eurealist.co.uk

Blair goes can we now get our rights back

Ken June 27th, 2007

On the day the man who has done most to undermine our rights and protections against the state leaves office, Billy Bragg in the Telegraph writes about the malaise of British politics and calls for the peoples input on the constitution debate. With both Labour and Conservative leaders suggesting a new settlement for our state, Bragg argues it cannot be left to a stitch up amongst the politicians who have a vested interest and suggests this is not a political party issue but concerns all of us equally.

Weasel Word Watch

Ken June 23rd, 2007

After series of one-on-one meetings with fellow EU leaders, Mr Blair said he was “making progress” on Britain’s four “red line” issues: that the new treaty should not affect Britain’s ability to determine its own labour laws, foreign policy, domestic law on issues such as tax and benefits and criminal and jurisprudence legislation.

A Government spokesman said Britain now considered it was “sufficiently protected” over the charter of human, civil and social rights, even if the declaration became legally binding in any revised treaty

On justice and home affairs policy, efforts to whittle away at the national veto have also been resisted, said the spokesman, with Britain likely to be able to “opt in” to joint EU criminal law and judicial policy only when it wishes.

Deep Authoritarianism

Ken June 30th, 2006

I was astounded last night, whilst watching the BBC`s light hearted political programme “This Week”, when Diane Abbott the left leaning Labour MP and BBC lovey slipped in a comment about the Conservatives, “many Tories hate the European Convention on Human Rights because it is foreign, and that many Tories are deeply authoritarianism and they resent the European Convention because of that” (authoritarianism). Needless to say this comment was not challenged by either the presenter Andrew Neil or the other team member ex Tory MP and erstwhile candidate for the conservative leadership, Michael Portillo.

As they were discussing David Cameron’s announcement that he would like to see a British Bill of Rights, which many might see as a beacon of hope for the British people, to start to reverse the authoritarian incursions on our rights being made by the Blair group, it speaks volumes for the BBC impartiality. It also indicates a total lack of understanding of the problems Blair is creating, Abbots attempt to smear the conservative party with oppression of the peoples rights is breath taking.

Henry Porter writing in the Independent today ”In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order, Tony Blair’s Government has quietly and systematically taken power from Parliament and the British people. The author charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the danger of trading freedom for security - and must have Churchill spinning in his grave”

“Last year - rather late in the day, I must admit - I started to notice trends in Blair’s legislation which seemed to attack individual rights and freedoms, to favour ministers (politicians appointed by the Prime Minister to run departments of government) over the scrutiny of Parliament, and to put in place all the necessary laws for total surveillance of society.

There was nothing else to do but to go back and read the Acts - at least 15 of them - and to write about them in my weekly column in The Observer”

“if rights have been eroded in the land once called “the Mother of Parliaments”, it can happen in any country where a government actively promotes the fear of terrorism and crime and uses it to persuade people that they must exchange their freedom for security.

Blair’s campaign against rights contained in the Rule of Law - that is, that ancient amalgam of common law, convention, and the opinion of experts, which makes up one half of the British constitution - is often well concealed. Many of the measures have been slipped through under legislation that appears to address problems the public is concerned about.”

Others have been slipped though under innocent looking legislation which itself was introduced after a media campaign, how often did we hear ministers talking about the drunkenness in society, when they decided they needed to do something about it we had the 2002 licensing act. An act which in no way addresses the concerns voiced previously by minister but does move the whole of the licensing regime into the civil sphere, which can be controlled by government ministers. It also gives the power of entry and search of any property with force if needed, without a search warrant being required to any policeman, it also undermines the English Common Law concept that we are all equal under the law, by allowing the police or local council officers to go on fishing expeditions, that is sending under age youngsters into a licensed premises with the intention of purchasing alcohol.

Not all Labour MP`s are as blinkered as Diane Abbott or the BBC; Bob Marshall-Andrews - a Labour MP says of Blair and Nu-Labour “Underneath, there is an unstable authoritarianism which has seeped into the [Labour] Party.”

“It’s Time We Governed Ourselves”

Ken June 16th, 2006

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE FROM THE U.K. INDEPENDENCE PARTY Office of Graham Booth, M.E.P. Member for South West Counties
“It’s Time We Governed Ourselves”

Geoff Hoon, the latest Minister for Europe believes that we should have another “debate” ( * ) about the EU, so that the people of the UK can learn to know and love the European Union.

UKIP is responding to that challenge by mounting a public information programme in the Southwest using large billboards, leaflets, call centre and website facilities so that the public can learn the facts about the EU as opposed to the “spin” put about by the professional elites and the likes of Keith Vaz, Denis McShane, Douglas Alexander and Hoon. The EU’s own opinion poll ( * ) shows that only 33% of the UK population believe the EU to be a good thing and that there is a “risk of loss of sovereignty” in the UK, ranking us second in our degree of EU-realism only to Austria.

The Billboards will be sited at prominent positions throughout the SW where traffic flows are the highest, and will carry a simple message: “It’s Time We Governed Ourselves”
The essential theme of the displays is that more than a “risk of loss of sovereignty”; we no longer govern ourselves, as successive governments have handed over our self-governing powers to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels, and that we must get back those powers. Those who recognise this message are invited to call the number shown and to log onto the dedicated website for further information, and it is anticipated that there will be a huge response from the public to this simple, clear message.

The Call Centre FREEPHONE number is 0800 587 6 587 and the website is at www.letsgovernourselves.com

ENDS

COUNT 268 words

Editors note:

* ‘Plan D’, the information campaign run by the European Union and funded by taxpayers is set to be in Bournemouth on July the 6th

* See Eurobarometer poll : http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/quali/ql_futur_en.pdf

The Billboards and the Website go live on Monday 19th June. Contact: Trevor Colman 01626 830630 Lexdrum House, Unit 1 King Charles Business Park, Old Newton Road, Heathfield, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 6UT. Email: ukipsw@ukip.org website: www.ukip.org

“It’s Time We Governed Ourselves”

Ken June 16th, 2006

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE FROM THE U.K. INDEPENDENCE PARTY Office of Graham Booth, M.E.P. Member for South West Counties
“It’s Time We Governed Ourselves”

Geoff Hoon, the latest Minister for Europe believes that we should have another “debate” ( * ) about the EU, so that the people of the UK can learn to know and love the European Union.

UKIP is responding to that challenge by mounting a public information programme in the Southwest using large billboards, leaflets, call centre and website facilities so that the public can learn the facts about the EU as opposed to the “spin” put about by the professional elites and the likes of Keith Vaz, Denis McShane, Douglas Alexander and Hoon. The EU’s own opinion poll ( * ) shows that only 33% of the UK population believe the EU to be a good thing and that there is a “risk of loss of sovereignty” in the UK, ranking us second in our degree of EU-realism only to Austria.

The Billboards will be sited at prominent positions throughout the SW where traffic flows are the highest, and will carry a simple message: “It’s Time We Governed Ourselves”
The essential theme of the displays is that more than a “risk of loss of sovereignty”; we no longer govern ourselves, as successive governments have handed over our self-governing powers to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels, and that we must get back those powers. Those who recognise this message are invited to call the number shown and to log onto the dedicated website for further information, and it is anticipated that there will be a huge response from the public to this simple, clear message.

The Call Centre FREEPHONE number is 0800 587 6 587 and the website is at www.letsgovernourselves.com

ENDS

COUNT 268 words

Editors note:

* ‘Plan D’, the information campaign run by the European Union and funded by taxpayers is set to be in Bournemouth on July the 6th

* See Eurobarometer poll : http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/quali/ql_futur_en.pdf

The Billboards and the Website go live on Monday 19th June. Contact: Trevor Colman 01626 830630 Lexdrum House, Unit 1 King Charles Business Park, Old Newton Road, Heathfield, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 6UT. Email: ukipsw@ukip.org website: www.ukip.org

Dialogue, Debate and Democracy

Ken June 14th, 2006

Margot Wallström informs us on her blog that “The Commission launched an internet discussion last Monday 27th on the future of Europe as part of our “Plan D” which of course stands for Dialogue, Debate and Democracy.” The EU commissioner for Communication / propaganda tells us that she wants to “encourage everyone who has a point of view on Europe and the European Union to take part in this debate. This is the chance to have your say about the future.

The results of this discussion will be added to the results of other debates taking place around Europe – in Member States, in town halls and so on. They will be discussed at the European Council in June.

How very thoughtful of the unelected EU Commission to consider the people, but it takes an American commenter to point out the obvious:

I am struck about how you and the EU go on and on about democracy and how great it is, yet each time the EU constitution is struck down, the EU has nothing to try and rewrite but to only keep putting it to a vote over and over again. My own country is starting to become filled with politicians that think like that. In fact our President behaves in such a fashion. If he thinks that he is right, then to hell with what us the people think. That Ms. Wallstrom is not how democracy or even a republic is suppose to work. If you are serious about dialogue, debate, and democracy, then you have to be willing to reevaluate the constitution, the role of the EU etc. in connection with what the people of Europe think on the issue. Now I know I really have no say in EU politics as it should be, but I could not let the hypocrisy of always talking about democracy yet doing the opposite go uncommented.

One comment from the UK was much more succinct:

I don’t want ‘to have my say’ - that is just an excercise in faux-democracy and sham ‘consultation’ - I want you to actually listen to me (and others like me).

The point being that the EU Commision in the absence of real democratic legality or accountability are trying to invent the idea that they have these things simply because they allow us the great unwashed, to write to them, big deal! We can write all we want, but they will just continue to ignore all comments that do not agree with the concept of a United States of Europe. As Greg Lance-Watkins says;

DIALOGUE; Dialogue is not just a matter of talking to a minority who it pays to listen!

DEBATE; The Minister clearly has no understanding of either the word Dialogue or Debate in the English language. It is not a matter of feeding bits of cake to the peasants and then totally ignoring them apart from occasionally sending in paid lakeys to make noises.

DEMOCRACY; from the unelected Commission so redollent of the USSR’s Politburo through to the EU Duma with its Massively Expensive Parasites appointed from Party lists and representing their own interests as salesmen for the entire corrupt scam that keeps them over paid with generous pensions,

Clearly there is not the vaguest understanding of the meaning of the word DEMOCRACY.

The entire corrupt edifice is kept up by greed, self interest, fear and corruption as it destroys so much of value to mankind - Liberty, Freedom, Rights, Justice, Independence, Sovereignty, Self Determination, Self Sufficiency, Initiative, Progress and self respect.

The future of the EU Constitution rests with France and Holland

Ken June 30th, 2005

Showing a little realism Tony Blair has said that it is up to France and the Netherlands to decide on whether they can ratify the EU Constitution. The EU constitution depends on a change in the French and Dutch positions, so in a sense it is for them to come forward and say how this can be done before we can really know how that moves on.

Despite all the arguments about continuing the ratification process, Blair is right, if at the end of the day France and Holland do not state clearly what moves they will take to reverse their respective referendums the constitution can not come into force.

It would now be nice if Blair were to also say that until such a plan is forthcoming from France and Holland that the anticipated application of parts of the Constitution should cease. But pigs might well be flying over Whitehall before the obvious implications of the rejection of the constitution are taken on board by Blair and Co.

The Destruction of the European Dream

Ken June 30th, 2005

Anatole Kaletsky in the Times suggests that Blair has the opportunity enjoyed by no other British leader, at least since the Second World War. The question is how he can play the strong hand that fate has dealt him.

Simple really “Mr Blair can start by explaining why the EU constitution has failed. The voters of France and the Netherlands did not reject the principle of a constitution. What they voted against was the particular constitution offered by the EU’s governing elite. The reasons for this rejection are clear. The proposed constitution would have reinforced and then entrenched forever the worst features of the EU status quo: lack of democracy, excessive centralisation and economic dysfunction.”

Kaletsky says “These are the three great evils that Mr Blair must now try to overcome”

“Mr Blair’s challenge is to recognise such concepts and use them to redefine the “European project”. Instead of trying to create a homogenised euro-culture or single economic “model”, European countries should turn their inherent diversity to mutual advantage through economic competition and cultural exchange.

How could Mr Blair move Europe in this direction? By doing something unthinkable to Europe’s political classes, but blindingly obvious to voters: demanding the return of powers to nation governments from Brussels. In diplomatic jargon, he must start to unravel the acquis communautaire. The acquis is a convention that asserts that any responsibility transferred to Brussels can never be renationalised. It guarantees an irreversible accretion of power to the EU. Mr Blair should, as a matter of principle, announce his opposition to this anti-democratic juggernaut. He should show what he means in practice by proposing repatriation of specific policies, starting with issues such as regulations on working time and consumer protection, but aiming eventually for the biggest and most expensive policy — agriculture.

Even more important than disavowing the acquis, Mr Blair could emphasise the diversity of Europe by rejecting the concept of a single economic model to be followed by every EU country. The EU’s official economic policy (known as the Lisbon Agenda) is to create “the world’s most competitive economy by 2010”. This objective is not just embarrassingly unattainable, but deeply misguided. Europe is not a single economy. It is a single market; a community of democratic nations, whose citizens choose different economic and social priorities.”

In fact all Mr Blair has to do is to dismantle the EU and start again, I am quite sure that this will go down like the proverbial lead balloon in the halls of Brussels, and those who have spent the last fifty years taking the EU in exactly the opposite direction will welcome with open arms the destruction of the European dream.

Where are the conservatives?

Ken June 30th, 2005

This fantastic post from The England Project tells us everthing that is wrong with the Tory party, and shows how far they have to go before we can begin to trust them again.

Here is just one example of what I hate about politicians. Tory stated policy is not to oppose ID cards as a matter of principle, indeed they have stated that they actually support them in principle. What they do oppose is the current government’s ID card scheme and they will continue to do so unless it is changed so that it can be favourably judged against five distinct tests.

That is all on the record and no statement has been forthcoming from the Tory party to withdraw from this position.

Then we see the following release from the badly named web site conservatives.com. It takes the form of a pledge by David Davis, the Tory Shadow Home Secretary, that a future Tory government would abandon Labour’s controversial ID card scheme. The release is filled with what looks like anti-ID card rhetoric.

….Mr Davis warned that the scheme would “chip away at the basic liberties we would have come to hold dear, and which previous generations fought to protect”.

…an incoming Conservative administration would abandon the legislation and scrap the ID card scheme, Mr Davis stressed: “We will not be the party of such a move. The Home Secretary’s proposals represent a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state.

And the marvellous closing paragraph …”They are not just excessive, but also expensive. Not just illiberal, but also impractical. Not just unnecessary, but also unworkable. A vision rather like this was originally set out by a man called Blair who later changed his name to Orwell and wrote a book called 1984. It was supposed to be a warning. This government has used it as a text book.”

All fine and dandy and all designed to fool everyone into thinking that they are speaking out against ID cards as a matter of principle. But don’t be fooled, they are not.

There has not been a single statement withdrawing the Tory line of support in principle. All the above release from David Davis has said is that they will abandon the Labour scheme. There is not a single promise (would that be worth anything) or commitment to do anything other than this but, I suspect, most people (including the media) will swallow the line that the Tory party is an anti-ID card party hook, line and sinker.

And that’s what I hate about politicians; the politics. They made a statement of support for the principle because they were concerned that opposing ID cards would turn out to be a vote looser. In order to be able to fight for a position distinct from the Labour party they put up certain conditions to their support allowing them room for manoeuvre should their judgement about public support turn out to be false. Now that it looks like there is trouble ahead for the Labour scheme they come out fully against it using rhetoric designed to look like they are anti-ID card when it is nothing of the sort.

It’s all completely unprincipled. They are giving no lessons in anything other than political manoeuvring and they are darkening the very heart of what it means to be a true conservative (or true socialist or true anything for that matter).

No member of the public has learnt anything about what benefits there might be in a smaller state. No member of the public has witnessing a principled stand by an opposition party that is a real advocate of individual liberty. There has been no real progress in the debate and there have been no converts to the ideals of individual liberty due to anything the Tory party has done.

A conservative party would have made a proper fight of it and many, many people could have had that spark of liberty inside of them turned into a brighter flame.

I hate how these quislings have behaved.

The Secrets of Bilderberg

Ken June 29th, 2005

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been quite impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries

So said David Rockefeller in Essen, Germany, on 8 June 1991 at the end of a seminar of one of his clubs (Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group) and provides a key to understanding this whole deception this is argued in a new book written by William Wolf Aquilion Ltd.
www.aquilion.com The book is distributed by June Press (www.junepress.com). ISBN: 1904997015

Contents:
Forewords

PART 1 Key No. 3
The secret history of the Bilderberg Group
What was the Bilderberg Group, and what were its aims? - Congressman John Rarick revealed in 1971… - How to describe him as a person - Sensible advice from Maxim Litvinov - The part played by Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi - Members of the inner circle reveal themselves in July 1940 - The Assassination of General W. Sikorski - Western Europe, springboard of European Federalism (1945-1955) - Monnet, Inventor of the European Community - The Common Market gets under way - Organising step by step - The Left, in the shadow of the Cold War - Eisenhower and Juin meet in secret - An unpublished text by Robert Schuman - The Jean Monnet Committees are energised - Who financed Europe, from the Common Market to Maastricht?

PART 2
Media campaigns to dethrone a prince
The Lockheed Affair, screen for a well-organised campaign of blackmail - Understanding how things worked - First steps in a “Europeist” offensive - The techniques of infiltration.

PART 3
The advance of the Europe of the stateless
Names to conjure with in East-West with the USSR - Jean Monnets succession is assured - Invisible government - Jacques Delors, President of the EEC (1985-1995) - The path taken by a Europeist - Europe controlled by the Techno-democrats - The Euro deadlock - A repeat of the evasion of 1984? - The European clones of Funk, Schacht, Déat… - What an annual Bilderberg meeting is like - Warnings by Senator Jesse helms - The reason why the media kept quiet is revealed by David Rockefeller

PART 4
European deadlock
Tony Blair tries to find a way out - Jacques Chirac: From now on the nation exists outside the State” - Michel Rocard: Holding out against the new American Empire - The coming hegemony - The Neutralisation of Nato - Confirmation by the Inner Circle - Economic implantation in France.

Overheard in Brussels

Ken June 27th, 2005

From Denis Cooper

Presidencies may come and go but the European Commission is eternal - President Barroso to Tony Blair,
after Blairs speech to the parliament, 23 June 2005.

“National sovereignty is a luxury of the past Graham Watson MEP, leader of the liberal group in the
European parliament, speaking after Tony Blairs speech, 23 June 2005.

EUspeak

Ken June 23rd, 2005

The EU Elites change the meaning of words or invent new words instead of using readily recognised words to explain what they mean then because they are using these new words they get away with making the most extreme statements.

In EUspeak democracy becomes populism “the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite”
Which of course presupposes that there is a political elite in the first place.

So therefore to help clear understanding in the item below I have change the word populism with the correct word democracy The common people, considered as the primary source of political power

From Euobserver
The real threat to the EU is the rising tide of democracy in key member states rather than the Franco-British clash between deeper political integration and a free trade Europe, according to Polish foreign minister Adam Rotfeld.

“I would say that the spectre that is hanging over Europe [today] is the spectre of democracy “, the minister told EUobserver on Wednesday (22 June), comparing the trend to the rise of communism in Europe in the 19th century.

He explained that the growth of anti-establishment feeling in countries such as France, Germany and Poland is the largest destabilising factor in Europe’s new security environment, which has moved on from the risk of military aggression.

“The main threats are within us, within the countries and not between us”, Mr Rotfeld stated.

The minister warned it would be a mistake to lay the blame on right-wing politicians such as Austria’s Jorg Haider or the French National Front chief Jean-Marie Le Pen. The main problem is the behaviour of the political elite.

” Democracy rests on the well-established parties, they are more and more democratic “, Mr Rotfeld indicated. “In order to win in new directions they use obviously democratic phraseology”.

The EU elites do not like democracy, it gets in the way of their plans for the people, that is why the EU is anti-democratic, as of course was communism which also purported to speak for the people.

The EU is heading in only one direction

Ken June 21st, 2005

So when the Euphiles keep telling us that the member states are in charge do they mean that they are in charge only so long as they understand that it’s all heading in the direction of more Europe, and the direction of deeper integration.

EU development commissioner, Louis Michel, said “The British Prime Minister has the upper hand, but to run a good presidency, it’s necessary that every-one else helps … We’ll help him, but on condition that it’s all heading in the direction of more Europe, and the direction of deeper (integration].”

Mr Blair’s conduct during the EU summit - his defence of the British rebate from the Union budget, his wider demand for budget reform and his call for EU leaders to heed the lesson of the French and Dutch No votes to the constitution - were seen by many federalists as evidence of a British plot to reduce Europe to a giant free trade zone.

He said that if the British presidency was only about “constructing, or cementing a Europe that is just a free market, then it is going to be difficult for him”.
Michel said Mr Blair’s idea of Europe was “manifestly that of an economic free trade zone, where, rather stupidly, countries still give in to internal competition” “As long as the British do not understand what the European model and the European project really are, we will have a certain number of problems.”

According to the Telegraph when the EU development commissioner, referring to last week’s budget row, defended EU agricultural subsidies, said the underlying cause of such squabbling was the EU’s inability to raise its own revenues is a call for a Union tax, collected by Brussels. Well obviously that is the intention in long run and the more problems there are agreeing the budget the more clarion will be the calls for an EU wide tax, the constitution is very clear about that intention.

The Common Market has been a failure

Ken June 21st, 2005

Mark Steyn in the Telegraph notes that Peter Mandelson is admitting the Common Market has been a failure. He points out that when Mandelson says “Europe is faced with a fundamental choice. One way, we sink into economic decline, losing the means to pay for our preferred way of life. The other way, we press ahead with painful economic reforms that can make us competitive once again in world markets.”

The big concession was so slyly done you may have missed it: the European Trade Commissioner is acknowledging that the one thing even Eurosceptics were in favour of - a “common market” - has been a failure.

But Steyn asks “Is it likely that “Europe” will muster the will for “painful economic reforms”? It was always a political project masquerading as an economic one, and thus the ruling class’s investment in it is more primal and less rational.

So the question is from the point of view of the great permanent Eurocracy can the Common market be described as a failure, as it was never intended to be an effective trading block, but rather a means to an end, of a united Europe. So paraphrase Steyn whatever the failure of common market means, it certainly doesn’t mean the failure of the common market.

MPs know it all of course

Ken June 19th, 2005

We are constantly told that the now deep frozen EU Constitution is far to complicated for the ordinary man in the street to understand, and that we should of course leave the decision to our elected representatives. They have the time the knowledge and the ability, apparently, to understand the ins and outs of this very complicated document, if they were to allow us mere mortals a voice, we would without doubt misinterpret and misunderstand and therefore vote on the wrong things and come to the wrong conclusions. It is heart warming to realise that our minister have their finger on the control button and really do understand what the Constitution means, as these two letters in the Telegraph clarify.

Tessa out of touch

Sir - Tessa Jowell claims that the proposed EU constitution “wasn’t about a vision of Europe, it was about how to manage the process”. Rather than criticising others for not reading the full text, she should have taken the time to read just the preamble.

Purple passages such as “the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny” might have struck her as rather more visionary than managerial. The fatal flaw is that the peoples of Europe do not, in fact, share that grandiose vision - when they are asked, it usually turns out that they would prefer to keep, and run, their own countries.

(Dr) D R Cooper, Maidenhead, Berkshire

Sir - Tessa Jowell’s musings on her contacts with hoi polloi were interesting, if only in highlighting how out of touch our politicians are, and remain, from the real feelings of the people. I particularly liked her view that aggressive interviews on the Today programme are “a complete turn-off for most people”. I suggest she compares its listening figures to Today in Parliament and she will soon understand where the turn-off occurs - and, with a little reflection, why.

Gerry Morrow, Hong Kong

Bridging the gap

Ken June 17th, 2005

Chirac calls for new summit to “reconcile” EU with voters. Jacques Chirac has called for a new summit, possibly during the UK presidency, to discuss how to “reconcile” the EU with voters. He said in a speech to EU leaders, “France is ready to back the idea of a special meeting of heads of government to address those crucial issues on which the future of the Union, and each of our countries, depends. He argued that there was a need to “launch a discussion on how to reconcile citizens with the European project and to bridge the gap that threatens to open between Europe and its peoples”.

Funny that, I though this had already been done, wasn it at some place called Laeken and didnt they set up a convention of the future of Europe, and didnnt Giscard s little central controllers ignore the Laeken declaration and go full steam ahead for more integration and more power to the EU institutions, and wasnt that idea rejected by France and Holland, which led to this problem in the first place. Talk about not listening.

Don`t They Ever Lean

Ken June 13th, 2005

According to MEP Richard Corbett, the Socialist’s constitution spokesperson, EU leaders meeting at the end of the week are most likely to agree that a period of reflection is needed in the ratification process.

But to avoid this becoming an “indefinite postponement” there should be “a public and pluralist forum, possibly a new convention … for a serious and wide-ranging debate”, he says in a paper drawn up after discussions with his group.

This convention, which would be similar to the convention convened three years ago with governmental, parliamentary and civil society representation.

The very last thing we need is another centrally controlled convention on the future of Europe run by the intergrationalist to further their aims.

A Dead Document

Ken June 13th, 2005

The constitutional treaty is “a dead document,”
Vaclav Klaus president of the Czech Republic said France and Holland’s no votes to the European Constitutional Treaty are evidence to the triumph of freedom and democracy in the EU.
To push for further ratification is pointless, he said, since the thumbs down in two EU founding countries has shown ordinary Europeans do not think just like their policymakers.
The constitutional treaty is “a dead document,”
“both yes and no votes were of equal value and legitimacy. People in these countries made their choice, so this is obviously not a failure of the referendum, though it is of course a failure for those for whom yes was the only possible answer.”

Yet another EU Professor

Ken June 3rd, 2005

It is quite amazing how people who supposedly understand the constitution make very basic mistakes and then build a whole argument on that mistake, of course being built on an incorrect assumption the argument then fails.

A case in point was a letter to the FT last week written by no less a dignitary than a Jean Monnet Chair of EU Politics. Michael O’Neill, Jean Monnet Chair of EU Politics, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4BU

Initially he writes “The correspondence from Dr D. R. Cooper (Letters, May 20) shows how ill-informed the debate on the European Union constitutional treaty - to give that text its proper name - has become.”

 Arguing that even his golf club has a constitution he said “and this august body does not stand above the law of the land”

Thus omitting to mention the difference is the EU constitution actually says that its law that will be be above the law of the land, where as I assume his golf club does not make such a claim.

The professor then continues;

“In fact, the text under discussion is not intended to be a state-like constitution in the classic sense of the US’s constitution. Rather, it is a power-map of who does what in a complex and novel EU polity, a polity that is not a state, nor aspiring to be a state, but an arrangement where sovereign member states agree to share some of their powers for the general good”.

Ignoring the fact that you do not actually share power if it is given to a higher authority, the higher authority has gained power at the expense of the state. The whole idea of shared sovereignty is an EU concept that conceals what is in reality a transfer of power.

Using as his argument that;

“The clue to what is intended lies in the carefully constructed title of “constitutional treaty”. The critical word here in describing the text is the noun “treaty”, not the adjective “constitutional”. Few anti-treaty commentators, for whatever motive, acknowledge this significant fac”

However either by omission misdirection or basic inability to read a title, the professor has built his argument on the wrong title, it is not “the European Union constitutional treaty” but “A Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe” To turn his own logic back on him if the clue to what is intended lies in the carefully constructed title, then it is “a Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”.

In other words it is a treaty; until it is ratified it then becomes the constitution because the treaty has established it as such, this is confirmed in the Constitution itself because the text say it is:

Grateful to the members of the European Convention for having prepared this Constitution on behalf of the citizens and States of Europe, Who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

He then goes on to make two more incorrect statements, one that supremacy of EU law has been in the treaties since 1952 and two that the constitution will not affect criminal law every aspect of civil law, or national constitutional law, before finishing his letter thus: “By all means let us debate the implications of the new treaty, but let that debate be properly informed and based on accurate information.”

To which I can only add yes please let the debate be based on accurate information.