eurealist.co.uk

The German government is starting as it means to go on.

EU Ministers set out yesterday a timetable for reviving the Constitution, with the hope of concluding negotiations on a new document by late 2008.

In a move to isolate countries which have not ratified, the18 countries that have already ratified will attend a meeting in Madrid on 26 January.

A separate meeting amongst countries that have not yet ratified the Treaty will be held a month later on 27 February.

These meetings will enable Germany (which assumes the presidency 1 January) to formulate a report on the future evolution of the EU Constitution.

Angela Merkel made it clear yesterday that she will use the German Presidency to get the European Constitution talks back on track. she said “I would consider it an historical failure if we do not succeed in working out the substance of the constitutional treaty by the time the next European elections take place,” she said the German government would work “intensively” during the six-month Presidency “so that such a treaty, based on our common values, can go into force.”

EUobserver reports that Jose Barroso is confident that the Constitution will be revived saying, ”I believe we are going to make real progress during the next presidency”.

The European Voice reports Margot Wallström, European commissioner for communication as saying

“You cannot disregard citizens. It is important to make sure the renegotiation is not only about horse-trading behind closed doors,” “I know the German presidency says that there should not be too many people involved in the negotiation, but we could invite the European Parliament, national parliaments, the civil society, to show that we welcome contributions on the future of Europe.”

She added that getting input from citizens, national parliaments and the European Parliament would be crucial not only for showing that Europe listened to its people, but also for “anchoring” any new treaty text in the member states and helping it win their approval.

The commissioner urged “a co-ordinated effort, a public consultation on any new text simultaneously in all member states”.

“I am not talking only about referenda: if referenda are not possible, according to national traditions, different ways of consultation can be chosen: in some member states it could go through the national parliament, in others there could be consultation through electronic methods, and so on; the important thing is to consult the people.”

While member states could choose the method, “they should do it the same day, in a co-ordinated way, to give the impression the whole of Europe is engaged in this”.

When will these people get it into their heads that this is not an EU wide initiative, each Nation State Member must decide on its own if it wishes to transfer these powers to the EU, all they are trying to do is to use the numbers of people in some countries like for instance Germany, to suggest that the majority of the people want this, but they will not actually be asking the German people to vote in a referendum. So they will not be country the Germans who do not want it or even proving a majority of them do.

Scottish National MP Angus MacNeil writing in the Telegraph says;

“This week Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems have taken great delight in telling the Scots that they are subsidised by over £11 billion”

Although he argues that this figure is disputed by the independence movement in Scotland, he does not offer any evidence to support that contention,(I do know that it exists) but imidiatly swerves off on a tangent about this week’s report that independent Ireland will this year achieve a budget surplus of £3.97 billion while the London Chancellor has a £34.2 billion deficit. And asks if Ireland would flourish in such a dramatic way if still governed from London?

I always admire how the left in particular can put so many half-truths in such a short sentence; the independent Ireland of which he so lovingly speaks has been the recipient of massive EU handouts since it joined the Community, even this week a new batch of subsidies for Ireland have been announced, it is those handouts which have enable the Irish to prosper, but that prosperity has partially been bought with money donated by the British people as our government has been one of the major financial sponsors of EU funds, and of course the London Chancellor who apparently has made such a hash of the job, is in fact Scottish and is fully supported by the many other Scots in the British Cabinet. So McNeil is complaining about his own countrymen but because he places them in London he is suggesting they are not Scottish. Propaganda or what!

But the point of the McNeil letter is to question why as “Eleven billion would go a long way in England towards introducing free care for the elderly and removing student tuition fees. While telling the Scots they are being subsidised, Labour, particularly, but also the Tories and the Lib Dems are shy of telling the English they are being robbed.”

He is of course quite right that the information is not disseminated fully south of the border, but he is not putting his question in the context of next years the elections to the Scottish Parliament, which if the SNP are the winners will lead to a referendum in Scotland for the break up of the UK, in this debate the rest of us have no voice, and the question only becomes pertinent within the independence or the British constitutional debate.

From my personal perspective as a British taxpayer, the suggestion that Scotland might take more out of the joint purse than the Scottish people put in, has no more relevance than the proposition might also be true of Cornwall, Devon, Powys or Anglesey (begging their pardon) we are all British we are all one peoples and we all share in the national purse.

If it is a reality that Scotland needs more support that is simply a fact of life, might well be a fact of past government decisions, or that it has large rural areas which are sparsely populated, with only about one fourth of the land under cultivation, that fact that until very recently the extension of feudalism and the land enclosures of the 19th centaury has meant that the ownership of most land in Scotland was concentrated in relatively few hands, and with the decline of heavy industry and of the coal industry also contributing to the present (disputed) situation. But none of this means Scotland is a basket case that would be a continual drain on the British economy or that it could not survive independence.

To me the whole idea that England is being robbed by the Scots is nothing more than nationalistic manoeuvring it suits their purpose at this time to create antipathy between the peoples of the nation.

The real cost to Britain is membership of the EU and those costs dwarf any real or imagined Scottish costs. The government have not been prepared to do a cost benefit analysis, but there have been several other independent analysis. The Bruges Group estimates including British contributions, Payment to EU institutions, CAP, CFP, and EU regulation comes to 52.4 billion and that figure is set to grow as our contribution rise in the next few years. And I do not belive this figure includes the cost to the British exchequer of the recent ECJ decisions on Tax.

If eleven billion would go a long way in England towards introducing free care for the elderly and removing student tuition fees. Just imagine what 50 or even 30 Billion each and every year would buy. In the mean time the good folk of Luxembourg, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, Greece Spain and the new eastern entrants are all in some way being supported by the British taxpayer.

Perhaps Mr McNeil, a better question would be; Labour, Tories Lib Dems and the SNP are shy of telling the British they are being robbed. I wonder why.

From Little Man in a Toque a letter to Sir Menzies Campbell who has only ever had one email on the West Lothian Question.

Who says

the English do not want their own parliament

that the English don’t want another layer of government

that an English parliament would put the English off politics

As the e-mal explains a recent poll show there is big demand for an English parliament, on the second point “An English parliament does not necessarily mean another layer of government. For starters we can get rid of the unwanted and undemocratic regional layer and replace it with an English layer. Secondly we could look at the feasibility of dual-mandate MPs. And thirdly we can look at the role of the House of Lords with the aim of turning that into a federal and revising chamber, leaving the Commons as the English Parliament.” and did a Scottish Parliament put the Scots off politics?

The Telegraph calls it the doomed currency, after last years call by Italy’s Northern League for a return of the Lira this time it is the French in guise of prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, who although not calling for the return of the Franc has said that members must regain control over exchange-rate policy.

The Telegraph explains that “fundamental problem is that the economies of the “Germanic” members have diverged so far from those of the “Latin” bloc that the single interest rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) is becoming a huge political liability.”

A Telegraph commenter suggests

German Euros are worth more than French or Italian or anything else.

1. Make sure your Euro accounts are held with a German correspondent bank.

2. Make sure your Euro notes have the “D” prefix to the serial number (for “Deutschland” i.e. these promissory notes carry the full weight of the Deutsche Bundesbank).

Do not accept the “I”,”F” or “E” prefixes for Italia, France, Espana. I know a number of Italians who regularly switch their I notes for D notes by the suitcase full!

That way, if the Euro does succumb to centrifugal politics, we will get lovely Deutschmarks instead!

However as Richard North points out they are not going to give up without a fight and a major crisis, with the Euro will be used to push for further political integration.

As the Euro was always intended to be a step towards further integration I feel Eureferendum will be proved right.

From China’s Peoples Daily on Line

It is not a surprise that Javier Solana, the foreign policy chief of the European Union (EU), has been named the winner of the 2007 Charlemagne Prize.

EU’s diplomacy in the past year became the focus of global attention at certain points. Solana has become the face of the 25-nation bloc — at least in Asia, according to a study funded by the Asia-Europe Foundation.

With Solana at the helm, EU’s diplomacy is making the bloc, which had been seen as an economic community, increasingly political.

ECJ rules that UK can’t tax dividends on foreign subsidiaries of British firms – will cost Treasury up to £9billion

The European Court of Justice yesterday ruled that the British Government will have to pay back up to £9 billion to companies with subsidiaries in other EU states whose dividends were taxed under advanced corporation tax (ACT) rules, which were repealed under Gordon Brown. British American Tobacco originally launched the case, but several other multinational companies are now involved.

I know a lot of Scots would take issue with that headline but I will try to explain why I belive it to be true.

But first I would like to explore why some Scots are calling for the break up of the United Kingdom.

Brian Adam is the MSP for Aberdeen North

Independence is a state of mind.

We can seek to be totally independent and reject any responsibilities for others. We can aspire to share rights and responsibilities, to be co-dependent and participate in society with others. Or we can be dependent and leave the responsibility with others, reserving the right only to complain.

I also want Scotland to accept its responsibilities, as well as assert its rights, by recognising that we share this world with others with whom we are co-dependent. Hence I want us to engage directly with other countries through membership of the EU and organisations such as the UN.

Dr Ian McKee is the SNP candidate for Edinburgh Pentlands.

The most successful nations in Europe are not the largest. The advantages of economy of scale are more than offset by other factors. But when you look at the reasons for success of small to medium size countries, you may at first be confused. This country is rich in oil, that country has few natural resources. One successful country levels high taxes whilst yet another prospers by providing a low tax, business friendly environment. The consistent formula for success does not seem to exist.

Yet it does. Because what all these countries have in common is their independence. They can speedily make decisions regarding tax, investment or social policy that suit their own circumstances. Norway invests its oil revenues in a fund for future generations because that is what its citizens wish to happen. The Republic of Ireland has invested heavily in the education of its people so that it now attracts hi-tech investment from overseas.

Graeme McCormick is the founder and senior partner of Conveyancing Direct and the SNP candidate for Dumbarton.

‘In 1974 I was a student at Edinburgh University when Gordon Brown was University Rector. Then, Norway and Scotland had a similar standard of living. At the 1974 elections, Scotland was within an ace of voting for Independence. Today Norway is internationally recognised as having the highest standard of living in the world. Scotland is 21st.

There is only one significant thing which separates us from Norway and Ireland: That is Independence. They have it; we haven’t!

It seems the idea is that Scotland feels independence will allow it to become co-dependent and participate in society with others, through membership of the EU, but that is not independence.

The SNP says it is a strongly pro-European party, but wants national governments to retain control over many key issues like their countries’ taxation, spending, and constitutions.

They argue that with Independence, Scotland will at last be able to represent itself to the world on international bodies like the United Nations.

The problem is that the SNP is painting a picture of the EU which is very far from the truth; “There is no comparison between the centralist structures of the UK, and those of the EU, where member states co-operate but retain their sovereignty”.

The SNP are ignoring the EU Constitution, the EU claim to represent its members in international bodies like the United Nations, the WTO and Council of Europe. They are, by claiming that Scotland would have a greater voice in the EU, ignoring the fact that the EU is not about retaining the sovereignty of Nation States, everything it does takes it in the opposite direction towards a centralised structure.

The SNP claim that Scotland would have seven votes in the Council of Ministers and would be able to nominate a European Commissioner. Just exactly what power they think seven votes would give them they do not say, but with the increase of QMV within the EU councils seven is not a very big number and the Scots will find themselves outvoted on every occasion. Working together is all very fine but it only assists a nation if the working together is in the direction it wants to go, if not, then working together forces it to accept rules a and regulations that do not benefit the nation. Their Commissioner would of course have to swear allegiance to the EU so would not be representing Scotland, in any event in the EU Constitution there are plans to reduce the size of the Commision and Scotland like the rest of us would find they were only represented on a rotational basis.

The main problem with the SNP argument is that they are pointing to dissatisfaction of rule from the south, from the Westminster Parliament. Even ignoring the fact that for the last three parliaments the Scots have dominated Westminster with every major position of power in the British state being filled with Scotsmen and the majority of the British Cabinet being Scottish. Dissatisfaction with rule from Westminster is misplaced because most of the powers of Westminster has now been passed to the EU level, so if the Scots find themselves dissatisfied the way forward cannot be through the same institutions that have created that dissatisfaction. If they were calling for independence so that Scotland could take more power back from the EU it would make a great deal more sense than their present position. What exactly are they hoping to achieve by breaking apart the union.

The SNP points to two countries they see Scotland aspiring to emulate, Norway and Ireland, yet Norway is not a member of the EU, it has retained its independence and therefore its sovereignty, Ireland on the other hand has given away both its independence and its sovereignty, but has been and still is, the recipient of massive EU subsidies. The Scots might like to contemplate the fact that as Britain is a major contributed to EU funding they have contributed to Irelands success because it is their taxes that have been and are being spent in Ireland to make it the success it is.

Ireland is a dependant state of the EU, the Scots say they do not want to be dependant yet a recent calculation estimates that just 163,000 Scottish taxpayers, from a population of 5m, make any net contribution to the British exchequer. The rest receive more than they pay out in reliefs, subsidies and benefits.

Even Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, admits that Scotland has the highest unemployment, the highest proportion of income support claimants and the lowest business survival rate in Britain. Of course he blames the UK for Scotland’s poverty.

Scotland is not just dependent on the UK state; it is state-dependent full stop. A full 50% of Scottish GDP is spent by government. The state employs one Scot in four. To have any hope of creating the thriving independent economy of which they dream, an SNP government would have to impose economic policies Scotland has rejected at every election since 1945 and which the party dare not even propose, Scotland has not voted for a party prepared to cut taxes since 1955.

I would argue that Scotland far from wanting independence is prepared to become a minor actor within the United States of Europe, with less power than it presently has to determine its direction, and it will remain a dependant state within that union. None of the SNP arguments hold up to scrutiny because they are not addressing the real cause of their problems which are basically the same problems we all face and that is we can no longer determine who will be our rules who will make the laws and what direction the laws or our country should take, those decisions and that power has been transferred to the EU. If they really do want independence and really do not want to be dependant, they should address this real problem and then face up to the fact that without support for either the British Taxpayer or the EU Taxpayer Scotland and the Scottish people will have to make their own way in the world, and that will require doing a lot more than pumping oil out of the sea and waiting for the support cheque to arrive.

Richard Corbett up to his usual histrionic verbalistic form in his post about the affect of the new EU driving licence, which must be renewed every 10 years. nb.I do not link to Corbett because he is far to grand to  allow comments,

He complains of the Express and Mail’s predilection for publishing at face value any old garbage sent out in a press release by Europhobic Tories.

Considering these papers would probably print “Brussels bureaucrats eat babies” given the slightest chance, it came as no surprise to see them indulge Conservative MEP Philip Bradbourn by running his claims that the EU intends to force thousands of people to retake their driving tests

According to Corbett “This is of course utter rubbish.”

“The draft directive on EU driving licences provides for Member States to keep their own rules for testing drivers. There is no requirement for people to be retake their test every 10 years, only for them to update the picture on their licence once a decade (as is already a requirement in Britain now for the new plastic cards). There is a proposal that drivers with certain medical conditions (such as serious neurological diseases and some angina sufferers) should be tested every 10 years for their suitability to drive, which is something quite different from retaking their test.”

The Mail article reads “Thousands of motorists could be forced to retake their driving test and undergo medical checks to stay on the road under plans being prepared in Brussels.

The EU is proposing to tear up the rules on British driving licences so that they have to be renewed every ten years.

And drivers with common conditions from diabetes to angina could be subject to compulsory medical tests, according to a Tory analysis of the EU draft directive.”

Which seems to be the same thing Corbett is saying.

Corbett goes on

Bradbourn, the Tory transport spokesman, said: “The EU is trying to dictate to Member States what they need to do in terms of driving tests and licences.”

More nonsense - and he knows it.

Legislation that is actually wanted by every country - and has been approved by the EU Council of Ministers with ministers from every Member State - hardly amounts to “dictation”!

This is just EU spin; Corbett is not denying the truth that the EU will dictate what they need to do in terms of driving tests and licences but is claiming that we want the legislation. In Britian we already have the driving licence system which we want, if we wished to change it we could and would do so, without having to ask the EU or the ministers of 28 other countries for permission, after all that is what we elect Members of the British parliament to do. What this is about is the EU taking control of our rights to drive on our roads.

Something else that is removed from the authority of our government and the power of the voters.

I have recived a copy of an email sent to Corbett by Josephine White who said;

Copy of email just sent to the contemptible Richard Corbett MEP.

Mr Corbett,

I refer to one of your latest blog entries on the EU Driving licence directive which now means that British drivers will have to renew their licences every 10 years.
The following is taken from the Europa web site.

“In future, the validity of driving licenses will be limited. The new rules foresee a 10 year validity period for licenses, which Member States may raise to 15 years. Member States are free to organise medical examinations at the time of administrative renewal.
Following the political agreement of today, the formal adoption of the Directive by the European Parliament will be effective later this year in a second reading. Thus the Directive will enter into force by the end of 2006 and therefore be applicable at the latest at the end of 2012.”

If its not about re-taking regular driving tests to ensure our roads are free of bad drivers, ( which you say it is) then what is the point of it?

Ah…could it have something to do with little gem in the small print?

“With the specific written agreement of the holder, information which is not related to the administration of the driving licence or road safety may also be added in this space.

There could be large advantages from providing some limited flexibility in the content of the chip. Biometric information (such as fingerprint or iris recognition) on the chip would increase driving licence security. The restrictions proposed by the Commission would make it difficult to develop a business case on the basis of driving licence use only. This would not allow the full potential of the technology to be exploited; it would restrict interoperability with other smart card applications; and it would require the public to pay for several cards….

Now why would that be do you think? And who would decide what constitutes a “health problem” or what does or doesn’t constitute a risk to road safety? Ah.. that would be the EU too I expect.

Furthermore, if the re-testing of those who have a medical condition is to become mandatory, then Mr Bradbourne is perfectly correct when he says that “thousands” will have to re-take their test every decade.

I think we both know that this more to do with the forced implementation of a common EU ID card, than road safety.

Its your continual deceit I cannot abide.

JO

Last week the Chancellor announced in his Pre-Budget Report that the Government would not repay tax “incorrectly” levied from more than six years ago.

Unfortunately this is a direct challenge to an earlier ruling by the ECJ, which laid down that such repayments should stretch back to 1973. The same court has made judgments in the past which have forced the Treasury to change tax law and to return tax paid by British businesses. This is not a academic debate that has nothing to do with us, if Gordon Brown is forced to return to big international companies the tax levied legally by the British government on their operations, then we have to pick up the shortfall, and this means either our taxes go up or our services are put under financial pressure.

Neither are we talking about piddling amounts; this coming week for instance the ECJ is likely to rule on a case which could cost us all several billion pounds.

Under British tax laws dividends paid between UK companies within the same group escape tax. However, if a dividend is paid by a company based outside the UK to a British firm in the same group, tax must be paid. A group of companies are challenging the British government’s right to levy these taxes under EU law, and if as expected they are successful the verdict would force the Government to pay back at least £6.7bn in tax plus interest to the companies. The Chancellor’s decision to limit the time they could claim these repayment to six years, would then be challenged, as the ECJ has already said in previous cases that their ruling can be back dated to when we joined the European project there seems very little chance that we could avoid the payments.

I know the political elite would like us all to stop talking and thinking about the affects the EU is having on our government’s powers, but it seems a bit inane of them to actually ignore it themselves. When Brown made his announcement lat week he must have known that it contravened the ECJ ruling, so what is his bottom line -is he prepared to challenge the ECJ supremacy in this matter - if he is not then his will be faced with making a humiliating climb down, I don’t suppose he will be making an announcement to that effect though.

I had only read the headlines of this case and thinking it was a possibly an EU myth gave it no further thought, but what Booker has disclosed in his column this week is a travesty of justice. The EU Commision has against all the evidence connived to force the British Food Standards agency to close down a British company, it and the ECJ says was doing nothing wrong.

Bowland Dairies in Nelson was an £8-million-a-year business making curd cheese, mostly exported to five EU countries, including France and Germany

On June 12, inspectors of the European Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), issued a “rapid alert notice” that its products were unsafe. The milk in the cheese, they claimed, broke EU rules on antibiotic residues.

On June 20, after thoroughly inspecting the plant, Britain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) strongly disagreed. It recommended one or two minor changes in procedure, and allowed production to resume.

On July 4 the commission repeated its claim that the milk did not comply with EU rules. The FSA responded that the FVO inspectors seemed to be confused over the type of milk the firm used. Telling the European Standing Committee on the Food Chain that “no evidence was found that contaminated milk was used”, the FSA issued a notice to all EU member states that Bowland’s cheese was entirely safe and fit for market. The commission appended its own negative comments to this notice, effectively maintaining the ban.

Bowland took the commission before the ECJ and, on September 8, Judge Bo Vesterdorf, president of the Court of First Instance, having reviewed the case legally and scientifically, found unreservedly in the company’s favour.

The commission was ordered to withdraw its notice and its comments about the firm. Twice it refused. On September 12 Vesterdorf ordered it to “stand aside”. The commission tried to add a statement to the court order, claiming that it had lost on a mere technicality. The judge ordered this to be removed.

On September 27 the FVO returned to Bowland, this time for an exhaustive two-day inspection, but could find little wrong. (Any findings, the commission’s chief inspector told Mr Wright, would be “non-emergency”.)

However, on October 4, the commission asked its standing committee to approve a commission decision banning Bowland from further trading. The 25 members present were not shown the court’s judgment or any technical evidence, other than a defence of the new procedure for testing antibiotic residues – from the firm which had devised it. Twenty two countries voted for a total ban, with Britain abstaining.

The commission announced that it would seek to have the UK food safety authorities fined for failing to protect consumers against contaminated milk (despite the court ruling and the lack of any evidence of contamination).

Despite the FSA’s solid support of Bowland and its insistence that no rules had been broken, the Department of Health bowed to the commission’s diktat. On October 16 it rushed through a statutory instrument, the Curd Cheese (Restriction on Placing on the Market) Regulations 2006, to take immediate effect. Section 3 read “No person shall place on the market any curd cheese manufactured by Bowland Dairy Products Limited”.

Full Story

Technorati Tags: eu-law, the-eu, trade
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

After months of intense negotiations, the Germany government led by Angela Merkel last week announced plans to ban smoking in restaurants, dance clubs, schools and other public buildings.

Then, two days later, leaders of Germany’s government, which crafted the ban, warned they might not have the authority to actually enact it, and that smoking regulation might fall to state governments instead. The plan is now on hold indefinitely.

Germany, which has stubbornly resisted European Union pressure to limit smoking agitated against international smoking regulations and defied EU rules on tobacco advertising. The nation’s politicians have long argued that strong curbs on tobacco place too much constraint on personal freedom.

This is especially significant to the German people, because the last German government to try to ban smoking was the one run by a certain Adolph Hitler.   

EUOBSERVER reports 

EU parliament MEPs have reacted furiously to a UK parliament report which questions the right of the European Parliament to make laws on criminal and police matters due to the fact that most of its members are non-British.

Which is not quite the point made by the report but this slight myth is used by Andrew Duff to introduce a xenophobic line of attack on the “European Scrutiny Committee” Duff says the report is “fairly scandalous.”

“This challenges directly and explicitly the legitimacy of the European Parliament to legislate. It is an absurd idea that the parliament would have no right to legislate because it has ‘foreigners’ in it,”

The same line is used by Richard Corbett, UK Labour MEP, called upon like-minded pro-EU members of his party to “protest” against the report by writing to the chair of the House of Commons’ European Scrutiny Committee who is also a Labour member.

“If a matter is to be decided at EU level, then the European Parliament will be involved- and of course it contains non-Brits. Similarly the British Parliament contains non-Scots,”.

The Select Committee on European Scrutiny Forty-First Report; Actually did not mention foreigners or non-British they were quite specific- the problem is that European Parliament Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of the UK.

In our view, the proposal for the use of the passerelle is of constitutional importance. Decisions on, for example, what constitutes a crime, what sanctions there should be for offences, procedural rights and other matters covered by Title VI of the EU Treaty concern national sovereignty. We share the Government’s concerns about the implications of the proposal for external competence and national security and about the need for safeguards. We note with alarm that, for example, the UK might not be able to make bi-lateral agreements with third countries for the extradition of terrorists.

50. Moreover, there is the question whether it would be acceptable for the European Parliament to have the right of co-decision on measures about police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters when the most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of the UK.

Passerelle clause Under this, the European Council would be able to agree to abolish all that remains subject to the national veto, decreeing that it be subject instead to qualified majority voting. Neither the House of Commons nor the British people would have any say in the matter.

But Mr Duff argues that if there is a problem in resisting change to QMV in fields where, under the protocol, we anyway have the right to opt-in or out of the decisions taken.

In other words he is suggesting that we would still have a veto for Britian. He is however ignoring the report which makes it clear that the right to opt-in must be made at the start of the negotiations and there is no possibility of opting out if we are not satisfied with the directions of the negotiations.

51. We have considered whether the “opt in”, described in paragraph 7 above, might provide a sufficient safeguard if the passerelle were used. We understand that the UK would not be bound by any measure on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters unless it expressly opted into it. There could be cases where it appeared to be in the national interest to opt into a proposal soon after the opening of negotiations on it. Subsequently, however, amendments to the proposal might be agreed by QMV which radically changed the measure and were unacceptable to the Government. There is no provision for the UK to rescind an opt-in. So, once the Government had opted-in to a measure, the UK would be bound by it as it emerged from the negotiations.

This all about the proposal by The EU Commission to transfer criminal justice and policing into the first pillar of the EU’s treaties. This would abolish the national veto and would also greatly increase the powers of both the European Commission, European Court of Justice (ECJ) and allow the European Parliament to have a voice over the UK’s criminal justice system.

“The proposal that is being discussed would give the European Commission even more power than it would have gained under the rejected EU Constitution, and would also sweep away some of the safeguards contained in the Constitution such as restrictions to act only in a limited number of serious cross border fields – not the entire sphere of criminal justice as is proposed. The ECJ would become the highest court in the UK’s criminal law system and would begin to determine the substantive criminal law for EU nations.

As the EU legislates in particular areas it gains external competence over them. This means that it begins to represent member states in international negotiations on these issues. Which would mean the UK will lose its right to negotiate bilateral extradition treaties with foreign countries as well as deportation agreements. This could make it even harder for the UK to deport or gain custody of foreign suspects in the future.

In 1997 Tony Blair promised that he would not give up the veto on crime and justice. He said: “we have agreed better arrangements for co-operation on police matters, crime and drugs. However, such co-operation will remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity” (Hansard, 18 June 1997).

In 2003 Peter Hain repeated the same promise: “Criminal procedures go the heart of our legal systems, and this is one area where we have got to keep unanimity” (European Convention, 3 April 2003).

The Report

And the Gangplank this is an alternative name used by the Select Committee for the description of the passerelle as a “gangplank” rather than as a “bridge” - the usual EU translation.

The term “gangplank” usually refers to a temporary bridge for getting on and off a ship, but in pirate legends, the plank would be used to force victims to walk into the sea. Corbett and Duff, said “I hope this is unfortunate drafting,” noting that a gangplank “is a thing you fall off to your demise – through suicide or murder. You will die after the fall.”

The president of the Commons’ EU Scrutiny Committee, however defended the word as “quite appropriate,” saying “once you go off the end of the passerelle, you give away the power to the commission…so it is like a gangplank more than a bridge. Once you plunge off it, it is difficult to get back onto.”

Telegraph

Old-fashioned MPs

Sir – Are MPs harder working than they were in the Fifties, Sixties or Seventies? My husband, Richard Wood, later Lord Holderness, elected in 1950, was paid a small salary, received a first-class railway ticket to and from London and his constituency and nothing else. He paid for his accommodation in London for some years, his stationery and stamps as well. There was no secretarial allowance and I did this work. He had no research assistants and no allowance for a wife’s travel. The House did not meet until 2.30pm and the mornings were free for other work: it was felt then that it was of value in having MPs with outside experience.

Though he was an MP for 29 years and in the Government for 13 years, my widow’s pension from this is £10,107 a year before tax. I do not complain but I am astounded at the cheek of MPs who expect large salaries, massive expenses and free housing.

Must we have people representing us who are so greedy and who it seems are totally out of touch with how the majority of their constituents live?

Lady Holderness, Windsor, Berks

Sir – The demand for payment of £100,000 a year for MPs in addition to generous expenses allowances is absurd, but being a MP should not be regarded as a job at all.

In happier times membership was regarded as an honourable form of public service by persons who had made a mark in the world and brought a range of experience to politics. Now political activity is seen as an end in itself, and increasingly the majority of MPs enter Parliament without any experience of life in the real world.

The result can be seen in the dismal quality of debates, in the failure to hold an overweening executive to account and in the domination of personal self-interest. Should the House of Lords become an elected chamber, it will soon become as bad.

Kenneth Stern, London W2

The third is written by Helen Szamuely see Eureferendum 

a taster

So, this letter is to them all, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons!

I note in this morning’s newspaper that you have so far forgotten the honour that is being a Member of the House of Commons is as to complain, not for the first time, about your remuneration. Apparently, the basic salary of £60,277 for a back-bencher with an average allowance of £134,000 is insufficient for your individual needs or for the position you seek to occupy in society. And that is not reckoning the assured high pension out of public funds at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ensured that other pension funds get ever lower.

It seems that you feel that your salaries have fallen behind those of people in comparable occupation. Dear me. What comparable occupations would those be? I note that one MP, who had enough shame to want to remain anonymous, has groused that he was earning considerably less than the local GP.

“The constitutional treaty is no more – it is a diseased dead parrot,”

UK home secretary John Reid said

http://euobserver.com/9/23024

Finland ratified the EU constitution on Tuesday adding one more country to the list of member states having given the nod of approval to a document whose fate is still undetermined.

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said he “welcomes” Helsinki’s ratification move. “This is a very good signal… It shows that our project is still alive,” he told a gathering of national parliamentarians and MEPs in Brussels.
http://euobserver.com/9/23028?rss_rk=1

Its so good to be at the heart of the EU at the top table having influence and seeing it beginning to turn our way.

Always assuming “Conservatism” is not a contradiction in terms!

Many people have been saying for over three years now that the conservative party needs to address its image in the liberal left main stream media. The party needs to get through to the public what being conservative means, it needs to create a tranche of conservatives policies and get out into the country and sell both them and conservative ideals to the voters, to do so it must be prepared to challenge the cosy left wing assumptions that are so prevalent in today’s media, it must be prepared to challenge the distortions of the Labour spin machine, that the media are only to happy to sponsor.

Well it seems that the message has finaly got though, at last the conservatives are doing something about their media image. Unfortunately instead of doing something about getting the conservative message across and challenging the media bias, David Cameron and his merry band of public school boys have decided the way ahead is to change the conservative party so that it fully embraces the cosy liberal left view of the world, in his own words; if there are members of the conservative party who do not like the direction he is perusing “tough”. The first thing I though when I read his comment was that Cameron will be pushing hard for public finance for political parties, because thus speak a man who obviously does not need the support of conservatives and is prepared to ditch conservatives on the alter of media acceptance.

The media has far given Cameron and easy ride, it is bestowing on him the crown which once adorned the brow of Tony Blair, until that is he stepped away from soft liberal left adgenda.

Just how much of an easy ride can be evidenced today in of all places the Torygraph, which contains an article by Melissa Kite on a special focus group for The Sunday Telegraph run by “the renowned American pollster” Frank Luntz. On the first anniversary of Cameron’s election as Conservative leader, Luntz has assembled a group of 17 floating voters to take the temperature of Project Cameron. The article turns out to be a puff for Cameron and his only policy to date of eradicating conservative theory from the conservative party. One or two conservatives within the group are not happy and want to replace Cameron but we already know the leaderships views on that “Tough” but labour LibDem supporters are warming to the new party.

Nazanine, 31, a television journalist who voted Lib Dem in 2005, says: “He’s providing the first credible opposition to Labour in years.”

Jane Broadfoot, 46, a public service worker who voted Lib Dem at the last election, said: “He’s very eloquent. I’m warming to him. He’s reduced the capital C in Conservatism to a small c.”

Alistair Smyth, 27, a researcher who voted Lib Dem last time, says: “He’s the first Tory leader in my life that hasn’t made me furious.”

Sharon Raymond, 35, a dental nurse who voted Labour, says: “He’s fresh. He’s a fresh face. I’m tired of Tony Blair now. Change it.”

However Colin is not convinced: “Fresh face or not, I would like to know what he actually stands for.” Good point Colin.

So it would seem that the Labour and LibDem`s support Cameron, Melissa Kite did not bother to point out the obvious problem that he is the leader of the Conservative party.

Not only has the Telegraph given the Cameron project of destroying the Conservative party thumbs up it has on the same day censored an alternative conservative view

From Eureferendum we learn that the Booker column in the Sunday Telegraph has this week been censored, Booker was told by the Sunday Telegraph that part of his column, an item attacking David Cameron was to be dropped.

But Richard North feels and I fully agree “the MSM has it own agenda” not one that is shared with the blogosphere.

So to put some balance into the media Cameron love in, below with thanks to Eureferendum is the part of the Booker column the telegraph chose to censor.

As David Cameron ends his first year as leader of the Opposition, there are clear signs that the greatest gamble in modern British politics has not come off. The little group of ex-public schoolboys who last year hi-jacked the Conservative Party have seemed to gamble on just one strategy. List everything the Party used to stand for – low taxes, the family, rolling back the power of the state, encouraging business, upholding our defences, curbing criminals, common sense – then go for the opposite.

The essence of the gamble has been the belief that, in wooing the support of Lib Dems, would-be greenies, Guardian readers and the supposed “soft centre”, they could take their supposed “core” supporters for granted. But as support for Cameron falters, all the evidence seems to suggest that those wished-for new recruits to his “Not The Conservative Party” are not forthcoming, while the Party’s former natural supporters are left baffled, dismayed and increasingly angry.

All this was neatly symbolised by the recent photo-opportunities staged by the three men now competing for the role of Britain’s prime minister. Mr Blair and Mr Brown, aware that defence and national security (not long ago rating 34 percent on a Mori poll) still rank very much higher as voter priorities than “environmental” issues (only 8 percent), flew out to the Iraq and Afghan battle-zones to pose in front of the largest guns they could find. Mr Cameron, at the same time, flew out to the Sudan, in Lord Ashcroft’s CO2 emitting private jet, to be pictured cuddling a little refugee child. It was the “Men from Mars” against “the Boy from Venus”. “Darfur Dave” did not come well out of the contrast.

The tragedy is that, confronted by the most corrupt, hypocritical, inefficient, illiberal, discredited government in history, what millions of voters are looking for is an alternative which might put an end to the sleazy, self-regarding sham of the Blair era by displaying some “masculine” firmness: in cutting back on the bloated public sector and the out-of-control bureaucracy which is destroying our health service, education and police; which might encourage enterprise; which might restore democracy to local government; bring back some balance into our public finances; sort out the shambles into which our Armed Forces are sliding; uphold Britain’s national interest, as we suffocate under the malfunctioning system of government represented by the European Union.

In other words, what much of the country is crying out for is a party which represents precisely those values which Mr Cameron’s Not-The-Conservative Party seems so hellbent on abandoning. As for what he stands for instead, almost the only clear message Darfur Dave seems to have put over to the voters is his sentimental “save the planet” greenery, on which his dotty little gimmicks and practical ignorance have simply made him a laughing stock.

What many voters sadly begin to conclude is that Dave and his cronies seem so hopelessly ill-equipped to take on the serious business of government that, if we have to choose between one gang of PR merchants and another, better stick with the devil we know. Hence the evidence of the latest polls appearing to show that the gamble has failed. Ever larger become the number of would-be Conservatives sorely tempted to join that 40 percent who already feel so alienated from politics that they just stay sullenly at home. But the Guardian readers are scarcely flocking to replace them. So where does all this leave our country?