eurealist.co.uk

Lesley and John Kelly have been withholding a portion of their council tax for the last 3 years, because they object to their money being spent on supporting the unelected South West Regional Assembly.

John Kelly says: “Councils neither ask nor inform voters of what they are doing, and this council has never even entertained a motion at full council level to support funding for the South West Regional Assembly- it’s the Executives that are driving the project with most councillors ill-informed as to what is happening.”

Case was heard at Honiton Magistrates Court, in Devon, after only a short retirement to consider a very detailed submission in law ( less than 10 minutes), the magistrates swept aside the submission, declared that the court was correctly constituted and granted the Council it’s Liability Order.

There then followed an outrageous statement by the Court, when the Kellys were then told that they could appeal to the High Court and if they didn’t like the judgement they could,“Vote with their feet and get out of the country!”

Read the full story here

The Law is the Law, In response to Council Watcher (Letters, Feb 3), on February 18, 2002, Lord Justice Laws made an unequivocal statement in his High Court verdict denying the Metric Martyrs appeal against conviction that (in the “new legal era” in which we now live) Constitutional Acts, including the Bill of Rights, cannot be repealed by implication alone, but can be repealed only by explicit wording to that effect.

It is therefore inescapable that, unless and until Lord Justice Law’s view is reversed, that is the law.

The 1991 Road Traffic Act which brought in Decriminalised Parking Enforcement did not explicitly repeal Article 11 of the Bill of Rights: “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”.

Therefore, the 1991 Road Traffic Act is null and void as the law now stands.

In plain and simple terms - either the Metric Martyrs were guilty and the decriminalised parking fine system is illegal, or the Metric Martyrs were innocent and the parking fine system is legal.

One or the other - but not both!

Neil Herron and the Metric Martyrs Campaign’s intention is to overturn the wrongful convictions of the Metric Martyrs, including the late Steven Thoburn.

If the convictions are not overturned then nationally, £1billion-worth of parking fines annually are under threat.

If the convictions are overturned and the Martyrs are declared innocent then the case which established the primacy of EU law falls.

Colin Moran

Metric Martyrs Defence Fund

Frederick Street

Sunderland

This is the issue the political elites in the government will not, face preferring instead to rely on parliamentary convention that parliament cannot bind itself. Even though Lord Justice Laws accepted that convention, he made it clear that even if parliament could change any law, they cannot do so clandestinely. Of course the Regulatory Reform Bill will allow them to do just that.

Technorati Tags: bill-of-rights-1689, british-democracy, constitution

From Liberty Central

Written by Unity

A looking at some of the acts of parliament the Government have refused exemptions from the provisions, makes frightening reading, and begs the question what exactly are Tony Blair’s intentions.

Looking at just some of these Acts, one has to wonder quite justification the government can have not making them of part one of this bill, which affords Ministers unprecedented powers to make, amend and repeal legislation with the minimum of Parliamentary scrutiny.

Amongst the various matters that the government are currently unwilling to exempt from this bill are:

Every single protection against the arbitrary and unlawful detention of citizens by the state (Habeas Corpus Acts, Bail Act, Human Rights Act);

The independence of the Scottish judiciary and legal system (Act of Union);

The Monarchy (Act of Settlement, Succession to the Crown Act, Claim of Right);

Parliamentary democracy (Representation of the People Acts, House of Lords Act. Parliamentary Constituencies Act, Ministers of the Crown Act, Parliament Acts);

Devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Scotland Act, Government of Wales Acts, Government of Ireland Act);

The independence of Canada, Australia and New Zealand – no seriously, this is in the Statute of Westminster – plus about a dozen other ‘Commonwealth Realms’, including Jamaica, the Bahamas and Papua New Guinea.

And that’s just a few of highlights – without even getting in Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

In case you’ve missed the start of this whole debate, this is how the purpose of the bill was described by Cabinet Officer Minister, Jim Murphy, at the start of its committee stage:

“The Bill builds on the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. It aims to deliver on the Government’s agenda of better regulation. As part of that, however, we need to ensure through our deliberations in these eight sittings that there is a correct level of effective parliamentary scrutiny. Ultimately, however, the Bill is intended to maintain the UK’s competitiveness, free up public sector workers and others from bureaucracy, and remove unnecessary regulation.”

So why does a bill that is supposedly designed to “maintain the UK’s competitiveness, free up public sector workers and others from bureaucracy, and remove unnecessary regulation” need to include the power to amend core constitutional legislation?

Does the government think that Scotland’s constitutional right to its own independent judiciary is ‘uncompetitive’?

Is Habeas Corpus an ‘unnecessary regulation’?

a correct level of effective parliamentary scrutiny. Would that be code for less?

Technorati Tags: Tony Blair, repeal legislation, arbitrary and unlawful detention of citizens,

I did not know that there was such a thing as “consumer rights’ day”

The Brussels Journal

Chresten Anderson

Today the Austrian EU Presidency is organising the 8th European Consumer Day, in cooperation with the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). The date marks US President John F. Kennedy’s declaration to the US Congress on 15 March 1962, when he spoke in support of consumers and spelled out four fundamental consumer rights (the right to safety; the right to be informed; the right to choose; the right to be heard).

In 1985 the United Nations decided that each year 15 March would be a special consumer rights’ day across the world. In 1999 the European Consumer Day (ECD) was launched at the EESC’s initiative, with the aim of making the public more aware of EU consumer policy and informing people of the ongoing work in this area.

In his 1962 speech Kennedy defined the four fundamental rights of consumers.

1. The right to safety: the right to be protected against products, production processes and services that are hazardous to health or life.

2. The right to be informed: the right to be given the facts and information you need to make your own choices.

3. The right to choose: the right to be able to choose from a range of products and services offered at competitive prices. As a consumer, you have the right to expect satisfactory quality.

4. The right to be heard: the right to have your interests as a consumer represented in government policy.

All of those rights are sensible, and luckily a free and functioning market process can ensure them all.

Unfortunately, however, governments have interfered, restricting consumers’ rights:

In order to guarantee European consumers their fundamental rights it is necessary that they once again become free to make their own choices – and not have Brussels bureaucrats make the choices for them.

Full article here

Technorati Tags: EU, Food, European Consumer Day,

The Adams Smith Institute

By Dr Eamonn Butler

There are of course many old laws still in place in the United Kingdom. Some years ago, Lord Harris of High Cross formed what he called the ‘Repeal Group’ in the attempt to get them wiped off the statute book. But most people, especially busy parliamentary business managers, could not see the point of repealing laws that nobody took a blind bit of notice of anyway.

Harris was right. If laws are on the statute book, it is a hostage to fortune that some bloody-minded politician will resurrect and use them, even though they are no longer relevant to today’s circumstances…………. But you only need to look at how modern laws are stretched by the police and others – holding a heckler at the Labour Party conference and a cyclist in Dundee under anti-terrorist laws, or arresting a women harmlessly reading out the names of war dead by the Cenotaph in London’s Whitehall.

My concern that bad laws can come back to bite us unless ruthlessly culled is made all the more poignant by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill now going through the House of Commons. It empowers ministers to amend or repeal any law, supposedly in order to adjust minor administrative inconveniences. The trouble is that a tyrannical government could use the measure to do what it liked, without the minor administrative inconvenience of Parliament. Indeed, when you look at this idea, you might well conclude that such tyranny has already arrived.

Technorati Tags: Law, Regulatory Reform Bill, tyrannical government, Parliament

There are now numerous ways in which information and entertainment of the type the BBC provides can be obtained: terrestrial broadcast, satellite transmission, internet and mobile phone transmission. There are also many providers of services through these channels. In the coming years more will emerge.

To expect the BBC to be able to exist in its present form for another 10 years is unrealistic. Soon the huge range of material available from other sources will make the licence fee uncollectable. People will refuse to pay a poll tax like this and the methods of scrutiny necessary to enforce it will become intolerable.

In future the BBC should be funded by voluntary donations. The resulting organisation would be very different from the one it is today. But if it really is as popular as it claims to be, such finance should make it viable and able to provide a worthwhile and valued service.

Christopher Rose, Grangetown, Sunderland

Regulatory Reform Act

RRO Debates, Standing Committee A.

(Morning) Session 28.2.2006 and Standing Committee A (Afternoon).

Some Comments;

“the power enables a Minister to implement a set of recommendations, in full or in part, and for the provision made by the order to depart from the recommendations.”

The hon. Gentleman makes the same point as we do. It is a power too far for the Government.

“If this is allowed does this mean we become a republic, via the back door? I do not think that this Government should be allowed to do this without public debate. This government has said in their speeches that they will not use these powers, if that is so why put them in? Does this sound a bit like Germany in the 1930’s?”

“For nearly nine years New Labour has behaved with autocratic arrogance, treated Parliament with contempt, politicised the civil service and emasculated the Second Chamber.

It chills the blood that this legislation gives them power to change laws at the stroke of a pen.

The Commons must have an absolute right of veto over any ministerial diktat—and that should be explicit in the Bill.”

My suspicions—and, I suspect, those of many members of the Committee—have been raised rather than allayed by the Minister’s response. At the end of his comments, when he talked about the Law Commission justification for making such changes, he used the expression “uncontroversial Law Commission proposals”, yet he has refused to allow the word “uncontroversial” or “non-controversial” to be put in the Bill. He uses expressions from the Law Commission that incorporate that phraseology, yet he wants to go much wider. Why does he want to go much wider? Why will he not put “non-controversial” or “uncontroversial” in the Bill?

Not that long ago I was chairing a Statutory Instrument Committee where I observed, from my neutral position in the Chair, a Minister trying to defend a situation where he or his predecessor had given an undertaking in relation to an agreement that was reached on a criminal justice Bill relating to the issue of whether jury trials could be abolished in fraud cases. My recollection is that as part of the agreement that was reached to deal with Lords amendments, the Government gave an undertaking not to bring forward a statutory instrument relating to that without full consultation. In the end the Minister had to agree that there had not been that full consultation.

That recent example illustrates the weakness of general undertakings to consult about a matter. To remove the safeguards in the present harbour revision orders legislation by Government fiat would be a regressive rather than a progressive move. Even where the Minister says that he has it in mind to change the Harbours Act 1964, that will be to the detriment of natural justice. The same is true, for all I know, with the Covent Garden Market Act 1961.

Interestingly, the individual private people who are affected by this will not be able to initiate the process; it will have to be done by the Government. At the moment private interests come forward, engage in consultation, employ parliamentary counsel and get their tackle in order before they bring forward their Bill. They can do that irrespective of the views of the Government. That is their right of access to Parliament. But under the provisions of this Bill, the Government are saying, “You can only use these accelerated procedures if we endorse it.” What sort of justice and equity is that?

Many Thanks to Anne Palmer for her research.

Blogging Richard Corbett puts the argument that the Constitution is dead to the test…..

"There are at least two views. One is that this text of the Constitution is dead following the referenda in France and the Netherlands; that we had better start thinking of something else and preparing a different way forward. The other view is to say: hang on a minute, this text has actually now been ratified by a majority of Member States. The 25 national governments themselves did not declare it dead. Instead, they extended the period of ratification and opened a ‘period of reflection’. In that period of reflection we must listen carefully to those who said ‘no’, but we must also listen to the majority who have said ‘yes’ and find a way forward that can ultimately bring the two together"

more later this is just testing!!! Excepting; Corbett, like all good Europhiles will insist on calling the EU Europe.   

Technorati Tags:

eu, eu-constitution, eurosceptics, xenophobes

From Anne Palmer

Statutory Instruments. (Explanation)

There are two main types of statutory instruments, affirmative instruments, which Parliament must expressly approve: and negative instruments, which become law without a debate or vote – but may be opposed, or “prayed against”, by a member of either House. In both cases, Parliament’s room for manoeuvre is limited. Parliament can accept or (theoretically)_ reject an instrument but cannot amend it. In practise, time for debating statutory instruments is limited.

The first time I came across the Bill was the morning of the 10^th Feb 2006 when going through the Commons Hansard for the 9^th Feb. I nearly passed the debate by because the title Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill meant nothing to me at that time. However, I have trailed Parliament for so long now, I have found that the most innocent of titles can hide some of the most fierce despotic legislation. I decided to ‘have a look’. What I saw at a glance through trailing down, made me print off the whole debate to go through in greater and detail.

Here are some excerpts and although these alerted me at the time, they are mild to what comes in the Standing Committee’s 8 debates.

Saturday’s Mail reported that the EU Commission has threatened member states with legal action if they impose GM-free growing zones in their countries, saying they would violate trade rules by making the cultivation of GM crops “practically impossible”. The EU has also postponed legislation on GM/ conventional crop co-existence until 2008.

EUpolitix

This from Anne Palmer 11.3.2006.

A Traitor’s Bill. Known also as the Abolition of Parliament Bill. Officially called The Legislative Regulatory Reform Bill.

I would like to draw attention to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill presently going through Parliament one way or another. This has been known by the title, “The Abolition of Parliament Bill”, but I will forever call it, “The Traitor’s Bill”, for I believe that is exactly what it is, for who is to know what kind of person might be Prime Minister of this Country in the future? Under this legislation it could be President Chirac or the President of the European Union. (AS one MP has already suggested)

Each and every Member of Parliament and those that sit in the House of Lords all pledge their Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Engraved forever in hearts and minds is or should be, the knowledge that “the essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the sovereign”.

There are two sides put in the debates, and if you trust what this present Government are saying, then there is a tendency to sway towards them. If, on the other hand there is a tendency to believe the opposition’s interpretation of the Bill, then of course one would believe them. I, on the other hand believe very strongly, that anything that can either mean all things to all men or puts our system of government at risk, and more importantly places the Crown at risk, our Common Law Constitution, the sovereignty of government, parliament and the people, then the legislation proposed should not, not even one tiny little bit of it, be accepted. If there is any doubt what so ever of the effect this legislation would have to our Constitution, our country or the governing of it, the proposed legislation should be aborted. We must at all times err on the side of caution. Friends can quickly change into enemies. Nothing should place the Crown or this Country in jeopardy. We have gone to war for less.

This Bill appears to be being rushed through our Parliament. I obviously must miss many points made and it is clear that some debates are NOT RECORDED for the likes of me to read. I cannot read everything, in any case time does not permit although I do read into the early hours of the morning, until three this morning. Such is the way these “Debates” are set up, there is absolutely no way can amendments that are put forward by the Opposition, get through. The government will have its way apparently. The needs of the people,(or what they want) does not enter into the Government’s scheme of things.

Should you decide to read this debate, then I would suggest you also get hold of the actual Bill and have that by you, read this particular debate in which you will also need to look at the amendments put forward at the front of the debate, to complete understanding of the debate in question.

For those that do not have access to internet, or have no spare time to read all, I place here what I consider to be of great concern to all of us. For those that believe we have no Common Law Constitution left, most of it is listed in this debate.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/a/st060302/pm/60302s01.htm

Brief excerpts only

Column Number: 111, Mr Chope. Statutes have been struck down in the High Court in the past and the Government have tried to put the matter right in primary legislation, which is their privilege. But surely they should not be able to correct every error in the law by fiat, using an accelerated procedure that denies the power of Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account, to amend the proposals and to discuss them in full.

Amendment No. 35 would omit subsection (5), which is about binding the Crown. Why do the Government want to bind the Crown under this Bill? I hope that the Minister will answer that question. He will be aware of the articles suggesting that the monarchy could be abolished under these provisions and it might not be so easy to do so if the amendment removing subsection (5) were accepted.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would also be helpful to have some information about what consultation has taken place with the Palace about this provision?

Mr. Chope: I do indeed agree that that would be very useful. The Minister may say that the proposal has been greeted with tremendous enthusiasm, but it may be otherwise. I would be very surprised if it had been greeted with enthusiasm by the Crown, but it is for the Minister to justify his position.

David Howarth. At Col 112. Let me start with amendment No. 45. In a way, it is consequential or additional to the amendment that seeks to remove part of clause 2. It seeks to remove clause 2(2)(a), which allows legislative functions to be conferred on other persons, and to replace it with its opposite: that no order under the Bill shall confer on any person the power to legislate. Why do the Government want a power to transfer legislative authority to any person? It is bad enough that they want a power to change primary legislation by statutory instrument. How much worse is it that legislative power might be transferred to another person who, as far as I can tell, will be able to make further legislative change without a statutory instrument or any parliamentary scrutiny at all? In many ways, that is the most dangerous part of the Bill.

We are considering the transfer of legislative power to people who are not even Ministers, so would not be capable of being questioned by the House about any use of the power granted to them under the clause. Who are those people? If the Minister will tell us, perhaps we can attempt to write something into the Bill that will accord with his wishes.

Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): While the hon. Gentleman was so ably explaining his concerns, it occurred to me that there is no provision concerning the nationality of such people. It is entirely possible that under this clause the Minister could transfer legislative powers to a foreign Government or Head of State, effectively transferring to some extent the sovereignty of our country. That is allowable within the provisions of the Bill. It might sound outlandish, but that is what it gives Ministers the power to do.

David Howarth: That is absolutely right. I was coming to precisely that point. Depending on the kind of nightmares that hon. Members might have, this provision would allow, presumably by changes to the Parliament Acts, the transfer of the sovereignty of Parliament to President Bush—

Mr. Harper: President Chirac.

David Howarth: Or President Chirac or, perhaps even worse from the point of view of the Conservative party, to the President of the European Commission. There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent that from happening. Because there is nothing in the Bill about what sort of legislative function is being referred to—

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): We often loosely talk about Henry VIII powers. That is precisely what this is. It is the power that Henry VIII took upon himself to issue any edict and for it to be termed a law passed by Parliament. It seems to me that we have regressed several centuries.

At Col 115. David Howarth: Yes, that is absolutely right. The danger is that we transfer the authority of Parliament to the Minister, and allow that latter, in effect, to transfer that authority to subordinate bodies, which ought to be subject to the courts. I am not talking about Parliament being subject to the courts, but subordinate bodies.

At Col 118. Mr Harper. “When we were discussing clause 1, I thought that it was the most worrying part of the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge that it is subsection (2), which would be removed by amendment No. 33. That provision effectively allows Ministers to confer powers on others to make legislation. At least transferring powers to Ministers and the Executive means that they are still accountable to the House of Commons. I would like the Minister to explain exactly what type of individuals or organisations he has in mind to delegate legislating powers to and the scope of such delegation”. “My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has sensibly set out our concerns about Ministers wanting to make substantial replacement of the common law with statute. Common law has served this country well. I see no great reason for codifying great swathes of it.

My final point is on amendment No. 35. The proposal to bind the Crown is of great concern. We know that in Parliament and in public discussions have started about the proper use of the royal prerogative. Those prerogative powers to make international treaties and to commit Her Majesty’s forces to war are incredibly important. Any changes to those powers should be decided by proper discussion in Parliament on the Floor of the House. They should not be changes that Ministers can make by order”.

At 119 Mr Heald. Why is it that the Government want to confer functions–including legislative functions—on other people? If one reads the explanatory notes, the answer is supposed to be in annex A. The notes say, in relation to clause 2, that annex A

“sets out a few examples of some of the ways in which it is anticipated that the order-making power may be used.”

Yet when one looks at annex A, on page 18 of the explanatory notes, there is nothing that talks about giving powers to people to legislate in the way that clause 2(2) mentions. Annex A refers to the Department for Trade and Industry having proposals to simplify legislation on employment, the construction industry, weights and measures, consumer rights and the energy industry. The annex says that the proposals will be implemented under Part 1 of the Bill. What power is it that the Minister is proposing to confer on another person about legislation relating to employment? Many of us would be worried if important issues on governance of trade unions or on employment rights were dealt with by anybody other than a Minister.

At 121. Mr. Heald: An important part of our liberty is being affected. The confiscation of property is also important. All of that is taking place against a background of the introduction of other measures that also limit our liberties. The new clauses refer to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which is an important Act that takes liberty away from the individual.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, in his shadow Home Office guise, has dealt with numerous Bills that curtail liberty. The Identity Cards Bill is on track and other proposals concerning terrorism have been put before the House. Now we are asking whether all that remains of habeas corpus can be thrown away—removed and abolished—by an order that may not be debated by the House of Commons. That is being done in the name of business, which is being told, “This is for you. We will take burdens off your back, and we’re going to do it with this Bill.” What business wants to abolish habeas corpus by order? None that I have come across has ever said that. I do not think that businesses would want property to be confiscated. Do they want an end to jury trial? I do not think so. Extradition? They may have concerns after the recent NatWest case, because bankers will be worried that their extradition position can be changed by order.

The Bill in either Pdf or HTM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/2006141.htm The Explanatory notes http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/en/06111x–.htm The Standing Committee notes http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmscleg.htm

Technorati Tags: british-democracy, constitution, dictators, due-process, english-laws

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill completed its committee stages in the Commons last Thursday and, despite a spirited counter-offensive by Opposition MPs, remains largely intact as one of the most pernicious measures to have come before a British parliament.

The Bill would empower any minister by order to make provisions amending, repealing or replacing any legislation, primary or secondary, for any purpose, and to reform the common law to implement Law Commission recommendations.

Why is such a measure needed? The Government says a “fast-track” method of repealing laws is essential for its war on red tape. Armed with such a weapon, it can scythe through the forests of regulations, many of them planted by the very same government, and relieve the £50 billion annual burden on hundreds of thousands of hard-pressed small businesses.

The essence of the Government’s position is this. “Trust us. We may be taking extraordinary powers that could, in the wrong hands, be misused. But we wouldn’t dream of doing any such thing. This is Britain, for goodness sake.”

Indeed, the continued promulgation of Bills such as these will irrevocably change the sort of country we are because we have been defined over the centuries by the possession of parliaments that would never have countenanced such a grotesque proposal.

Technorati Tags: english-legislation, labour-party, undemocratic

Booker

If the Commons were ‘monitored’ like local councils, it would soon be empty

The Standards Board for England last week apologised to five Islington councillors who, after three years, had been cleared of charges made against them by a political opponent. This was the longest-ever investigation by the board, which was set up by John Prescott to enforce new rules on the conduct of local councillors. It cost £1.1 million, including a legal bill of £350,000 incurred personally by the councillors in their bid to defend themselves.

Since I first reported on the workings of Mr Prescott’s new system which sets up a “monitoring officer” in each council to enforce his Code of Conduct, I have been bombarded by MPs and councillors with examples from all over the country of the havoc it is inflicting on local government.

When the leader of West Norfolk council, John Dobson, took legal advice which enabled him to reverse a Standards Board ruling in favour of a complaint made against him, also by a political opponent, this left him with a bill for more than £23,000. But politically or maliciously inspired complaints, which have to be investigated by the Standards Board’s highly-paid Ethical Standards Officers, are only part of the problem.

Causing just as much confusion and dismay are bizarre rulings by zealous monitoring officers that councillors cannot even be present during discussions of issues on which they are judged to have a “personal and prejudicial interest”, although these may be the very issues on which they were elected.

An English vote is of less value  Times Letters

Sir - After listening yesterday to Lord Falconer’s rationale for devolution, I can see why the Government is so frightened of restricting votes on English laws to English MPs. It realises that, without the support of Scottish- and Welsh-elected MPs, it cannot be sure of pushing through English legislation at Westminster.

Lord Falconer (a Scot to boot) rejects the notion of English votes in Parliament for English laws (the only fair, affordable way forward) on the grounds that it will create two tiers of MPs.

This Government has already created two tiers of voters: Welsh and Scottish ones with a vote on their own legislation and also a say in English laws, and English voters with a vote only within their own borders. The English voter, as Tam Dalyell acknowledged long ago, has a voting deficit and this is the way the Government wishes to keep things, despite the advice of select committees, and discontent of English voters.

Prof Jeremy Dibble, Durham University

From Open Europe

EU energy policy: Commission bids for new powers over regulation, environment and member states’ relations with the outside world

The European Commission will today unveil its green paper on energy, which has been widely leaked. The paper proposes that the EU would gain power to set member states reserve requirements, and the FT reports that each country might be required to store up to two months’ worth of imported gas, which they would be required to release, to ensure “solidarity”, in the event of a supply disruption. An earlier proposal for a doubling of oil reserves was previously vetoed by the UK after it emerged that it would cost over £3 billion to implement (March 2003). More recently the Commission proposed a reserve scheme to smooth out oil price spikes.

The paper foresees an EU energy regulator, an EU energy agency, and a European project to build new pipelines to North Africa. The Commission would gain new powers to enforce its environmental policies. The paper says the EU will “lead global efforts to halt climate change and improve local air quality”, and will propose measures to meet thetarget of a 20% cut in energy use.

The paper also suggests that the Commission would negotiate with the outside world, as it does in trade policy. The paper says that “Work should start towards an EU-Russia energy treaty”, and in an article in the IHT Jose Barroso writes that “The European Union needs to speak with a common voice”.

The Commission says that member states would retain sovereignty over which energy sources to use. But it argues that because these choices “have an impact on the energy security of their neighbours and on competitiveness and the environment,” an annual “strategic EU energy review” is needed to give a “clear European framework for national decisions on the energy mix”, and the EU would gain powers to legislate to “help the EU to stem the increasing dependence on imports.” In 2007 the EU would “define a limit for import dependency, and define the measures necessary to achieve this goal.”

Comment: Back in 2002 when the EU Constitution was being drafted, the UK tried to veto giving the Commission any new powers over energy, with Peter Hain saying that there was no need for it because “all aspects of energy policy are effectively covered elsewhere in the treaty.” It is unclear why the UK position has changed. It remains to be seen to what extent the Commission’s proposals will give it new legislative powers, but given its previous proposals on energy, any new powers for the Commission could lead to some very expensive regulation. Nor is it clear that the UK would benefit from the EU negotiating “with a common voice” – given that the UK’s interests are likely to be quite different (e.g. being supplied from Norway and LPG rather than Russia).

Technorati Tags: commission, environmental-policies, eu-energy-policy, eu-russia-energy-treaty, jose-barroso, solidarity

Telegraph | News | With Friends like these…: “With Friends like these…
Posted at: 12:40

Still befuddled by the tail-end of flu, I wondered for a moment if the following press release was a parody. Then I read it again slowly, and realised - no, it’s just another day on Planet Brussels.

The press release, from the think tank ‘Friends of Europe’, was about a new Gallup opinion poll, that asked whether it would be ‘undemocratic’ to salvage key parts of the EU constitution, after it was derailed by No votes in France and Holland last summer. Not at all, the poll found: ‘By a wide margin of 77%, [respondents] thought EU leaders should re-introduce its most important elements without going through referendums’. Crikey, I thought. Where did they find so many people keen to allow EU leaders to bypass the voters. Then I read the small print. The poll was of… EU leaders.

Friends of Europe, a Brussels-based outfit whose board of trustees is crammed full of Euro-bigwigs and retired luminaries, actually sought out Europe’s elite, to ask them if they thought it would be good plan to leave the future of the constitution in the hands of Europe’s elite. In their own words, they asked Gallup to survey ’some 100 politicians, journalists, officials, NGO chiefs and top businessmen.’

The results were thoroughly encouraging: ‘An overwhelming majority of European policy experts surveyed by Gallup have said that it would not be undemocratic if the EU were to salvage key parts of its wrecked constitutional treaty,’ notably the creation of an EU foreign minister, and EU diplomatic service, according to the group. You can read the whole thing here, if you have the time.

There are some choice pull-out quotes from respondents, such as this one: Asked if it would be undemocratic to move ahead with an EU diplomatic service, Philippe de Schoutheete, former Belgian Permanent Representative [ambassador] to the EU replied: ‘Of course not. Electors rejected for a variety of reasons a complex text, not its constituent elements.’ I wasn’t going to make the obvious gag, but it’s Friday, so forgive me. With Friends like these, the European project doesn’t need many more enemies.”

Resurrecting the Constitution
From Euobserver

German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Jacques Chirac are engaged in confidential talks aimed at re-submitting the core of the EU constitution to French and Dutch voters, according to a German weekly.

Spiegel Online reports in a preview of the Spiegel weekly printed edition that conservatives from Germany, France and the European Parliament are plotting a scheme for reviving the EU constitution which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in referendums last year.

According to the plans, the charter should be reduced to its first two parts, setting out the EU’s competences and the charter of fundamental rights of the union.

These core parts should be boosted with the addition of a political declaration and be put to a fresh poll in both France and the Netherlands.

The remaining third part of the text, detailing the EU’s policies, should be ratified by the French and Dutch parliaments, completing the ratification of the entire constitution as it has been approved by 14 member states so far.

The operation to resuscitate the charter would be started under the German EU presidency in the first half of 2007.

Ms Merkel earlier proposed attaching a declaration on the “social dimension of Europe” to the failed EU constitution, in a bid to save the charter in its entirety.

The non-binding declaration would call upon the EU institutions consider the social implications of EU internal market legislation more thoroughly and is seen as being designed to soothe French voters’ fears over the alleged neo-liberal character of the union.

Is it just me or does anyone else see the duplicity of this, the French and Dutch voters rejected the Constitution in its entirety, so they will be asked to vote again, but only on parts of it, as a sweetener they will be offered a non binding declaration on the “social dimension of Europe” . Then the respective governments will ratified the remainder of the document. No wonder the talks are in secret!

Technorati Tags: constitution, European Parliament, French and Dutch voters, EU’s policies, charter, EU institutions

Last week I put a link on my blog that cunningly tells readers of other web documents referring to the blog. I was intrigued to see one such web site called the Labour Movement for Europe.

Not being a member of the Labour Party, this pro-Euro organisation working within the Labour Party has passed me by.

LME Labour Movement for Europe LME officers include such luminary figures as Lord Kinnock, Chris Bryant MP, Wayne David MP, Barbara Follett MP, and not totally unexpected Richard Corbett MEP.

LME was relaunched as a campaigning organisation on Noveber 22 in a packed meeting in Westminster. Over 70 members, MPs and peers crowded into Committee Room 6 in the House of Commons to discuss the future organisation of LME and hear keynote speeches from Geoff Hoon and Douglas Alexander.

Apparently “For too long, LME has been dormant while right-wing anti-Europeans have had their way in Britain. But the question of Britain’s engagement with its European partners is far too important for the debate to be dominated by noisy xenophobes.

Now is the time for LME to reawaken and rejoin the battle!” I am always surprised and disappointed that the call to promote the EU is always structured in such a partisan manner. We Eurosceptics are always portrayed as right wing xenophobes, and the Pro-EUites are the knights in shining armour riding to the rescues of the poor EU damsel in distress. I assume these are intelligent people, they must either actually belive this guff, or they hope to attract willing idiots as cannon fodder, which is what they will be if they actually try to mount any attack based on these assumptions.

Over the coming months, I hope LME will be engaging in debate at every level—in Westminster, in Brussels, and most importantly on the ground in Britain. To aid the campaign a new website was also unveiled with a variety of campaign tools designed to support grassroots activists.

Although some of the site is subscription only, through the Secure Campaign Centre on the front page there are links to Campaigns, Analysis of recent headlines, (sub) Myth-busting, (with links to the expected) Media centre (the list of officers) Policy briefings (Enlargement and Turkey Democracy in Europe The constitution) In the campaign section there is “The five-minute campaigner” where activists are invited to “Make your mark on the pro-European scene with our quick and easy campaign ideas.

” • Write to your local newspaper

• Find out about events in your area

• Join in an online debate

• Plan and discuss campaigns

My interest is the one about joining an online debate:

Online debates There are a large number of anti-European blogs (weblogs) out there, and not very many pro-European ones. Sadly, the kind of euromythology which is the speciality of our tabloids often surfaces in these blogs too. However, one important feature of blogs is that they often allow readers to append their own comments, which then become visible to everyone who visits the site. In this way, a provocative post by the blog author can quickly become an interesting debate among different readers. Since blog readership is increasing all the time, this is an effective way of stimulating discussion quickly and easily.

Here’s a selection of EU-related blogs you might find interesting.

If something catches your eye, or you spot an omnipresent euromyth, why not leave a comment to set the record straight? Or you can highlight your find in the Secure Campaign Centre, where activists can discuss a response.

Top five UK-EU debates online

1. BBC Europe diary: A regular online diary which invites comments.

2. Margot Wallström: Regular blogging in English from the European Commission. Hundreds of comments and very lively debate.

3. Europhobia: Started off as a pro-EU blog, but now deals with all kinds of UK and international politics.

4. EU Referendum: Widely-read blog maintained by two heavily Atlanticist eurosceptics. Regular and detailed posts, many comments.

5. David Rennie: New Telegraph Brussels correspondent blog. Eurosceptic and anti-Brussels, but with very active debate among commenters.

EU blogs: recommended reading

• EU Pundit: News and views on the EU.

• EU Law: Academic blog for legal professionals.

• European Democracy: Well-informed editorial.

• The Periscope: World media monitoring of EU stories.

• Richard Corbett MEP: UK Labour MEP with a daily blog.

Eurosceptic blogs

• The Brussels Journal: Regular blogging by English and Dutch eurosceptics. Professional and not too extreme.

• Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Withdrawalist and generally reactionary blog. Regular, but amateurish.

• EU Realist: Another fairly reactionary

• EU Rota: More of the same.

• Free Europe: Tub-thumping, slow-loading euroscepticism.

Note! Oddly for one so intent on widening the debate Richard Corbett`s blog does not allow comments which I suppose tells us all we really need to know. The problem is going to be for the un-informed that the debate is not based on a right wing xenophobic mythology agenda. Which they will soon begin to realise when they start to comment on blogs like Eureferendum. That we need a debate about Britain’s future in or out of the EU is beyond question, that is the reason many of us started blogging in the first place, But a word to all those who do wish to take up campaigning for LME. We welcome you, please take note that unlike LME we have no need to keep things secret “The Secure Campaign Centre” If you do decide to comment on our posts, please come armed with knowledge not simply biased partisan opinions.

Times
EU law and British legislation
Sir, There is a stream of proposals for constitutional reform, most of which are well overdue. The latest is the Power inquiry (Political briefing, Feb 28).

Peter Riddell is right in calling attention to the number of revolts by MPs as one example of the assertiveness of Parliament. However, he underestimates the power of the Government and the whips in driving through a vast increase in legislation often with little or no debate.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, reviewed by David Pannick, QC (Law, Feb 28; see also letters, March 1, etc), is a good new example of truncating the necessary parliamentary procedures for the proper consideration of legislation. He points out that legislation which emanates from the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998 confers powers on ministers to secure compliance with European-made law.

However, apart from a passing reference to the European scrutiny process, the Power inquiry does not tackle the root problem. This is that the existing European treaties and European law (let alone the currently suspended European constitution) have a deeply pervasive impact on multiple spheres of our domestic legislation and on our own parliamentary system of government. These include EU regulations, which burden British business but which it is claimed cannot be amended or repealed at Westminster.

Parliament must tackle this issue or become increasingly irrelevant. It must reassert the principle of parliamentary supremacy by reaffirming its right to legislate where necessary inconsistently with the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and override the Legislative and Regulatory Reform proposals which diminish proper parliamentary scrutiny.

It must, at the same time, require the judiciary to support parliamentary supremacy, for this is based on the power of Parliament and on the decisions of MPs who are democratically elected by the voters in general elections. It is imperative that Kenneth Clarke’s Conservative Democracy Commission endorses this principle as it is clear that neither the Labour Party nor the Liberal Democrats have any intention of doing so.

BILL CASH, MP
Shadow Attorney-General 2001-03
London SW1

Technorati Tags: Power inquiry, The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, European treaties, European law, EU regulations

Neil Herron has a post about the opening of the New Welsh Assembly Building by the Queen yesterday and a link to the photographs from Caernarfon Online of the thousands of people who did not turn up in Maes.

At the request of the Assembly the BBC mounted a publicity exercise by putting up a big TV screen in the centre of town.

There is clearly a feeling of apathy to both the Assembly and the Royal Family in Caernarfon.

Obviously for the people of Caernarfon “It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.

Technorati Tags: Welsh Assembly, BBC, apathy, Royal Family, referendum process