“Because the people are sovereign, governments get their powers from us; we do not get our rights from them. This issue is becoming crucial because the centralisation of power to political elites is a threat to our freedom and democracy.“
Left supports Right defending liberty - Telegraph
The loss of our democratic rights and basic human rights is not a left and right divide.
THE European Commission described Zimbabwe’s presidential run-off yesterday as a “sham” and said it did not recognise the election or its outcome as legitimate.
Rearrange these words - Pot -The - Kettle - Calling - Black -That
As they both refuse to listen to the voters the only real difference between the EU and Robert Mugabe is the violence, and that apparently includes intimidation on the part of the EU.
See also recent Government debates in both houses following petitition part.
Last Friday the people of Ireland voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty.
But politicians across Europe are refusing to accept the result. They arrogantly insist that the Treaty must go ahead anyway. Despite the no vote, the UK Government is planning to carry on regardless, and ratify the Treaty in the House of Lords on Wednesday.
This is part of an attempt to isolate and bully the people of Ireland.
Please take 30 seconds to send a message to Gordon Brown by signing the petition on the Downing Street website.
Tell Gordon to respect the verdict of the Irish people - and drop the Treaty.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
Many thanks
How politicians are refusing to listen to the no vote
French Europe Minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet says: “I don’t think you can say the treaty of Lisbon is dead even if the ratification process will be delayed.”
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says: “We are sticking with our goal for it to come into force. The ratification process must continue.”
Spanish Europe Minister Lopez Garrido says: “The treaty will be applied, albeit a few months late.”
European Commission President Jose Barroso says: “The Treaty is not dead. The Treaty is alive, and we will try to work to find a solution.”
British Foreign Minister David Miliband says: “18 countries have now passed the reform treaty…each country must see the ratification process to a conclusion… there needs to be a British view as well as an Irish view.”
Don’t let the politicians get away with it.
Sign the petition now and send it to your friends.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
********************************************************************************************
lisbon treaty : 1 Commons debate
================================
Oral Answers to Questions - Defence: Lisbon Treaty (16 Jun 2008)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2008-06-16a.704.0&s=Lisbon+Treaty#g720.6
Shailesh Vara: …does the Foreign Secretary think about the fact that
Britain and its European allies are actively preaching the importance of
the rule of law to various parts of the world, yet when it comes to the
*Lisbon treaty*, Britain and those same European allies are actively
conspiring to circumvent the rule of law?
lisbon treaty : 1 Written Answer
================================
Written Answers - Defence: Common Security and Defence Policy (16 Jun 2008)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-06-16a.210800.h&s=Lisbon+Treaty#g210800.r0
Des Browne: I welcome the *Lisbon Treaty* since it reflects UK
objectives of ensuring the development of a flexible, robust and NATO
friendly European Security and Defence Policy. This includes keeping the
key principle of unanimity for ESDP decision making. The *Lisbon Treaty*
clearly states that the provisions “do not prejudice the specific
character of the security and defence policy of the member states”.
lisbon treaty : 2 Lords debates
===============================
Business (16 Jun 2008)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-06-16a.802.4&s=Lisbon+Treaty#g802.5
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: …. Immediately after this, my noble
friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will repeat a Statement on the funding
and expenditure of political parties. This will be followed by a
Statement on the *Lisbon treaty* repeated by my noble friend Lady Ashton
of Upholland.
EU: Lisbon Treaty (16 Jun 2008)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-06-16a.853.0&s=Lisbon+Treaty#g864.1
Lord Lawson of Blaby: …against the clearly expressed wishes of all the
major political parties in Ireland. It was very similar in France. I was
in France a few years ago for the referendum on what was virtually the
same *treaty*. Again, the French people voted “no”. They, again, showed
that they do not trust their leaders on this issue. There is a serious
failure of trust. One way to begin to redeem that-and…
“The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden. The word
Haltemprice is derived from the motto of a medieval priory, and in Old French it
means “Noble Endeavour”.
I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavour, not least
because we and our forebears have for centuries fiercely defended the fundamental
freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday.
This Sunday is the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, the document
that guarantees the most fundamental of British freedoms, habeas corpus. The
right not to be imprisoned for prolonged periods by the state without being told the
charge against you.
But yesterday this House decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent
people for 6 weeks without charge.
This Counter Terrorism Bill will in all likelihood be rejected by the House of
Lords. What is their function, after all, if not to defend the Magna Carta? But
because the impetus behind it is political, the government will be tempted to use
the Parliament Act to enforce its will and insist on its right to set aside a
cornerstone of all our liberties.
It has no democratic mandate to do this, since 42 days was not a manifesto
commitment. And its legal standing is dubious, to say the least. But purely for
political reasons, this Government will do it.
And because the generic security arguments relied upon are ones that will never
go away, this Government will be tempted again in the future to try for 56 days, 70
days, 90 days.
But in truth 42 days is just one albeit perhaps the most salient example of the
insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms
under this Government.
We will have the most intrusive identity card system in the world. A CCTV
camera for every 14 citizens.
And a DNA database bigger than that of any dictatorship with thousands of
innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it.
We’ve witnessed a sustained assault on jury trials that bulwark against bad law
and its arbitrary abuse by the state. Shortcuts with our justice system that have
left it both less firm and less fair.
And the creation of a database state, opening up our private lives to the prying
eyes of official snooper and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants
and criminal hackers.
The state has security powers that clamp down on peaceful protest, and so-called
hate laws that stifle legitimate debate whilst those inciting violence get off scotfree.
This cannot go on. It must be stopped.
And for that reason, today I feel that it is incumbent upon me to take a stand.
I will be resigning my membership of this House, and I intend to force a byelection
in Haltemprice and Howden.
I will not fight it on the government’s general record. There is little point in
repeating Crewe and Nantwich.
I will not fight it on my personal record. I am just a piece in this chess game. I
will fight this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British
freedoms by this Government.
This may be the last speech I make to the House. Of course, that would be a
cause of deep regret to me.
But at least my electorate, and the nation as a whole, would have had the
opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of the day
the ever intrusive power of the state into their daily lives, the loss of privacy, the
loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law.
And if they do send me back here it will be with a single, simple message.
That the monstrosity of a law that we passed yesterday should not stand.
That the British people have grown tired of the inflated, arbitrary and arrogant
power accumulated by this Government. And that the slow but ceaseless
encroachment of the state into their daily lives must come to an end.”
Technorati Tags:
David Davis, Conservatives, fundamental British freedoms,
Margot Wallström is worried about democracy:
Why do we need openness and transparency? Because the right to know is just as important as the right to vote.
With respect Commissioner I would disagree, openness is not as important as voting, it is part of the democratic process but cannot be used to replace voting. You are of course right “It’s a question of democracy.”
But it is only part of the democratic process, the question that needs addressing is exactly how can we take a stand, exactly how can we hold them accountable?
It seems in your rush towards openness you have forgotten the voting bit!
The people of Ireland are voting this week, the only peoples of the EU to be allowed a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, but as they admit they are being forced to vote on a treaty they do not understand. Nevertheless your “they” will be bound to take notice of the result. Openness and transparency would have aided the Irish voter in coming to a reasonable decision, but it will be the voting bit that is in the end important. Well relatively important because the French and the Dutch voters have already rejected these proposals as they were presented in the EU Constitution.
Of course it is understood that it is the member states themselves who hold the key to referenda on this or any other treaty, it is however the EU which will claim it has a popular mandate from 500 million people, when in fact only up to 4 million would have had the opportunity to express an opinion.
Technorati Tags:
EU Democracy, Transparency, Lisbon Treaty
The opinion in the Telegraph makes the depressing but accurate point that those who believe a
possible No vote in Ireland this coming week will put a stop to the EU juggernaut have clearly not been paying attention over the past 30 years.
The European Commission says there is no “Plan B”, but the truth is that the EU will simply steam on its merry way towards the creation of a superstate, the “ever-closer Union” of the Treaty of Rome, whatever its people want.
Notwithstanding the headline, the Telegraph actually makes no suggestion on how we can make the EU listen to our concerns, which is not particularly surprising as the EU was specifically designed as a private political elitists club to omit the people from the process of integration, and to insulate the EU system of integration from interference by the voters, thus the EU elites only talk to and only listen to themselves.
Should Ireland vote no this week the EU elites will decide amongst themselves what caused this misunderstanding, they will create an answer that meets with their approval and then move on as if nothing had happened.
This then becomes an internal matter for the Irish to sort out, it is after all their constitution which is creating the problem in the first place by having the effrontery to demand public support for change. This of course ties the hands of the Irish government, because it simply cannot just agree to anything it wishes in the EU without balancing the Irish Constitution.
Perhaps we are not making enough of the fact of the Irish referendum, given the point that the Lisbon treaty does change the Irish constitution hence the need for a referendum to gather public support. Does it also not equally impact on our constitution I believe it must, which gives the lie to Gordon’s Brown position that it is not important enough for a referendum. The question then we must ask is do we really believe that it should be left entirely in the hands of the few elites to determine the constitution of this country and then use parliamentary power to force it thought the system, whilst at the same time claiming it is not an important issue.
As it is impossible to affect chance at the EU level it must surely point us to the fact that we must apply pressure where we can, and the only place where that is possible is through our own political parties. Individually we can only affect the election of one member of our own parliament, in order to convince the leadership of the party that there own interest lay in listening to our concerns, if they fail to do so we intend to hold them to account by voting against their candidate.
In my case this will mean voting against and trying to unseat a Conservative MP who has voted the right way on all the EU issues in this parliament, but as EU Referendum points out David Cameron is now backtracking on a commitment to do something about the Lisbon Treaty if it has been ratified by the time the Conservatives are voted into power.
So really as Cameron is already preparing the ground for another Conservative EU cave in, voting for one member of his party even though his past record indicates good will on EU matters, will have little overall effect on Conservative policy. For all the posturing of the Mr Redwoods and the voting record of Mr Phillip Dunne in the party, they are not the ones who will be making in the running in Dave’s Cabinet.
One thing that the EU has allowed us to do is to vote for any party with impunity because all parties will have to toe the EU line, there is very little to choose between them. So instead of voting for Mr Dunne who is Eusceptic by his record, I will probably vote for the LibDem Candidate who in Ludlow has the best chance of unseating Mr Dunne. I hope I can persuade enough people to join me in my personal revolt and I hope that the message gets through to Mr Cameron that he stands the chance of loosing at least one sitting MP because of his stance on the Lisbon treaty.
As the Conservatives under Cameron have lead the opposition to the Lisbon Treaty because they say it is unacceptable to this country, then it seems craven to now say we will have to accept it if it has been ratified, especially as he also says he would ask -ask mind you - to be allowed to take back some powers in one or two areas from the EU, we all know what the answer will be to that request, I wonder why Mr Cameron does not and I wonder why the Lisbon treaty that was so unacceptable suddenly becomes acceptable after it has been ratified.
Technorati Tags:
Irish Referendum, Phillip Dunne, Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron,
Shame the EU does not practice it instead of just talking about it!
LINK
It is claimed that Britain has no written constitution. We often hear quoted the doctrine ‘No parliament may bind its successor’. Today most often it is used to imply that there are no constitutional obligations limiting Parliament’s power.
If this were true there would be no constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament would be unlimited.
The reality is we do have a constitution which is both written and unwritten, but modern politicians by stressing only the parliamentary convention, which are nothing more than gentlemen’s agreements between the parties have raised those conventions above the written parts of our constitution.
But more than that they have also undermined those very same Parliamentary conventions, governments and parliaments do constantly bind their successors.
(more…)
Why do I say the EU is anti-democratic, it is worrying that so many do not know or do not care about basic democratic principals that the question could even be posed - Abraham Lincoln defined the fundamental characteristic of democratic government in his Gettysburg address;
it must be - of the people,- by the people, -for the people
The EU claims to be the last of those i.e. “for the people”, But the EU fails miserable on the first two. Even then, it is only “for the people” in a dictatorial fashion, it is for the people to fall into line with its own central socialist, secular beliefs, and if they refuse, it is for the people to be forced by the use of law to fall into line. If the EU considered the first two then there would be no choice but to accept that the third principal “for the people” would mean that the people themselves decided on the socialist or secular make up of their state. Which is a more democratic a state where the people are forced to bend the knee to secularism, or one where the people are forced to bend the knee to Christianity.
The EU is forever proclaiming it must do this for its citizens or it citizens want it to do that. It even claims it has not just a democratic mandate, but rather like those M&S adverts, it has freshly dew picked, double democratic mandate! through a Parliament representing EU citizens and a Council representing the elected governments of the Member States.
The increasing use of international bodies and the institutionalising of decision-making of formerly domestic issues across national frontiers is inherently incompatible with the traditional framework of democratic control.
As authority is increasingly transferred from our government to the EU, the power of our executive is enhanced at the expense of our local democratic representation in the British parliament.
We will have to agree to this treaty because it is the product of several years of hard negotiations between member states, it is the best we can achieve at this time and if we reject it we will be forced out of the union into the arms of uncontrolled corporate America and costing us three million jobs.
What the EU fondly likes to call the democratic deficit is not merely a by-product of the transfer of powers to the EU level, but is also one of the purposes of this transfer.
When governments pool their authority in the EU arena they also increase their power in their own parliament, because they weaken the domestic political constraints.
So we have situation where our elected governments are working with others to undermine the domestic controls over themselves by creating binding intergovernmental arrangements. Which are then forced through our parliamentary system using every trick and power at the disposal of the government, aided and abetted by the EU intuitions:.
When you consider that the House of Lords expressed a wish that once the
The EU has no mandate from the people, but in order to integrate the impression that it has, the EU had decided that it will create a greater understanding of the EU and towards this aim it has created its own publicly accessible knowledge base, now most of the EU papers are converted into several different languages and posted on the internet.
The EU says, proudly, that democracy depends on people being able to take part in public debate. To do this, they must have access to reliable information on European issues and be able to scrutinise the policy process in its various stages.
That, one is supposed to believe is a step toward democratising the EU, in fact the EU leaders are very proud of their openness and try to equate it with the democratic process. Well in part they are right, knowledge is a requisite for democracy, it is not however, much as the EU would like us to believe, a fundamental issue. True a citizen cannot make informed political decisions without at least a vague comprehension of the way in which the political system works. And it true to say it is far harder for a system of government that hides its mechanisms of decision-making to be democratic than one that is open.
But the slight of hand being perpetrated by the EU leaders is although the EU allows for a great deal of openness, there is no mechanism for the people to express their duly informed political decisions, thus there is no democratic accountability. The EU has created one part of the equation but ignored the reason for creating the openness in the first place.
Thus the EU is showing that it is more concerned with the superficial aspects of democracy, with the impression of democracy. Such issues as openness, and discussion are important. They do not, however, address the fundamentally flawed and undemocratic structure inbuilt into the EU current system.
Technorati Tags:
EU, anti-democratic, secularism, democratic mandate, EU citizens
The EU an Anti-democracy Organisation
My standpoint of opposing the European Project is based on one single fundamental issue and that is the whole project is constructed on and supported by its being anti- democratic. Anti- democratic, because it is designed to remove the power of the people from any influence. Other than that influence the EU leaders condescend to allow, unlike in a real democracy where it is the people who are protected from the over use of the powers of the state by government. The EU is a false democracy, its leaders decide which freedoms to lend to its citizens and what power over the state and what protections from the state it will allow its citizens. Although at the same time demanding protection for themselves against legal sanctions for their conduct whilst in office.
When occasionally it cannot be avoided and the EU elites are forced to acknowledge the people, it only accepts their expressed wishes, if those are considered the “correct” decision. Otherwise the EU elites reaction is as epitomised in these statements of Giscard d’Estaing:
“rejection of the Constitution was a mistake which will have to be corrected” –
“if the Irish and the Danes can vote yes in the end, so the French can do it too.”-
“It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.”
These sorts of comments by one of the leaders and main movers of the European Project indicate the deep seated institutionalised anti-democratic nature of the whole project. Making it totally clear that it is not just simply non-democratic as if by accident as a sort of by product of its construction, but its antipathy towards democracy is built into its very framework.
What this means is that short of deconstructing the whole edifice and starting again from the ground up there is very little room to make the EU democratic and therefore acceptable as a form of government and certainly not as the basis for a European state.
The European Political elites are so certain of the basic rightness of their cause that they show themselves only to willing to reduce the concept of democracy to nothing more than a slogan to be used to further their cause.
Even if it were possible to reform the present EU we would still be faced with the question of how it arrived at its present state. As it has only achieved its present state by anti-democratic means, would it not also be anti-democratic to accept the present position, if at some point the present power and authority were to be subject to some EU wide democratic accountability. I hope I have made that last point clear I might have to revise!
The argument offered against consulting the people in a referendum is that the people would not just confine themselves to the single question at hand; for instance (do we accept the Lisbon Treaty). I for one would answer NO, but in considering my answer, I would feel that I had every right to take into account all of the other treaties, where the British people have not been offered a choice. After all, had we been offered a choice then we would have been involved in the process thus making it democratic.
Whether I wanted it or not I was made a citizen of the EU? This was decide for me by the Conservative government when they forced through the
Others may differ on the issue of EU citizenship, and had we been asked at the time, as I accept the principals of democracy I must also live by its principals, and if enough of my countries voters had expressed their opposition to my opinion then I would willing go along with the majority. But as we were not asked then we cannot now be asked to just consider the effects on our citizenship in the Lisbon Treaty without also considering the whole question of our citizenship
Technorati Tags:
Anti-democracy, EU, European Project, Constitution, Lisbon, citizen of the EU, democracy,
The E.U. “expresses its deep concern that election procedures in the Islamic Republic of Iran have fallen below the international standards and that the electoral process did not allow for truly competitive elections,” a statement said late Saturday.
“In this regard it expresses its deep regret and disappointment that over a third of prospective candidates were prevented from standing in this year’s parliamentary elections,” the E.U.’s Slovenian presidency said.
These exclusions prevented the Iranian people from being able to choose freely amongst the full range of political views in their country and represent a clear violation of the international norms.
“As a result, the election was neither fair nor free.”
It makes one feel warm all over to know the EU holds the the concept of democracy so close to its heart.
Anyone for a referendum on the EU treaty just ask the EU.
Attempts to revive EU constitution
Sir: Richard Corbett MEP (Letters, 10 February) makes great play of the fact that 18 EU member-states have ratified the EU Constitution. He does not mention that most of those countries would have rejected it, had it been put to a referendum. Nor does he recall that it was not eurosceptics, but passionate supporters of the EU project who drafted the Constitution, and they chose to make it conditional upon all member-states ratifying it.
It is therefore quite right for sceptics to point out that two founding member-states of the EU,
ROGER HELMER MEP
(CONSERVATIVE,
Sir: Richard Corbett MEP is right. Even a tiddly-winks club, let alone a union of 27 nations, must have a set of rules - call them a constitution - to define its character.
Such rules must not be set in stone, though. They must be capable of being revised in the light of changing circumstances to avoid perpetuation of such aberrations as the CAP, which was steamrollered by
In the world of rapidly evolving globalisation, we must secure political and economic synergies which, in our case, the EU alone can offer. However, this does imply a degree of shared sovereignty.
JOHN ROMER
"Even a tiddly-winks club … must have a set of rules" - but not rules which have primacy over national law, including constitutional law, and I’ve yet to come across a tiddly-winks club which issues its own currency, wants its own army, and aspires to a seat on the UN Security Council.
No point in my writing as I’ve already done so twice without success, so I won’t, but if anybody else wants to have a go it’s letters@independent.co.uk . Short is best - even Roger Helmer
has only been allowed about 140 words.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2278073.ece
An Email From Denis Cooper
There is this story in the Guardian also this from Euobserver
The new far-right group – calling itself "Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty" likely to be formally constituted next week- teams up a mixed bunch of anti-immigrant and xenophobic MEPs, with a leader who is awaiting a court verdict for questioning the Holocaust.
Under the current rules in the parliament, the group would be entitled to get one or two committee vice-chairman positions. But agreement on this is at committee level, with members themselves voting in secret ballots.
The socialists have come out with an initiative to formally call their political counterparts to "keep them (the far-right group) out of decision-making" by ensuring their candidates do not get elected, the group’s spokesman told journalists on Friday (12 January).
I think socialists should accept the fact that these people have been elected, their politics might be at odds with those of the socialists, but that is what politics is supposed to be about. The conflict of ideas is the very meat of political discourse. What they seem to be suggesting is that they should be allowed to change the rules they have set up for the operation of the EU Parliament, for the benefit of their particular sect. Whether we agree with the Right Wing groups politics is not the point, many voters do, otherwise they would not have been elected in the first place. It is called democracy, and this instance characterizes one of my basic objections to European Project it is simply not democratic.
One could well argue that the right wing group is far more democratic than the socialists, their priority, will be to fight any German-led attempts to revive
So the leader of the group is awaiting a court verdict for questioning the Holocaust, there is the argument that people should be allowed to debate anything openly and that is the basic condition for democracy to exist, if you once start to define what can and what cannot be debated, you are defining democracy by a particular standpoint. If the situation were reversed and a law was introduced that anyone suggesting the holocaust happened should be punished, it imidiatly becomes clear that such a law is anti- free speech and anti-democratic. The truth of the holocaust does not affect the basic argument.
I also do not see that the group leader awaiting a court verdict has any mileage in the state of affairs of the EU. Our own Commissioner has been dismised twice for misconduct, two or perhaps even three EU commissioners have been found guilty of misconduct, Jacques Barrot, the EU transport commissioner has been convicted of fraud in a party funding scandal. The new leader of the EPP, the EU parliament’s biggest political group Frenchman Joseph Daul is under investigation for misuse of public funds in
The FT Reports that EU legislation is making it harder for local government to outsource tasks to the private sector and is creating a “mountain of red tape”
Ruth Coleman, the chairwoman of the Local Government International Bureau (LGIB), said a “whole raft of ever-encroaching rules” threatened to “drive a wedge between the public and private sectors and to create a mountain of red tape” “The extra hoops that councils and businesses may increasingly be forced to jump through risk slowing down the procurement process, holding up important public works and costing the taxpayer.
Jeremy Smith, secretary-general of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, warned that the stricter regime kept councils from doing their job. “Ever greater intervention in relatively low-level contracts is impinging on the way councils do their business,” he said, adding: “This places yet more constraints on local authorities from providing services in a way which they consider to be in the interests of their area, and undermines the principles of local democracy and local self-government.”
This is about EU procurement rules, which seek to ensure that public contracts are awarded in an open, competitive and pan-European bidding procedure. But the regime’s complexity is unsuitable to smaller, local contracts, and has delayed “the awarding of contracts totalling millions of euros a year”.
Technorati Tags: better-of-out, eu-law, local-government, regional-assemblies, the-eu, uk-government
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.
The Tory policy has always veered toward less interfering small government, hence it has argued that government would need to spend less. If we take Dave at his word and why should we not then as Anatole Kaletsky says we should start to ask “When are you going to announce the details of the enormous tax increases you are so clearly itching to impose?”
So we now have three political parties proposing to take more of our money to spend for us on what they decide, what a choice come the next election.
Given that the same three parties also consider
Well I for one now know who to vote for, even if they do not stand a chance of being elected, at least this party is prepared to talk about the EU, in fact many would have us think that is all they do talk about.
But it is no longer possible for the United Kingdom Independence Party UKIP to be so dismised because not only are the prepared to offer a way forward for this country which does not include becoming a sub state in the United State of Europe they are also offering radical new thinking on tax.
A flat tax system for
• Make all taxpayers better off (mostly by £1,100 per year) and take a
further 4.5 million lower paid out of income tax altogether
- by raising the tax-free personal allowance to £9,000
- and merging existing income tax bands and employee’s National
Insurance contributions into a single flat income tax at a rate of 33%.
• Reduce the rate for capital gains tax to 33% and scrap inheritance
tax altogether.
• Finance the revenue shortfall by halting the growth in government
spending.
Now I do not even begin to understand the British Tax regime, I only know I always end up paying more than I think I should and a lot more that I want to, considering an increasing amount of the money goes in supporting an anti-democratic super socialist government in Brussels, who decide to spend a great deal on either supporting French farmers, Terrorist states and EU propaganda.
But I can recommend a blog which has looked at the UKIP proposals The Devils Kitchen
Technorati Tags: UK Government, The EU, Tax. Flat Tax, UKIP, Tory Party,
From The Independent letter page
Sir: One of Tony Blair’s most important domestic achievements has to be the greater sense of security we now enjoy in
A small group of protesters made the threatening gesture of attempting to release balloons into the air bearing messages of peace and opposition to war. This disturbance of the peace was dealt with quickly and effectively by members of the huge police force present there, who surrounded, then jostled, pushed and threatened those involved, including children and the elderly.
Whilst watching this take place I was issued a warning for committing a public order offence. Another young man observing these events wasn’t so fortunate; for committing the crime of asking the police if they thought their response was excessive, he was wrestled to the ground by six officers, arrested, had a DNA sample taken and given an £80 fine.
It’s lucky that so many police officers were drafted into
One young PC told us that we were lucky to be living in a democracy. In Tony Blair’s
JAMES ALFRED
British children, possibly as young as six, will be subjected to compulsory fingerprinting under European Union rules being drawn up in secret. The prints will be stored on a database which could be shared with countries around the world.
The prospect has alarmed civil liberties groups who fear it represents a ’sea change’ in the state’s relationship with children and one that may lead to juveniles being erroneously accused of crimes.
Under laws being drawn up behind closed doors by the European Commission’s ‘Article Six’ committee, which is composed of representatives of the European Union’s 25 member states, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport by June 2009 at the latest.
Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments: http://www.statewatch.org/
“All the discussions by EU governments in the Council about the age at which children should be subject to compulsory fingerprinting are based on the technological possibilities - not on the moral and political questions of whether it is right or desirable.
‘This is a sea change,’ said Ben Hayes, spokesman for Statewatch. ‘We are going from fingerprinting criminals to universal fingerprinting without any real debate. In the long term everyone’s fingerprints will be stored on a central database. You have to ask what will be the costs to a person’s privacy.’
According to secret documents obtained by Statewatch, the committee will make it compulsory for all children from the age of 12 to be fingerprinted
From the Observer
We do not understand why the former Home Secretary should have apparently agreed with other G6 ministers to press forward with the "availability" principle and disregard data protection issues. This is contrary to the decision of the Member States in the Hague Programme, contrary to the advice of independent data protection authorities, inconsistent with what the Home Office Ministers had told us, and against the views of the Finnish Presidency. The exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities is important, but not so important that civil rights can be eroded.
Sir – According to Cabinet Office Minister Jim Murphy the government has “tabled amendments that put beyond doubt that [the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill] will deliver a better regulation agenda and nothing else.” This is a large claim. Sadly, close study of the proposed amendments does not substantiate the claim.
For example, in the first of three new principal clauses (Power to remove or reduce burdens) amending the bill it is proposed that: “A Minister of the Crown may by order under this section make any provision which he considers would serve the purpose [of] removing or reducing any burden…resulting directly or indirectly for any person from any legislation . . . [where] ‘burden’ means . . . a sanction, criminal or otherwise, for doing or not doing anything in the course of any activity”.
Given that “any legislation” and “any activity” both mean precisely what they say, this clause constitutes the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card. Consider the uses to which this might be put by a government with less scrupulous morals than the current lot