eurealist.co.uk

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Home Secretary confirm that people are right in thinking that this is all part of an EU requirement to prepare for a common system across Europe, and that that is why he is in such a hurry to get rid of our liberties in this respect?

Mr. Clarke: I am happy to confirm that that is total nonsense. There is no proposal either for an EU identity card or for an EU-wide card of any sort. As far as I am aware, there is no proposal on the table. What has been discussed in the EU is biometrics for passports and biometrics for residents’ documents. That has been discussed not only in the EU but in countries throughout the world—especially the United States—as a means of helping people to travel more effectively. There is no requirement, and the canard, if I might use a Frenchism, that this is all an EU plot—something that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes suggests—is not true in this instance.

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I agree with my right hon. Friend about the lack of an EU conspiracy. However, will he comment on why the UK alone is going down the route of having a centralised data base and an audit trail, which is not in line with recommendations that are coming from Europe?

Mr. Clarke: There are no recommendations coming from Europe on this matter so that the issue of being in line does not arise.

Clarke is being somewhat economical in that he is right to say there are no recommendations coming from the EU, that the government have to meet, but it would be misleading to say there was no EU involvement in ID cards, or to try to infer that the EU was not interested in and EU wide ID scheme.

See page 17 re ID cards COM (2000) 257 final 3.5.2000. (27 pages)

(Adoption by the European Parliament and Council of a package of Regulations on a uniform format for the EU passport, identity card and residence permit. (Their emphasis)

Conclusions of Brussels Presidency, 32 pages. Re ID card, page 18

The European Council invites the Council, the Commission and Member States to continue their

efforts to integrate biometric identifiers in travel documents, visa, residence permits, EU citizens’

passports and information systems without delay and to prepare for the development of minimum

standards for national identity cards, taking into account ICAO standards.

The Hague Report. 33 pages. ID cards Page 17

Another document, Council of European Union Brussels 11^th November 2005. 14351/05

Subject Draft Conclusions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on common minimum security standards for Member States’ national identity Cards.

ID Cards: EU launches European Biometrics Portal to assist governments”

http://www.europeanbiometrics.info/index.php

The Government would like us to belive that the ID cards are their idea and that the implementation would have no impact on an EU wide basis, or that the EU would not have a say in either the content of these cards or the exchange of the data which will be collected for the national data base.

From Lords Hansard 23 Nov 2005: Column 1667 Lord Stoddart of Swindon “The problem is that if it were decided by the European Union that we should have a Europe-wide card, they would, without further reference to this House or this Parliament, be able to insert various requirements themselves, perhaps even one for DNA. That would be imposed on our citizens, whether they liked it or not. If I am not mistaken, the decision would come not under the basis of unanimity, but on the basis of qualified majority. Therefore we could have items imported into our system of a national register for the national identity card which our own Parliament, after proper discussion and assurances have been given by Ministers, did not want and particularly sought to exclude.”

Baroness Scotland of Asthal reply’s : Identity cards are only an intergovernmental issue; the EU has no competence on the matter.

Lord Stoddart: I appreciate that at present it is an intergovernmental matter; but she will be aware that the European constitution has been signed by all member states. Indeed, it is still a live issue, although there is a period for reflection on the matter, following the rejection of the constitution by France and the Netherlands. Does she agree that under the constitution intergovernmentalism will be no more, because the constitution will collapse the intergovernmental position into one single entity? Therefore, does she agree that if this country was foolish enough to vote for the constitution, it would no longer be an intergovernmental operation and the European Union would have some override over our identity cards and the national register?

The interior ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom met in Heiligendamm, Germany, on 22 and 23 March 2006. They welcomed the interior minister of Poland as a new addition to their group founded in 2003.

The co-operation between the six countries is intended to provide an additional impetus to strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice. Similar to a “laboratory” this small circle will draw up concrete proposals to intensify co-operation in European home affairs. Other EU Member States will be fully informed about proposals made by the G6 countries and can participate in their implementation.

In order to promote integration and fight illegal immigration and terrorism, the ministers have agreed on the following specific measures.

The ministers emphasized the major importance of successful integration for the stability of society. Against this background, they agreed on an intensive exchange of information about their integration programmes and prerequisites, particularly information on types and methods of related tests, if in place. The ministers decided to set up an expert working group to analyze the possibility and main contents of an integration contract with immigrants or comparable instruments.

4. Principle of availability

The ministers again highlighted the importance of significantly improving cross-border information exchange between law enforcement authorities, as already set out in the Hague Programme. To rapidly achieve this objective, they advocate focusing on DNA, fingerprints and motor vehicle registration data. At the same time they stressed that the promising model offered by the Prüm Treaty, including online requests and hit/no hit access, should be considered at EU level as soon as possible.

The ministers underscored that rapid implementation of the availability principle must not depend on the adoption of a framework decision on data protection in the third pillar.

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments: “This self-appointed governmental pressure group sees itself as leading the way on justice and home affairs - but have they consulted their people or parliaments on the measures they are putting forward? A classic instance is their position on the so-called “principle of availability” whereby all information and intelligence (often guesswork or supposition) on individuals held by a national law enforcement agency (police, immigration, customs) can be accessed by any of the hundreds of agencies across the EU (where it can added to with more information and “intelligence” and passed on again, inside or outside the EU).

Their conclusion is that the “rapid implementation of the availability principle must not depend on the adoption of a framework decision on data protection” - in other words state agencies should be allowed to exchange information and “intelligence” without any data protection rights for the individual being in place.”

Thanks to Anne Palmer.

This morning MEP Daniel Hannan in his regular spot at the Telegraph confronts the idea of state funding for political parties,

 “If there is one thing we politicians agree on, it’s that the rest of you owe us a living. That’s why you should be alarmed that the Labour and Tory leaders are meeting tomorrow to discuss state funding for political parties. People of the same trade seldom meet together, as Adam Smith says, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public. That we elected representatives want more of your cash is hardly surprising, but our blatancy ought to shock you.

 Embarrassed by the exposure of our fund-raising methods, we cheekily suggest that the problem is not our behaviour, but the absence of support from the taxpayer. And you, poor saps, fall for it. You are so outraged at our brazenness that you miss the real scandal, namely our equation of state funding with honest politics. You splutter that the taxpayer already has plenty of demands on his wallet; but you unthinkingly accept the argument on our terms, as a trade-off between subvention and corruption.

 In fact, that argument is impossible to stand up, either in theory or in practice. The countries that are keenest on state funding - which tend to be in Europe rather than the Anglosphere - are generally the ones with the dirtiest political systems. And the rankest scandals in these nations usually involve party funding.”

 
Hannan then proceeds to illustrate his point with examples of corruption in other European countries:  “the sleaze that brought down Helmut Kohl a decade ago”,   “France, also awash with state funding, where some 700 politicians have been charged with corruption in the past decade, almost all in relation to party financing scams”

 Many of us have often been appalled at the arrogance of some European leaders, Hannan asks

“Could it be that being able to compel cash from your constituents, instead of having to ask them politely, makes you arrogant? Is it not possible that state funding, and the magic circle of parties that it creates, encourages an "us-and-them" attitude towards those who are outside the system?”

 I agree with several of the points expressed and illustrated in this article:

The way that state funding widens the gap between government and governed.

State funding prevents new parties from challenging established ones

When the state pays for political parties, it assumes that it can tell them what to believe.

“The apparatus of public funding creates a lucrative career structure for politicians

A graduate can work for his local party branch, then put in a couple of years at the attached state-funded think-tank, and then stand for parliament. Throughout his life, he has been dependent on the largesse of the taxpayer.

So it is hardly surprising that, when he becomes a minister, he is comfortable with the idea of higher taxes. This is why even the notionally centre-Right parties in Europe tend to be corporatist: it’s not just that they have to keep finding state sector posts for their supporters; they simply can’t imagine a world in which most activity is independent of the government.”

It is for this reason that I take issue with the recently published Power Report,  although it correctly identifies the problems of a lack of public involvement in politics, its suggestion that each party should receive state funding in line with the level of votes it gets, will not in any way increase accountability of political parties, it will in fact do just the opposite, by obligating us all to support political parties and the political system will insulate politicians even further from the public.  

Technorati Tags: career-politicians, british-mps, membership-of-political-parties, power-report, public-funding-of-political-parties
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |