer is to give the government greater power to defend national industry from foreign competition and “to give control over the exchange rate back to the government.”

There are reports that the EU plans to draw up a new Constitution and then implement it without referendums.

Françoise Le Bail Commission spokesperson is quoted saying, “I am sure that this is something that will be debated that week.”

An article in Le Figaro outlines the various options now on the table.
One is to select “the bits we like best”, according to Andrew Duff.
Another option is to acknowledge that part III of the Constitution “is not perfect” and convoke an intergovernmental conference to “modernise” and “refresh” it so it “better responds to citizens’ concerns.”

A Greek conservative MEP is suggesting a “Nice plus” idea, whereby the elements of the Constitution are put in place in 2006 by “interinstitutional agreement,” in other words, without ratification.

Of course the bits he would like to cherry pick are the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the reinforcement of the role of the Parliament, the definition of competences, the EU President and the Foreign Affairs Minister.

Who said the EU was not listening, they are hear only to well what the people are saying, unfortunately this only spurs them on to find other ways of implementing their plans.

Prime Minister of Denmark Anders Fogh Rasmussen is said to be reluctant to officially cancel a planned referendum on the EU Constitution, scheduled for 27 September.

But he has been in touch with Tony Blair, who really does want to cancel the British Referendum, perhaps because his chances of winning such a poll in Denmark seem to have dropped significantly.

According to a fresh opinion poll from Greens Analyseinstitut, published in Danish business daily Børsen on Friday (3 June), 39.5 per cent of Danes would reject the Constitution.

This is the first survey conducted after the French no-vote on 29 May and it shows support for the No side has gone up by 50 per cent in Denmark compared to previous surveys.

Only one in three Danes (30.8 per cent) would now approve the Constitution, while 29.7 per cent were undecided.

Despite the critical attitude towards the Constitution, a clear majority of two thirds (65.3%) would still prefer to be able to express their opinion in a referendum.

Is it not strange just as the polls turn against them, they start to belive that democracy is the wrong way forward.