eurealist.co.uk

A post on EU Referendum

Refers to Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, who has used the powers granted him by the Serious and Organized Crime and Police Act and has created a half-mile exclusion zone around Parliament for all unauthorized protests.

So much for rule of the people for the people, and rule by consent, in a consenting country by definition the people should and must be allowed full access to the law makers; it must be an open democracy, that is what consent means in a country where the people agree to be ruled by those we elect there is no need for powers to protect the lawmakers from the people. These little Stalinists cannot be allowed to become a ruling elite with special conventions that only apply to them, locked up in their own version of Red Square, surrounded by heavily armed police to keep the people who have to live under and pay for this dictatorship at arms length.

I wonder what the Conservative and Liberal opposition will make of this move, if past experience is anything to go by they will make very little out of it, thus clearly showing that they acquiesce with the further removal of our rights and the instillation of a separate political class.

BRUSSELS - EU leaders are unlikely to agree the bloc’s next budget (2007 - 2013) during their meeting this week, Luxembourg Prime Minister and current EU president Jean-Claude Juncker said on Wednesday

Given that Blair is diametrically opposed to all the others I would say that Juncker probably has called this about right, just goes to show how observant these Europhiles can be when they want to.

The Future of the European Constitution. Parliament Research Paper 05/45 13th June 2005. (47 pages)

Upon reading the above Paper, it becomes obvious it was a great mistake to allow the people a say on this proposed EU Constitution. The people obviously cannot be trusted to come up with the right answer and the decision whether to have a Constitution for the European Union could have been done by Parliaments ratifying the Constitutional document themselves, without involving the people.

This Paper is well worth a careful read by all those that read this e-mail and worth while involving all the people each person can reach. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is not “just another treaty” and is meant and regarded as necessary as a Constitution for the European Union. It is meant as a true “rule book”, as the law above the law. A Constitution like the ones most independent sovereign Countries had (and should have always looked up to and obeyed) before their involvement in the European Community/Union.

Page 21 “Is the Constitution dead”?

I Quote, “Under Article 48 TEU the European Constitution must be ratified by all 25 Member states before it can come into force. The flexible arrangements for future amendments under Constitution Article 1V-444 will only apply once the Constitution has entered into force, not to its initial ratification.”

“The failure to ratify by one or more Member States will prevent the Constitution from coming into force. Many observers believed that a straightforward ratification by all 25 Member states was unlikely and that a more likely scenario was that one to three States would not ratify the Constitution initially. The UK. Ireland and Poland were seen as possible non-ratifiers. Referendums were seen as being the most unreliable means of ratifying.”

Declaration No 30, which is appended to the Constitution, concerns the possibility of non-ratification by one or more Member states. It states:

The Conference notes that if, two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four fifths of the Member states have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council”.

In the past, when small Member States (Ireland and Denmark) voted against an EU Treaty amendment, thereby preventing it from coming into force, ways were found for the new treaty to be ratified. In the case of Denmark, this involved opt-outs that were negotiated by the European Council. However, it had not been envisaged that the people of France and the Netherlands, two of the EU’s founding Members, would have voted against it. Somewhat ironically, it was President Chirac who told a press conerence on 28th April 2004 that “friendly pressure” should be exerted on Member States that failed to ratify the Constitution and who wanted a “ratify or leave” clause to be written into the Constitution”. End of Quotes.

Noted from the above, the document was referred to as a “Constitution”, and that is exactly what it is and was always meant to be.

Anne Palmer. 15.6.2005.

Thank you Richard, all better now.