eurealist.co.uk

Primijetio sam ovaj izvještaj o novim web katalog Bill, koji naizgled ima križ stranke podržavaju i Očekuje se da će se vratiti na kat od Commons u ožujku u Times.

Bilo je dogovoreno da se svaki pripitomljen životinja će imati pravila ponašanja skrojeni prema njihovim vrstama, od kojih svaki Očekuje se da će upasti u desecima stranica. To će činiti dio o dobrobiti životinja Bill, očekuje da jasno parlament u narednih nekoliko mjeseci.

Odjel za okoliš, hranu i ruralni poslova će obavijestiti vlasnika Britainâ € ™ s deset milijuna mačke, osam milijuna pasa i milijun kunića svoje nove obaveze u nizu distribuirati letke vets, trgovine za kućne ljubimce, Uzgajivačnice i preko interneta .

Iako je bilo koju povredu ove kodove nije prekršaj u sebi, ako ih ne poštuju elemente kod će se računati protiv optuženika na sudu.
Ali postoji ništa za brinuti zbog: Ben Bradshaw, u web katalog ministra, kazao: â € œThe velika većina ljubimac vlasnici nemaju što strah od ovog zakona.

Kao narod ljubimac vlasnici i ljubitelji životinja postoji ništa zaista da će se generalno neprihvatljivo da o set smjernica koje se prisiliti blagostanja te kućne ljubimce, ali problem je da kao i obično sa ove vlade, ove smjernice također ubaciti aspekti za povećanje ovlasti države u odnosu na građanina.

Prvo novije kao mnogi zapisi ovaj je â € € œenablingâ Bill, koji omogućuje daljnje pravila kako bi se sastavila pod sekundarno zakonodavstvo.

Bill je također povećava vrijeme u kojem je dršavni odvjetnik može donijeti slučaju od šest mjeseci do tri godine.

Zakon će također pokloniti općini časnika sa snagom za upis vlasništva i zauzmite životinja.

To tada je značajan pomak od sadašnjeg stanja, u kojima tužitelji moraju pokazati domaćih životinja se maltretirali.

To bi mogla biti i tvrdio da ako se patnje životinja je tada hitnu akciju treba poduzeti kako bi doživjeti da pate i da ove ovlasti su potrebni za postizanje namjerom da, ali ja belive da je ovaj mogao biti postignut od strane lokalne vlasti časnik izvještavanje o čemu se radi na policije, koji bi već postojeći korištenje njihove ovlasti istražiti o čemu se radi. Davanje ovlasti lokalne policijske ovlasti je daljnje erozije naših prava.

Ona se koristi kako bi se reći da je Englishmanâ € ™ s kuće je njegov dvorac, ali da je u vrijeme kada smo vjerovali da je drzava je tu da služe narodu nego je proizvoljna enforcer svojih ovlasti.

Tu se podjelom ovlasti da se stanje moglo dovesti do medvjeda na državljanin, policija mogla upisati imovinu u slučaju nužde, ali ako se želi učiniti za istražne svrhe, ili su potrebna za pretraživanje nalog od suca , Ili su morali biti pozvani u koju je vlasnik kuće. Ako policija ode pred suca su predstaviti neki dokazi pokazati da je imao dobar razlog da uđu u kuće, ova ideja je sada zamijenjene, a policija svibanj ući i pretraživanje bilo koje imovine u bilo kojem trenutku. Ovo malo zakonodavstva koje eroded naših osnovnih prava i promjena našeg odnosa na državnom je slipped na kip knjige u drugu potpuno nepovezane (za policijske ovlasti) vlada Billa, (2003 licenciranje Zakona), Bill To daje običan policajac u moć za upis i pretraživanje bilo koje imovine gdje oni misle jedan licensable aktivnost se ili se oko koje treba poduzeti.

Sve u svemu, tijekom posljednjih nekoliko godina je došlo do opće juriš na naše vrlo osnovna prava protiv države, a ova Vlada je povećala svoje ovlasti protiv građanina u alarmantan broj načina na koji potpuno preokrenuti naše prethodno održan percepcije slobode. The 2003 Licencni čin i napada drugog osnovne tisuća godina koncepcija slobode, da smo svi isti moraju biti sukladni zakonima, jer, iako je Zakon čini da je nezakonita pokušati kupiti alkohol ili prodavati alkohol bilo kome ispod 18 godina, to je ono što omogućuje laughingly zove kupi test da se napravi-to je gdje je policija može poslati prema dobi osobe na prostoru za kupiti alkohol-time daje i policija, a mladić u pitanju imunitet od zakona.

Ali da naplatimo ove vlade sama sa upade u naše slobode je propustiti veći točku koja je prikazana u web katalog Bill, koji je â € œcross partyâ € podršku, to postavlja pitanje, zar nitko od naših izabranih predstavnika na uočiti da daju policijske ovlasti lokalne vlasti, dati policijskih ovlasti da sami proizvoljno unijeti i pretraživanje po volji, na reversu je teret dokazivanja, da biste uklonili prava žiri suđenje, da biste uklonili prava za žiri kako bi pronašli dokaze protiv, da biste uklonili prava i Habeas korpus i sl. uvelike umanjuje naših osnovnih prava kao gradjani ove zemlje i povećanje ovlasti države protiv nas, ili nam je sada morati prihvatiti da živimo u što je brzo postaje policije Britaniji.

Jeremy Black ima dobar post o West Lothian Pitanje o socijalnoj oblasti Odjeljenja Blog

The West Lothian pitanje - da, post-prijenos, škotski Primosten saborski zastupnici, još uvijek možete glasovati u zakonodavstvo, na primjer za zdravstvo i obrazovanje, gdje Primosten zakonodavstvo ne utječe Škotska - mogao postati ključni problem u narednih općih izbora, tvrdi Prof . Jeremy Black.

The West Lothian Pitanje je u formalni dio A vožnja za sljedecim izborima. U vrlo realnom mogućnošću da rad svibanj samo držite na vlast zbog škotski glasova je onaj koji još nije primio dovoljno pažnje javnosti.
Posredovanje u produkciji što je, barem za njegove krajeve, a briljantan ustavno rješenje u 1997: guranje kroz škotski Skupštine kako bi se ublažiti nacionalistički pritisak u Škotskoj, dok odlaze Škotska mogli igrati ključnu ulogu kako bi osigurali svoje buduće političke pozicije i zakonodavni program u Primosten. Umjesto kao uvjete našeg odnosa s Europskom unijom, to je daleko od jasno da ova situacija može biti ispravljena, što znači da su neke commentators će barem misliti na mogućnost prekid.

Profesor Crno sugerira da postoji hitna potreba za godine - kao alternativni strane vlade - kako bi se bavio tim pitanjima, kao stvar politike stranke.

(uvijek idu uz pretpostavku da postane nešto kao pametnije političke stranke ponovno)

U Konzervativne stranke - ako žele da napredovanje na ovo pitanje - ne bi trebao oklijevati da koristi jezik pravednosti. To ne znači koji je završio Unije ili aping jedna sirova Engleski nacionalizam, ali, umjesto toga, arguing da uniji, koji je nepravedan je dokazivo bez pozitivne odlike i posljedice koje potiču poštovanje i potporu.

Gareth mladih iz Vijest Blog komentari;

Naravno da nema razloga zašto škotski i velški zastupnici trebali glasovati na engleskom zakonodavstvo bez Engleski zastupnici su mogli glasati na concommitant zakonodavstvo u devolved uprava.

U odnosu na Opće izborno postoji drugi vezane pitanje, koji mogu dobro odigrati ogroman dio: Zašto treba Gordon Brown izvršna vlast nad služi Engleskoj kada Gordon Brown je za demokratski neodgovoran narod Engleske nad ogromnim swathes vlada politika? Doista, rada uopće ne imati plurailty od glasovati u Engleskoj, tako da nedostatak moralnog autoriteta da se donositi zakone za Englesku o svim pitanjima koja su devolved u Škotskoj. U ovom trenutku, hvala na gerrymandered ustav, imaju najveći broj mandata, ali bi trebalo da se promijeni, ostavljajući ih oslanjajući se na škotski i velški zastupnici upravljati Engleska zatim u Velikoj Britaniji će brzo disintergrate.

Peter Hain nedavno je konstatirano da se bar škotski i velški zastupnici iz glasovanja o pitanjima engleski bi se â € œdangerous i wrongâ €, i da takva mjera bi rizik â € œfanning u plamenu engleskog nationalismâ €. On ide dalje od toga tako da â € œTo spriječiti velški zastupnici iz glasovanja o pojedinim klasama parlamentarnih poslovne ... bi lišiti velški votersâ €. To ne bi lišiti velški birača više nego engleski birača su obespravljene po velški dekoncentracija vlasti, i to ne bi bilo više â € œdangerous i wrongâ € od rada i prijenosom do Škotske i Walesa. Ali, prilično iskreno, to je rad koji su sami fanned u plamenu engleskog nacionalizma po drobljenje koncept jedinstvenog i države i abusing Engleski goodwilla od nametanja jednog nesimetričan ustav tako očito da diskriminira protiv Engleske.

Nadam se da ću čuti više od socijalna pitanja Jedinica o tom pitanju, to je većina ticati pritiskom; onaj koji prijeti Parlamentarna demokracija kao znamo to.

Gospodin Vinson Pitao ju je Veličanstvo je Vlada:

Koliko puta, od njegova uključivanja u Ugovor iz Maastrichta je načelo supsidijarnosti je uspješno koristi kako bi se osiguralo da snage ostati u Velikoj Britaniji i nisu prenesene na institucije Europske unije. [HL3469]

Parlamentarne Pod-državni sekretar, vanjsku i Commonwealth Office (Gospodin Triesman):

Članak 5. Ugovor o osnivanju Europske zajednice (TEC) glasi:
"U područjima koja ne pada u njegovoj isključivoj nadležnosti, Zajednica će poduzeti, u skladu s načelom supsidijarnosti, i ako je samo u onoj mjeri u kojoj su ciljevi predložene akcije ne može biti dovoljno postići države članice i stoga mogu , Zbog mjerilo ili učinci predložene postupke, biti bolje postignut od strane Zajednice. "

Supsidijarnosti treba promatrati u širem kontekstu kao opće načelo koje underpins rad europskih institucija.

Institucije uzeti u obzir prilikom supsidijarnosti, djelujući pod TEC, te u tom smislu supsidijarnosti je pozitivno utjecalo na cjelokupni pravcu EU-a.
U Vladi vjeruju da daljnji napredak može biti, posebno u jačanju uloge nacionalnih parlamenata u EU donošenja odluka.

Tako je očito pravi odgovor je nitko drugi način vlade moći će nam reći koliko puta.

Na konvenciji koja pisali Ustav David Heathcoat-Amory je rekao:

U odjeljku A-9 u nacrtu Ustava, navodi da je "nacionalni parlamenti će osigurati skladu s principom supsidijarnosti". To podrazumijeva moć da to učinite.

Ali Protokol samo grantovi zahtjev. Nacrt zakona bi onda moraju biti pregledani, a ako Komisija želi da se zatim nastaviti. Tako smo moraju donijeti Protokol u skladu sa A-9 ako smo se biti dosljedna.

Ima izgleda da se određene teme kroz â € œmiddle groundâ € političkih debata u ovoj zemlji, da se nešto učini s izradu nas sve cijenimo se britanski, ili nešto što je potrebno da se nešto dovede sve nas zajedno, ili kao Davis kaže Cameron "Nesto smo svi zajedno učinili" Što sa Gordon Brownâ € ™ s zastavu waving epizoda prošli tjedan i Tony Blairâ € ™ s pokušajima stvoriti â € œrespect za stateâ €-ili je to parlament, ili vlade ili možda â € œhimselfâ € -- ideje. Sve to izgleda kao da ukuhati na političke klase pokušava nešto učiniti prema Poboljšavanje British demo, koji s obzirom na anti-nacionalističke pokrete i prisilni prijenos u posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća bilo bi vrlo smiješno, ako to nije tako wellâ € |. smiješan!

Prošle godine imali smo izvješće od â € œRussell Commissionâ € postavite po Gordon Brown, koji ne samo donirali £ 150 milijuna iz javnog džep na shemu, ali je rekao da je baština Loto fond, Sport Engleskoj i Vlada su pridružio zajedno stvoriti Britanija je prva nacionalna zajednica usluga za mlade ljude.
Charles Clarke, Home tajnik, rekao: "Kada mladi ljudi, posebno onih iz nepovoljnoj pozadina, uzmite aktivno sudjeluju u njihovim zajednicama, koristi - za mlade osobe, da su lokalne grupe za podršku i za širu zajednicu - su jasni za sve da vidim.

"Po nurturing i razvoju lidera sutra cijelog društva će imati koristi".

Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, izvršni direktor Zajednice Service Volonteri, u Velikoj Britaniji najveći volontiranja ljubavi, rekao: "Mi smo gledati u vrijeme kada naše javne službe, poput onih u SAD-u, osigurati da 10 posto svojih snaga dolazi osoba počinio od građana. "

Tako je mladi David skakanje na NuLabour â € œBandwagonâ €, jučer kad je rekao u govoru na dobrovoljne grupe lidera da, â € œSchool odustati treba biti prisiljeni da tri ili četiri mjeseca od zajednice serviceâ €, iako je bio takav dovoljno reći je â € œdid ne žele vratiti Nacionalne službe, ali je htio da mladi ljudi imaju isti osjećaj achievingâ € â € œsomething smo sve učini togetherâ €. â € Ako to [zajednicu usluge] nije obvezno ili ako ga isn 'T univerzalni to moglo biti teže nešto drugo da imućan obitelji učiniti zato što je dobro za njihovu djecu.
"Ali on ne htjede doći do neke od marginaliziranih i isključenih obitelji djece, koji bi zapravo stvarno koristi."

Ja gospođa € ™ t znati ako je to fašizam i komunizam, ali ne i sigurno democratism nije konzervatizam!

Kao Tim Worstall govori na njegov blog:

â € œNow je ovo volonterskom radu zapamtiti. Ne plaćate. (Ako je to za platiti bilo bi jednako kao loše u jednom smjeru i lošiji u drugoj. Zašto plaćati 18 godina olds učiniti nešto kad bismo mogli imati ljudi to radiš? Bang ide produktivnost.)
On je ozbiljno predlaganjem da se svi ljudi trebali raditi, neplaćeni, za Državu.
To je fašizam ukućani, prljavo i loš ideja da je od državnog interesa adut onima od pojedinca. Da naš rad je neąto na raspolaganje, rekao je državni, da smo puki helots da se javi što učiniti kao Gospodarima i magistri želja.
Ima odurno overtones od Lordâ € ™ s dana na srednjovjekovni zamak, dane one kad je dugovao rada na feudalni gospodar, nego je individual.â €

To bi mogao biti dobar plan ako oni koji se sada pokušava nametnuti državljanin izvršiti na stanje na razne načine, da bi im kolektivne svijesti za jednom i za sve. Ako se građani EU-a i naroda država je mrtva, kao intergrationalist bi nas svi vjeruju, a zatim što je u trenutku navodeći da prazni brod koji je britanski stanje je postalo.

EU parlament je dalje gurati svoje svjetovne â € € œreligionâ i za uništenje prava na objektu zbog vjerskog uvjerenje.

Zadnjih tjedana izvješće u kršćanskoj Objavi kaže da clergymen preko Velike Britanije su lijevo vrlo zabrinuti za izvješće Europske unije koja je preporučio da kler nije dozvoljeno pravo na prigovor savjesti za obavljanje gay vjenčanja i ako Parlamentu (EU) odluči odigrati Zakoni odobre isti spol brakovi.

EU navodi da vladajuća stranka prava na pristup pobačaj, eutanazija, kontrola rađanja i braka adut pravo savjesti za odustajanje od obavljanja gay vjenčanja, visoko kontroverzan izvješće koje nazovite € ™ s Mreža nezavisnih stručnjaka o ljudskim pravima, rekao je da gdje â € œeuthanasia ili potpomognuto samoubojstvo su djelomično decriminalized, pravo na vjerske prigovor savjesti, a ona bi trebala biti priznata u medicinskim upitao liječnika za obavljanje eutanazija ili pomoći osobi u počinjenje samoubojstvo, ne treba da bude vršio na način koji vodi do depriving bilo koje osobe s mogućnošću ostvarivanja učinkovito njegovo ili njeno pravo zajamčeno kao pod primjenjivo legislation.â €

U izvješću se navodi da je â € œright od accessâ € trebali uzeti prednost nad pravo za svećenika ili registrars do objekta solemnizing gay vjenčanja, gdje su im zakonom dopuštena.

Na ploči da vladajuća stvori tvrdio: â € œThe pravo na vjersku prigovor savjesti svibanj se pozivati od strane oficira odbijanja da bi proslavili brak između dvije osobe istog spola ili gdje je jedan od potencijalnih stupiti u brak je transsexual.â €

To, medjutim, dodao da â € œit bi bila neprihvatljiva kako bi se omogućilo da ovaj rezultat u braku biti dostupan na nekoliko tiče: bilo koji oblik diskriminacije na osnovi seksualne orijentacije (kao što bi rezultat s odbijanjem da bi proslavili brak između dvije osobe u istom spolu, gdje ove institucije je priznata), i bilo koji krši pravo sklopiti brak i transsexuals, ne smije se tolerirati, a javne vlasti bi trebale osigurati da u takvim okolnostima drugi oficiri bit će dostupni i spremni da slavimo one unions.â €

U Velikoj Britaniji, liječnika i sestara trenutno imaju pravo po zakonu da odbiju sudjelovati u pobaaja, a Reforma obrazovanja Zakon od 1988 daje roditeljima pravo na povlačenje svoje djece s klanjati na državnom podržana škola.

Kler je Engleska Crkva također ima pravo, pod Priznavanje Zakona Spol 2004 odbiti da svečano vjenčanje jedan â € œif je opravdano vjerovao da je persona € ™ s spolova postala je stekla spol pod Act.â €

Ako parlament odluči legitimirati istog pola vjenčanja, redovnici će se, prema preporukama EU izvješće, biti prisiljeni da se pravo na pristup vjenčanje gay parova iznad vlastitih moralnih uvjerenja o svetosti u brak.

Moj osobni osjećaji koji su homoseksualan parove koji su počinili da jedni druge, trebali bi imati zaštitu prava kao par iz države, slično kao da daje heterosexuals koji su se vjenčali. To je osoba trebala bi imati pravo na kraju njihovih života, ako žele, da žena treba da ima pravo pobaciti. Ipak sam reconise da su to moje osobne belifs i oni se ne dijele svi.

EU rulling je o stvaranju nove države svjetovne religije, koji govori svojim pravilima adut onima drugih religija. Saznali smo da se zajedno s narodima drugih religija u glavnom, jer nismo osporio njihovu vjerskih uvjerenja, tako su stvorili smo sustav koji omogućuje svakom od nas da ode svojim putem ne snagu katoličko izabrati između države i njihove religije (dobro ne više), jer smo naučili da se to na kraju vodi u krvoproliće.

Oni u EU parlament trebali bi zapamtiti ovaj i gledati na njihovoj povijesti da shvate da prisiljavajući ljude učiniti nešto protiv njihova uvjerenja snažno održan nema budućnosti, a ne mjesto u demokratska država.

Ustava EU je mrtav, kaže nizozemski ministar,

Federalist nada i oživljavajući Nacrt ustava Europske unije su snuffed se jučer kada je nizozemski ministar inozemnih poslova, Bernard Bot, rekao je Ugovor je bio "mrtav".

On je daleko swept mjeseci euphemisms i pola istine, kao što europski lideri struggled kako bi izbjegli biti prvi na carinu kraj ustavnog projekta, nakon odbijanja u referendumi koje su francuski i nizozemski glasači.

Austrija, koja ima rotirajuće predsjedništvo EU-a za narednih šest mjeseci, ima obvezala raditi na oživljavajući ustava.

Beč je rekao da će to potrajati dubinska mjerenja od drugih 24 naroda EU-a o tome kako "choreograph" njen preporod, u pripremi za lipanj summitu koji je završio godinu-dug "stanka za razmišljanje".

Međutim, kada se Ursula Plassnik, austrijskog ministra vanjskih poslova, kako bi Haagu flew da zvuk iz nizozemske, g. Bot polijevati hladnom vodom na inicijativu.
G. Bot, stoji pokraj gđa Plassnik, rekao: "Mi smo o Ustavu, koja za Holandiji je mrtav."

Mikado, vanjskih tajnik, rekao: "Budući da je najbolje da se može reći o nacrtu ustavnog ugovora je da je u zaborav, koji je negdje između neba i pakla, to je teško razuvjeriti da nije umro."

Jedan od neimenovanih EU diplomata je rekao: "Teško je vidjeti bilo koji dolazne francuski ili nizozemska vlada, u 2007, u izboru je otrov proguta tabletu da je drugi referendum o Ustavu, koji bi mogli lako izgubiti."

Ovo je naslov za novinare u četvrtak, nego subota imamo potpuno različite priče i jedan štoviše koji sadrži odgovor na federalists problemi dobivanja svake zemlje da ratificiraju Ustav individualno.

MEP će sljedeći tjedan raspravu izvještaju koji je usmjeren na spašavanje EU ustava i formiranje jasne odluke byt kraja 2007 o načinu njezine osnovne dijelove treba ratificirati, unatoč prošle godine, "ne" glasova u Francuskoj i Nizozemskoj.

Dva co-izvjestitelji u Europskom parlamentu u ustavnim pitanjima odbora, Velikoj Britaniji liberalni Andrija varanje i austrijske Zelena Johannes Voggenhuber, u petak (13. siječanj) se pridružio zbor EU čelnici izrazili svoje mišljenje nad sudbinom tekst budući da je početkom ove godine.

U MEP opisao intervencije tako daleko kao "simplistic" i predstavljen umjesto izvještaj postavku iz određeni Putokaz za reanimaciju od ustava u revidirani oblik.

U varanje-Voggenhuber izvješće, na kojem će glasovati u Saboru u četvrtak, predlaže da se intenziviraju u tzv razdoblje promišljanja o Ustavu, dogovore čelnici EU-a nakon što su francuski i nizozemski glasači odbili teksta u referendumi prošle godine.

Prema planu, Europski parlament će ove godine i sljedeće godine, zajedno s nacionalnim parlamentima promovirati niz parlamentarnog foruma, koji je MEP nadamo da će biti odjek je niz nacionalnih rasprava.

U razdoblju odraz bi onda trebalo "dovede do kraja u drugoj polovici 2007 s jasnim odluka kako nastaviti s Ustavom".

I buntovnik isâ € | â € | â € | â € | â € |.
Nakon pregovora o poboljšanjima u 2008, a revidirani tekst bi trebao biti da europski građani u širom EU-konzultativni referendum na isti dan kada i europskih izbora u 2009.

Tamo smo EU `e odgovoriti na demokratski izbor naroda, EU širok referendum učinit će to nemoguće za pojedinca stanju staviti veto na ustav.

Tako je na moždani udar podrivanju i preusmjeren na francuski i nizozemski glasova i također krše sporazumima koji su u svim prethodnim ugovorima koje svaka drzava bi jasno staviti veto na bilo koje promjene u ugovorima.

Htjela sugeriše da je EU parlament jednostrano sada želite ukloniti moć pojedinca na državnom ugovoru suprostaviti promijeniti, a to je kao takav otvoren za kršenje ugovora koje svaka drzava u pristajete na izvornu ugovori, ugovori onih koji imaju bio slomljen.

Važnost ovog potez EU parlament ne može biti overstated.

Ustav EU-a određuje se kao samostalna glumac, do tada je to stvorenje od države, ona djela za države, tako svaka država je i dalje suveren i ima pravo odlučiti da li ili ne želi promijeniti svoje ugovora, ako to ne onda nema druge agencije mogu prisiliti da to učinite. To je prema ovom sporazumu EU-a da je dobio vlast na prvom mjestu, to je razumijevanje ove dozvoljeno da svaki vlada prodati po ugovoru do njihovih parlamenata i ili građana.

U upravo na taj način smo rekli u 1975 da â € œall devet (tada) država članica također se slažu da bilo kakve izmjene ili dopune na â € œMarket Treatiesâ € mora biti prihvatljiva za vlastite vladama i parlamentima.

To je zato što imamo nacionalni veto na izmjenu ugovora da naš premijer razne Minsters su mogli dobiti za razne radnje koje daju u EU putem svojih ovlasti parlamenta. Želite Veći su prodali Maastrichta do britanskog parlamenta, ako je bio ikada sumnje u svijesti od zastupnika da ne bi imali snagu da se suprotstave bilo koje promjene koje ugovora.

Sada EU-a koji je i dalje, samo pod kontrolom od države, želi ukloniti suverenitet tih država da pristanu na promjene u svoje ugovore.

Postaje jasno što točno Monnet značilo kad je rekao â € œWe se ne čini koalicija država, ali se ujedinjuje people.â € Možda je mogao imati stavi malo više succinctly
â € œWe su Obliterating Državljanstvo States.â €

Policija ciljate Sir Iqbal za njegova vjerska uvjerenja

Sir - ja svesrdno slažete sa Sir Iqbal Sacranie's pogleda na homoseksualnost (Vijesti, January 12), ali sam svesrdno podržavaju njegovo pravo na izražavanje tih pogleda na Radio 4 - na način da je sigurno ne ", prijeteće, vrijeđa ili abusing".

Da je policija provodi ga prema Odjeljku 5 od javnog reda zakona su 1986 ciljane skupine za religiozna uvjerenja njihovih, koji su isti Zakon zabranjuje.

Ne mogu pomoći pitate ako nema nešto bolje u pitanju može biti časnik radiš sa svojim vremenom.

Petar strong, London SW3

Sir - Kao ateist sam malo razumijevanja za većinu stvari vjersko lider ima za reći, ali ako se pogleda Sir Iqbal je izvijestio kako je u svom papiru ne može biti slobodno izrazio, onda ovo nije ništa manje od cenzure. On ima pravo da njegova pogleda i treba sve
duguju izraziti ih.

Označi slim, London EC2

Sir - Poglavlje 5 od javnog reda zakona 1986 čini prekršaj za korištenje "prijeteći, uvredljiv ili uvredljive riječi u uši neka osoba vjeruje da bi prouzročio uznemiravanja, alarm ili nevolji" kao rezultat. Sir Iqbal je istraženo koji pod Zakonom.

Odlazak u svirep stranu korištenje ovog dijela zakonodavstva na rubnik slobodu govora, čini se da ako Sir Iqbal je načinio njegov opažanja u ispisati, nego na radiju, on bi spasio istrage, kao i njegove primjedbe ne bi bilo "unutar na saslušanje "od nekoga tko bi mogao biti uvrijeđen.

To je krajnji dio zakonodavstva.

Pješčana Pratt, Bromley, Kent

Sir - Policija interes za primjedbe o Sir Iqbal Sacranie sljedeće njegove komentare na BBC nam daje potpun pregled situacije da će, ako se odnose na loše osmišljenim "vjerske mržnje" zakonodavstvo prelazi u zakon.

Izraz ozbiljno održan vjeroispovijedi će biti kazneno djelo "ako je u uši nekoga tko svibanj sablazni".

Ako ću komentar da "postoji samo jedan Bog i Isus Krist je njegov jedini sin", ja ću u budućnosti biti istraženo od strane policije za anti-muslimanske ili anti-židovske primjedbe?

Ken Orme, Liverpool

Sir - Sir Iqbal Sacranie zaslužuje podršku svih fer volje osobe, a ne samo Muslimani, kršćani i Židovi.

Sir Iqbal, a kršćani se odnose na vas u svom članku, nisu napadaju pojedince.

To je da se nada da će opozicija i dalje ne samo da se suprotstave ovoj Vlada je predložila novi zakoni o "diskriminaciji", ali će, kad se dobiva u uredu, ukidanje postojećih da dovesti do tih neukusan upada u naše pravo slobodnog govora .

Bw Cooper, Bradley, Wrexham

Vrlo pravo, slažem se sa svim tim osjećajima, no nisam vidjeti izlijevanjem zabrinutost kada je taj zakon donesen, niti kada je korišten od strane policije na pitanje kršćanske gospodju koja je donijela slične komentare na radiju, ili kršćanske par koji su na sličan način pitanje, jer oni su htjeli staviti kršćanskoj književnosti na istom tržištu stajati kao gay književnosti.

Kada će ljudi ove zemlje probuditi do provale strašno ove vlade su u izradi naših osnovnih prava i građanskih sloboda i jednostavno odstraniti od njih i sve njihove frakcije strašan. Ako ne učinite to vrlo uskoro, da ćemo imati ne osnovna prava lijevo za nas.

Veza

â € œWe se ne čini koalicija država,
ali su ujedinjenju people.â €
[Jean Monnet, 30 April 1952]

Od Open Europa Press summary

Merkel i Chirac na izgledi nad strategija za vraćaju Ustava EU-a

U govoru na francuski veleposlanici jučer Jacques Chirac pozvao za dijelove Ustava EU-a da se trešnja-preuzima i provodi zasebno. On je predložen taj bi se moglo činiti na područjima kao što je â € œinternal sigurnosti i pravde, vanjskih i bolje akcije od uključenost nacionalnih parlamenata u Europskoj odlučivanja process.â € Međutim, Angela Merkel je ponovio joj opoziciju na ovo govorim Der Spiegel, â € œTo staviti jednog dijela ovoga Ustava na snagu, a drugi ostaviti po strani, bez znao gdje želite ići, da se ne radi ". U intervjuu La Croix njemački ministar unutarnji poslovi (CDU) Petar Altmaier rekao â € œI sam još uvijek uvjeren da je Europski Ustav je dobro. I ovaj stav o sadržaju Sporazuma je dijeli velika većina država. Stoga čelnici država moraju učiniti sve što je moguće sačuvati ovaj text.â €

Chirac je zanemarena upozorenja od Jose Barroso i kancelarka austrijski Wolfgang Schussel ne povratak ideji o â € œcore Europea €. Chirac je rekao da je htio podupirati "vidljivost, a težina od euro zoneâ € | Bilo je prirodno za euro-područje država članica produbiti njihove političke, ekonomske, fiskalne i socijalne integrationâ € | Države žele djelovati zajedno trebala bi biti omogućeno da učiniti kao nadopunu zajedničkoga politike "širom cijele Europe. AP izvješća povjerenik EU-a za komunikacije Margot Wallström je rekao â € œthe razdoblje promišljanja o EU Ustav bi trebao biti produžen izvan lipanj 2006, jer smo vidjeli malo rasprava do sada. Neki su učinili i mnogo drugih vrlo little.â € Dutch MP Lousewies van der Laan, koji je vodio kampanju da nizozemski, citiran je rekao, â € œI želim biti vrlo jasan na ovu temu. We will not ratify the text, and I sincerely ask Mrs Wallstrom - what part of no do you not understand?â€

http://euobserver.com/?aid=20656&rk=1

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/10/news/eu.php

Arguing for the return of the EU Constitution has become the objective of the past week or so, ever since the presidency past from Britian to Austria in fact.

Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel told a news conference in Vienna Monday “The constitution is not dead,” “The constitution is in the middle of a ratification process.” Well if that is the case then let us have our referendum.

Angela Merkel, the new German chancellor has said she believes the constitution could be signed off during Berlin’s presidency of the Union in the latter half of 2007. And Nicolas Sarkozy, has also said the treaty contains “important advances which improve the functioning of Europe, and would move towards a political Union.”

The story is;
There is increasing frustration in Brussels and other European capitals that an organization with 25 states simply cannot function smoothly with rules drawn up for just six countries almost half a century ago.

Ah! so we have to have a “Constitution†I repeat a Constitution just so that we can change the rules; because the EU is at present working under the Treaty of Rome “with rules drawn up for just six countriesâ€

But of course it is not, this is just stupid spin, the EU treaty of Rome has been amended several times;

The Single European Act
the Maastricht Treaty,
the Treaty of Amsterdam.
The Treaty of Nice

The EU had already made major preparations for enlargement, prior to its
occurrence, without recourse to the draft Constitution:

The Treaty of Nice provided for the institutional changes necessary for enlargement.

So the treaty of Nice was supposed to sort out the rules to enable the EU to function with enlargement.

The constitution is not therefore needed for this reason, if we look at what it does we can see clearly what the Constitution is for, in fact there is no need to do even that, Nicolas Sarkozy has already told us the treaty contains “important advances which improve the functioning of Europe, and would move towards a political Union.” So the Constitution is a move towards political union, we should all remember that, lest anyone is stupid enough to tell us differently.

This from appeared in the Scotsman this morning and was sent by e-mail from Dr Cooper with a note above the letter.

Mrs Rolls writes very anti-EU good letters, but I have to disagree with her on this. The editor has deleted “Irrespective of the pretensions of the European Court of Justice” which I had put before “UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired”, but as somebody writing to the Scotsman from England I’m always grateful that they print my letters at all.

The Scotsman
Mrs DA Rolls (Letters, 6 January) doubts whether the Westminster parliament can terminate its contract with the European Union simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. However, that is precisely the basis on which the British people voted to remain in the then Common Market, in the 1975 referendum.

The government leaflet, distributed to every household, said: “Fact No 3: The British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on 1 January, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.”

That remains the case. Indeed, in September 2004, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, told the Commons: “Because we are a sovereign nation, parliament itself will have the final right to decide, at any stage, whether it wishes us to remain a member of this treaty-based organisation.”
UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired. We only have to insist that our MPs do all the work we pay them for, rather than sub-contracting much of it to Brussels.
(DR) DR COOPER

To a certain extent I do agree with Dr Cooper, however I think the point at issues lies in the words “a treaty based organisation†he is most certainly right that the British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market, which in turn means that final sovereignty lies with our parliament. However until or unless they do repeal the act then we must abide by EU rules and EU laws, that is the case at present.

But what about when they introduce or rather re-introduce the EU Constitution, which is still a treaty, but as its title makes clear; it is “a Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe†, so in that event it would not be a treaty based organisation but an organisation based on its own constitution.

The point is made clear in the Constitution itself; quite simply because it contains the exit clause, a Treaty between independent nation states does not require such a clause because as Dr Cooper points out in his letter and note “Irrespective of the pretensions of the European Court of Justice” UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired. The UK is thus the final arbiter of its own destiny without reference to any other organisation, this is why none of the other EU Treaties have needed or have indeed had such a clause.

The exit clause at present is quite simple requiring the state which wishes to leave to make its decision known and to wait two years; however just like all other clauses this can be changed and the rules tightened, the constitution allows for such a change, by a simple agreement in the council, without having to reefer the matter back to the British parliament or the people.

The important breach in our own parliament’s sovereign ability would have already been made by the constitution setting conditions on any decisions to withdraw, and once that has happened, it becomes a much simpler matter to change those conditions, until eventually that power is removed completely from parliament.

It is also worth remembering that along the road to a European state the promoters are quite willing to make temporary arrangements, and allow temporary vetoes ect. The important word is temporary the plan is that eventually it will not be possible for a state legally to leave the union.

As was made clear in the FCO paper 1971
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

FCO 30/1048 - 1971

In that event the development of a prestigious and effective directly elected Community Parliament would clearly mean the consequential weakening of the British Parliament as well
as the erosion of “parliamentary sovereignty”.

The process outlined is an exceedingly long-term one, and depends upon
the continuing progressive development of the Community. For a very long
time - almost certainly until the end of the century - the major member states
would retain the practical “last resort” political possibility of succession
(albeit in probable breach of international obligations and with increasingly
damaging economic consequences for the defector). So long as the member state’s
participation is subject to national scrutiny and can in practice be withdrawn,
it may be said that the nation’s status as an equal and independent state
in the international community will be unaffected. Parliament’s power will
likewise survive; if Britain can in practice renounce the Treaty then the
Community laws which are applied automatically within the member states are
seen to depend upon the continuing (and pre-eminent) acquiescence of Parliament
which may in the last resort be withdrawn.

22. Even with the most dramatic development of the Community the major member
states can hardly lose the “last resort” ability to withdraw in much less
than three decades. The Community’s development could produce before then
a period in which the political practicability of withdrawal was doubtful.
If the point should ever be reached at which inability to renounce the Treaty
(and with it the degeneration of the national institutions which could opt
for such a policy) was clear, then sovereignty, external, parliamentary and
practical would indeed be diminished. Eurealist Files

Thanks to Dr Cooper who sent this to me by email and said;
Many people in Washington still haven’t woken up, apparently. Like Mr Pantucci, with his letter in the Independent yesterday.

Business Platform

Washington still blind to true nature of the EU
By : John Blundell
January 08, 2006
HISTORY is little but an inventory of errors. Even the best and most erudite can suffer delusions. Whenever I am in Washington DC I find many of those I most enjoy encountering come from the US State Department, a sort of graduate school that specialises in fallacies. The rest of the planet regards the State Department as on the side of the angels but gaspingly naive.

A defining folly that resides in the State Department is an almost uncritical perception that the European Union (EU), the commission and all its works are “a good thing†. The argument is a stale remnant of the Cold War. We are talking bulwarks here. The US government regarded a prosperous Western Europe as the best assurance against a Red Army assault. What happier idea than the reconciliation of a crushed Germany with its ancient enemy France, victorious but depleted? In 1946 I readily accept this was all relatively wholesome and benevolent.

Yet what made sense 60 years ago is more than threadbare now. It is false. The Soviet threat has evaporated. If we did have a device to deter any imperial ambitions of Moscow the deterring agent was Nato – not the common agricultural policy.
I think it is possible to detect a few stirring from their slumbers in Washington. The endless jostlings with Peter Mandelson, the European trade commissioner, are plainly not the acts of a liberal or free trading entity. The EU has been busy banning genetically modified seeds for farmers. It has been harassing US corporations such as Microsoft with legal challenges that are, to put it charitably, contrived. US pharmaceuticals find the commission happy to draft retrospective laws and to disregard property rights.

The EU is not a democracy. Some in the State Department express some alarm that the EU powerhouse is unconstrained by any elective forces. Others speak in hushed awe at such a smooth bureaucracy unencumbered by troublesome politicians. Few Americans have really bothered to understand the nature of the commission. I believe it to be the most aggressive and ambitious force in the western world.

While China is opening itself up, the Europe of the Union is cocooning itself in ever more detailed rules, taxes, regulations and levies. India abandons is antique love affair with bureaucracy and chooses liberalisation. The “Belgian Empire†, as Margaret
Thatcher calls it, is going in the opposite direction. If this were the result of electoral choice it would have a legitimacy. In fact it is an unconstrained autocracy.

For those of us in Britain who regard ourselves as Atlanticists with bonds of affection and respect for the US, the incomprehension of even elite Americans to the true nature of the EU is distressing. By the assessment of its own auditors the EU’s budget is closely allied to organised crime: 40% of its funds go to rigging farming and food markets. No other single policy accounts for wider poverty. Yet Washington averts its eyes, still thinking “bulwarks†.

It is recognised that the endorsement of brutal and repressive regimes, if they were at least “anti-communist†, was a policy that nourished many evil tyrannies. It would be too colourful to describe the EU in these terms but it cannot be denied it is a mercantilist opponent of the liberalisation of trade in goods and services as much as foodstuffs. Note how the EU, born as a “Common Market†has decayed into a “Common Bureaucracy†. At the World Trade Organisation, the EU is effectively an opponent of the US.

A favourite debating trick of the late Sir Edward Heath, when negotiating the UK entry into the then Common Market, was to protest the talk of a vast Euro-bureaucracy was illusory. “The commission employs fewer than the Scottish Office,†he would tease. It was a clever trick. He simply ignored all those working for the commission’s subsidiary bodies and for all the national civil servants executing commission policy or directives. There is no bigger bureaucracy on the planet.

A recent parliamentary answer in the Federal Parliament in Berlin admitted 80% of German legislation is merely compliance with commands from the superior body in Brussels. Westminster nods through what John Biffin terms “a steady drizzle of rules and regulations†. To most Americans the British have their monarch on her throne and her judges in their wigs. How can fellows like me say this is increasingly hollow? The Queen’s speech is mostly drafted by the commission. The Queen’s courts conform their law-giving as obedient to the true fount of lawmaking – in Brussels. The British parliament debates on ever constricted grounds. It is only healthcare and education that remain untouched by the commission. There is no hyperbole in claiming the UK has no trade policy whatsoever. The DTI is merely the provincial office for the commission’s commands.

Admirable Washington policy teams such as those at the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are trying to open the closed minds of Washington. I fear it will take a few thousand more seminars or perhaps one spectacular event to alert the US to the real truth about its delinquent child.

John Blundell is director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs
.
Have your say e-mail: letters@thebusiness.press.net

The Guardian reports that UKIP have said that they encouraged people to vote for Jose Barroso in the Today programme poll to find the most powerful person in Britain. Ben Jones, of the European Movement is quoted saying, “They’re using neo-con-style tactics - fairly ruthless, almost propagandist means. Politics should be done through rational argument, not by manipulating the media.”
Guardian

I find it utterly astounding for an EU Propagandist to say something like that, it is rather like the pot calling the kettles black, is it not. What rational arguments have the likes of the European Movement offered to the people of this country for giving away our sovereignty? How much of our money does the EU spend on its own propaganda each and every year assisted by The European Movement; which organisation moreover is not averse to using its own black propaganda techniques; reading its introduction by Lord Haskins of Skidby it purposely confuses the EU with the Council of Europe, claiming the old Churchill linkage.

http://www.euromove.org.uk/about

The origins of the European Movement lie in the aftermath of the Second World War. More than eight hundred delegates from across Europe gathered in The Hague in May 1948, under the chairmanship of Sir Winston Churchill, to create a new international movement to unite Europe and prevent further wars between its members

All true; however Churchill was not in favour of the EU, or the integration of Great Britain into a greater Europe, preferring a Europe of sovereign Nation States, and nowadays as the European Movement knows full well, everyone associates European integration with the EU and not the Council of Europe.

I do not know if the claim made against the UKIP is true, however even assuming it is, UKIP is only doing what it intends; and that is to let people know how much the EU intrudes on our daily lives; which is something those in The European Movement would not really like the people of this country to understand, until that is it is too late to do anything about it.

Rational political argument should be used to inform the people of this country not to hide the facts; it should also include the argument as to whether we want to be part of the EU in the first place.

EUSURF has just written a post about the pre-Christmas report from The EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights , an advisory panel to the EU. In the 40 page document they challenge the right to religious freedom if it conflicts with the European Charta of Fundamental Rights;

Their opinion considered the right to conscientious objection in light of a proposed treaty between the Vatican and Slovakia. This treaty would guarantee that Catholic hospitals and medical professionals would not be legally obligated to “perform artificial abortions, artificial or assisted fertilizations, experiments with or handling of human organs, human embryos or human sex cells, euthanasia, cloning, sterilizations, [and] acts connected with contraception.

While the Network acknowledged the right to conscientious objection,( that is nice of them) it warned that such a right was not “unlimited.” “Indeed, the right to religious conscientious objection may conflict with other rights, also recognized under international law. In such circumstances, an adequate balance must be struck between these conflicting requirements, which may not lead to one right being sacrificed to another.”

They say they are calling for a balance to be struck between the two rights, but that balance seems on further reading not to be a balance at all but rather the removal of the right to religious conscientious objection.

The opinion declares that the “right to religious conscientious objection” “should be regulated in order to ensure that, in circumstances where abortion is legal, no woman shall be deprived from having effective access to the medical service of abortion. In the view of the Network, this implies that the State concerned must ensure, first, that an effective remedy should be open to challenge any refusal to provide abortion; second, that an obligation will be imposed on the health care practitioner exercising his or her right to religious conscientious objection to refer the woman seeking abortion to another qualified health care practitioner who will agree to perform the abortion; third, that another qualified health care practitioner will be indeed available, including in rural areas or in areas which are geographically remote from the centre.”

Back to EUSURF who says

So the EU in all its wisdom, wants to force doctors to go against their most deeply held beliefs, and perform procedures that they cannot do with a clear conscience.

Two points:
1) What happened to freedom of religion?
2) Do we really want these people telling us which rights are fundamental and which are not?

The answer to the second question is; whether we want it or not; we seem to have a new set of rights; which when forced on us, will overrule and overturn a basic right to live by the dictates of your own conscience and force the new secular religion on all of us. Thus it is a direct challenge to the settled teaching of the Catholic church, not that this should come as any great surprise after the Buttiglione controversy when the EU Parliament made it quite clear that Catholic teachings had no place in the EU.

Of course we do have freedom of religion, only it must take account of the new secular religion that resides within the EU. It would seem that not only are EU laws and the EU constitution (when it comes) to be superior to state law and constitution, but the Secularism in the EU is to be superior to religious teachings.

Again thanks from Dr Cooper the Western Morning News

PRESSURISE YOUR MP OVER REGIONAL POLICE

The purpose of Lindsay Jenkins’ article (December 13) on the shameless bulldozing through of regional police forces by the Government was to explain the real reason for it. Britain is long committed to the EU by treaty to set up full regional government for the future governance of this country by the EU when we have finally been fully integrated into it. It is fact - inescapable fact. Tell people this and they are likely to say: “So what - we don’t like the idea of a huge centralised police force covering the seven counties of the South West but what difference does it make to know that it is to conform with EU planning?” My answer is: Here is only the latest example of how integration into the EU will soon affect our daily lives, and in a most fundamental way - worse-than-ever policing. We can only stop regional policing by attacking its cause; ie demand that we withdraw from the EU. Nothing less will do.

Don’t be fooled. The EU Constitution has not gone away. It is still being brought in by stealth. The integration process continues right now. Every week more examples of it are revealed. Polls have shown that a majority of the public want to leave the EU, so what are we waiting for?

Since policing is essentially a local matter, every MP should be pressured to state publicly whether he or she is for or against regional police forces, and how those who are against intend to stop it. So we should all get writing.

Conservative MPs, vaguely Eurosceptic as they are, have an easy answer because their party is committed to abolish regional government - provided it gets in before we are irreversibly integrated. Lib-Dem and Labour MPs are bound by their parties to be fully pro-EU, so will be hard pressed to voice any opposition to regional policing.

Sir George Earle

Crediton

Link

This Is Devon from Graham Booth WE CAN’T AFFORD SUBSIDIES FOR ALL

Your columnist Kate Ironside seems to have her morals all mixed up in her recent article. If you read my speech to the EU Parliament last month its contents may straighten out her muddled thinking.

It is very tempting to offer all of Europe’s poorer regions vast subsidies, but perhaps we should remember that West Germany has already spent some EUR 900 billion trying to create a level playing field for their relatively small neighbour, East Germany. That should ring serious alarm bells, but we are turning a deaf ear. The eight eastern European countries that have already joined the EU, plus Bulgaria and Romania, have been promised g139 billion out of the total structural funds budget of g336 billion for the period 2007 to 2013.

An exhibition that the Dutch Presidency put on in Brussels last December predicted that another ten impoverished countries will join the EU by 2022. Based on Germany’s experience, the costs will be absolutely astronomical and attainable only if the big three member states - Germany, Britain and France - are prepared to impoverish themselves in the process. It is about time we scrapped this whole crazy idea and helped out those poorer countries by creating opportunities for increased trade, tourism, etc.

I can well believe that Tony Blair will agree to impoverish Britain in his quest for European popularity, but I cannot imagine Mr Chirac doing the same thing to France.

The EU is a political experiment aimed at “ever closer union” of the member states that have largely been led into the project by the political elites in each country.

Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, neither Mr Blair nor any of his predecessors has the mandate to pursue anything other than a “Common Market”, which is what we voted for in 1975.

However, as a leaked memo from the Foreign Office - AKA the Vichy Brigade - shows, the UK will drop from being 20th out of 25 in the EU handout rankings at present to being 27th out of 27 by 2007 when Bulgaria and Romania will have joined the EU. At the same time we will, under Blair’s current proposals end up paying more than 50% more than at present.

I struggle to see any moral issue of the type claimed by Kate Ironside but not specified, in this disastrous condition.

The EU is a vast confidence trick aimed at stealing sovereignty and independence from free nations and is the most immoral issue I can think of.

Perhaps Ms Ironside could develop a proper moral case for the EU? Now that would be an interesting article!

Graham Booth MEP

Paignton

Many Thanks Dr Cooper

This should release a few pigeons amongst the cats, I have not read the full report yet but its puff looks promising. Happy New Year

Anthony Browne (Who He) argues in The Retreat of Reason that political correctness, which classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism and allows no dissent to be expressed, is poisoning the wells of debate in modern Britain.

Members of the public, academics, journalists and politicians are afraid of thinking certain thoughts’ (p.xii). Political correctness started in academia, (Actually it stated in Germany before the War and then was taken to New York when the Nazis ousted the school) but it now dominates schools, hospitals, local authorities, the civil service, the media, companies, the police and the army. Since 1997 Britain has been ruled by political correctness for the first time. ‘The Labour government was the first UK government not to stand up to political correctness, but to try and enact its dictates when they are not too electorally unpopular or seriously mugged by reality, and even sometimes when they are’ (p.34).
Anthony Browne describes political correctness as a ‘heresy of liberalism’ (p.2) under which ‘a reliance on reason has been replaced with a reliance on the emotional appeal of an argument’ (p.6). Adopting certain positions makes the politically correct feel virtuous, even more so when they are preventing the expression of an opinion that conflicts with their own: ‘political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue’.

Whether an argument is true or not is a secondary consideration to whether it fits with the PC view of the world:
‘In the topsy-turvy politically correct world, truth comes in two forms: the politically correct, and the factually correct. The politically correct truth is publicly proclaimed correct by politicians, celebrities and the BBC even if it is wrong, while the factually correct truth is publicly condemned as wrong even when it is right. Factually correct truths suffer the disadvantage that they don’t have to be shown to be wrong, merely stated that they are politically incorrect. To the politically correct, truth is no defence; to the politically incorrect, truth is the ultimate defence. (p.7)’

Anthony Browne gives some examples (p.8) of factually incorrect arguments that trump factually correct ones, because they are PC:
He argues that PC is much more than just a dispute about words, or the hope of avoiding hurtful expressions: it leads to an incorrect analysis of real problems, which means that the wrong solutions are attempted. People suffer as a result:
‘Black communities are encouraged to blame racist teachers for the failings of their boys at school, rather than re-examine their own culture and attitudes to education that may be the prime reasons. The poor sick have ended up having worse healthcare in Britain than they would in mainland Europe because PC for long closed down debate on fundamental NHS reform. Women’s employment opportunities can be harmed by giving them ever more rights that are not given to men. The unemployed are encouraged to languish on benefits blaming others for their fate. Poor Africans are condemned to live in poverty so long as they and their governments are encouraged to blame the West for all their problems, rather than confronting the real causes of poor governance, corruption and poor education’. (p.xiv) The end of political correctness?
Political correctness is the invention of Western intellectuals who feel guilty about the universal triumph of Western values and economic prosperity. However, threats to the influence of the West may bring political correctness to an end:
‘Political correctness is essentially the product of a powerful but decadent civilisation which feels secure enough to forego reasoning for emoting, and to subjugate truth to goodness. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and those that followed in Bali, Madrid and Beslan, have led to a sense of vulnerability that have made people far more hard-headed about the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation’. (p.84)

Even the long-unrivalled economic dominance of the West will come under challenge from the newly flourishing economies of India and China. Westerners will stop feeling guilty about their position when it has to be defended against rival cultures and ideologies. Anthony Browne lists several steps that could be taken to limit the malign influence of political correctness before it does further damage:

• Free speech should be protected with an equivalent of the first amendment to the US constitution

• A binding referendum should be called on any proposal if supported by a certain percentage of the population. Such ‘citizens’ initiatives’ return power to the people, encouraging ordinary citizens to re-engage with the political process

• Un-PC groups should be formed and promoted to oppose PC flag-wavers like left-wing charities. A taxpayers’ alliance could argue for lower taxes; a homeowners association could campaign on issues affecting homeowners, like council tax and crime

• There should be more objective teaching of the history of the West. Foundations should be set up to preserve and promote the Western heritage and values (pp. 86-7).

‘In the long run of history, political correctness will be seen as an aberration in Western thought. The product of the uniquely unchallenged position of the West and unrivalled affluence, the comparative decline of the West compared to the East is likely to spell its demise. Finally, Western minds may be free again to reason rather than just emote, to pursue objective truth rather than subjective virtue’. (p.87

Download a PDF copy

Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schssel on taking over the Presidency of the EU this month wants to resurrect and redefine the EU Constitution; he said “Europe needed “some moments of fantasy and flexibility and new thoughts.” He said he would restart efforts to draft a new constitution at an EU conference on European identity to be held in Salzburg in late January. He would like to rewrite the services directive, a bill making it easier for European workers and companies to offer services abroad.

“We shouldn’t wait too long to revive the debate on the European future,” Schssel said. Not long at all, he said he aimed to have a timetable and road map for ratification of a new European constitution ready by mid-2006, when Austria hands over the EU presidency to Finland.

Valery Giscard d Estaing s, constitution drafted at a convention lasting months is according to Schssel a process that was elitist and anachronistic, he said, “I want to avoid a top-down approach.” This time, he said, a broad spectrum of citizens including scientists, journalists and professors should contribute ideas for a new constitution.

Ah! so here we have a more inclusive approach; Schssel wants to include scientists professors and journalists, instead of simply politicians, one thing wrong with that idea, from one of the great unwashed, is like the politicians, these professions have been doing well out of the EU for years, they are part of takers in the EU system the ones whose jobs have been enhanced and in many cases actually rely on the EU for their livelihood, where would all those professors of EU law and EU politics be without the EU? Where would all those Brussels reporters be without the EU. I find it odd that the professions the EU has been cultivating in its effort to create an EU demos for years should be earmarked as just the sort of people to contribute to a new Constitution.

But to be fair to him Schssel is not totally uncritical of the EU he said “There are some tendencies within the European Union that can be seen with critical eyes,” notably “an extension of communitarian law by the European court.” He said A recent decision by EU judges to force national treasuries to reimburse companies for tax losses outside their home countries was among a series of “backdoor decisions of the European court” that Schssel said served to extend EU law without politicians’ prior agreement.

Curtailing the ECJ ability to extend EU law beyond that agreed by politicians and entered into treaties, was one of areas covered by The Laeken Declaration and although it was rejected by Giscard d’Estaing, was one of the clauses in the Alternative Report on the Constitution that emanated from Valery Giscard d Estaing convention œTHE EUROPE OF DEMOCRACIES This report, signed by eight members who said As members of the Convention, we cannot endorse the draft European Constitution. It does not meet the requirements of the Laeken Declaration of December 2001.

They also said The transfer of more decision-making from Member States to the Union, concerning criminal justice matters and new areas of domestic policy, will make the Union more remote.

The Constitution Gives no assurance about how power is to be shared, particularly as Member States will be forbidden to legislate in these areas if the Union decides to act. And that The EU Court in Luxembourg will decide on any doubt.

The draft Constitution fails to address the 97,000 accumulated pages of the acquis communautaire.

The Constitution gives more power to all the existing EU institutions and creates a Europe of Presidents, with more jobs for politicians and less influence for the people.
Not one competence will be returned to Member States.

The Constitution concentrates more executive and budgetary power in the very EU institutions which have been the subject of repeated and continuing scandals over mismanagement, waste and fraud.

They made the point that The Laeken Declaration, only suggested the possibility of a Constitution and was not a call for a constitution.

And most importantly

the draft EU Constitution was never drafted through normal democratic methods. Giscard did not allow democracy and normal voting in the Convention. The draft Constitution runs counter to all democratic principles.

This is the Constitution that was rejected by the French and the Dutch before they stopped the ratification process, which prevented us and other peoples also rejecting not only the constitution, but in many cases, the very idea of allowing the EU to become a constitutionally based organisation.

So; Mr Schssel would like to take this present unwanted Constitution drafted by an undemocratic process, and rewrite parts of it with the assistance of people whos jobs depend on the EU, and then have it ratified in tandem with European parliamentary elections in 2009, I suppose, to make it even more confusing to the people who would vote on whether to accept it or not, always assuming they actually allow us a vote, or to vote nationally. Whilst in the meantime all those things the federalists wanted in the Constitution are being implemented by the back door. Democracy my foot!