President of the EU Commission is very concerned about Democracy freedoms and the wishes of the people.

EU chief concerned about Zimbabwe election delay

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso says he is very concerned by delays in the release of results of Zimbabwe’s presidential election. He told reporters in Brussels that one thing should be made very clear to President Robert Mugabe and that is that the people of Zimbabwe want change, democracy and freedom.

What is the point of our government acquiring an opt-out from EU legalisation and then transforming our national laws to fall into exact alignment with the original EU legalisation?

It would be reasonable to assume that the opt-out was negotiated in the first place because the EU laws were not acceptable to our government, it is certainly the case that the government trumpet their hard won opt-outs by claiming EU laws in the opted out areas do not apply in Britain, and the Europhiles then use the opt-outs as a debating tool.

To me it seems very much like a magician’s slight of hand for the government to trumpet their opt-outs and use them as reassurance to our parliament and people, but then later change our laws to bring them into line with the rest of the EU.

This is the case with the common immigration policy Britain opted-out of this directive in the Amsterdam treaty, at the time the Prime Minister made it clear that there we would retain our independence in this area:

“We have ensured that we, and only we, decide border policy, and that policies on

immigration, asylum and visas are made in Britain, not in Brussels. Others may

choose to have different arrangements, to suit their traditions and geographical

position. I see no reason for preventing them from doing so, although such

arrangements will continue to be governed by unanimity.”

- Tony Blair, Hansard 18 June 1997

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): 25 April 2001

We are strongly committed to maintaining the opt-out secured at Amsterdam. We are wedded to it. We will consider any measures that might be proposed as a result of the communication, but we reserve the right to decide whether to opt in. Our primary consideration is the maintenance of our border controls.

Later on 2004 Blair said

“No, we are not giving anything up … we are not going to participate on anything -

let me make this clear to you - that takes away our right to decide our own asylum

and immigration policies in the way we think is right for this country … we

insisted that we would retain complete control.”

- Tony Blair, Press Conference, 25 October 2004

Yet only 18 months later April 2006 the government introduced the EU’s Citizens Directive 2004- as implemented in the UK Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.

It is the supremacy of EU law which is now preventing the enforcement of deportation orders against criminals from other EU Member States. How can the government continue to claim they have retained control of our borders when they cannot say who will be let in or who can be excluded.

If Blair and Roche were to be believed it was an imperative for Britain to retain control of our borders and that policies on immigration, asylum and visas are made in Britain, not in Brussels. That was clearly their arguments when questioned on this subject at the time, they used the opt-outs to undermine any opposition to the proposals suggesting that it was safe for us to ratify the Amsterdam treaty because controversial clauses did not apply in Britain.

Yet at the end of the day we do not actually retain control of our borders, thus all the arguments and the denials amount to nothing more than government spin, the opt-outs seem to be nothing more than a traversing tool to use against their own parliament rather than a serious statement of policy. An Opt out appearers to be a device designed purely to pull the wool over our eyes.

Further Reading

Technorati Tags:
EU legalisation, opt-out, EU law, soverignty, Amsterdam treaty, common immigration policy,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Headlines make the point that polling has taken the place of democracy, instead of allowing us the people a real voice we are inundated with the results of polls conducted and financed by the EU.

The EU relies on the results of polling to pretend that it is listening to the people, several times this week I have come across headlines that claim the people of Europe want the EU to do this or expect the EU to do that, and because the EU does not have to ever face the public the EU can and does choose which of the polling results it will listen to those which support its plans are promoted to give a veneer of respectability those which fail to deliver the required answer are quietly dropped.

The majority of people in western Europe want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, is one headline that is certainly not going to be promoted by the EU, have they even asked the question?

This puts into perspective EU Business headline Majority of west Europeans back big name for EU president

However the article then goes on to explain that this is only the results of an internet poll conduced for the Financial Times by Harris.

So how can they claim that majority of us in Western Europe want someone like Blair to be the first president, the same is true of all the other polls the EU uses to back its claim of being democratic.

And we also have the famous participatory democracy, part of the EU commissions plan D project run by Margot Wallström, which according to the blurb

is intended to stimulate a wider debate between the European Union’s democratic institutions and citizens

In November last year Margot Wallström kindly allowed one of the British invites (Helen Duffett) of a pilot, to write a post for her blog. Explaining how exiting it was to be selected at random as the British representative to go on to the Synthesis Event in Brussels on 9 and 10 May. The purpose of this event was to bring together the results of all 27 National Consultations and to identify the recommendations which should go forward to the EU summit in June. Helen told us that she was mindful that she should pass on the UK views accurately, allowing no personal bias.

So now instead of 6000 (Harris poll) some apparently from the USA, which itself is very small sample, being asked questions, on which to form EU policy, the system of participatory democracy whittles that down to 27 invited individuals who feel confident that they can pass on the views of the rest of all the other people in their state.

My comment at the time still stands;

Helen I am glad you enjoyed your time, but you should remember that participatory democracy is not real democracy, the purpose of real democracy is not to “stimulate a wider debate” and with the greatest of respect you were not in a position to “pass on the UK views accurately” Those views will only be known when we all get a say and we can all make a choice and when once that choice has been made the political leaders must accept that choice.

Real Democracy is not on the EU agenda so instead the EU will use those who are willing to participate in such democratic charades to inform its policy, but of course with always the proviso that they get to make the final decision on whether to accept your recommendations or to consign them to the rubbish bin, Real Democracy happens when the rubbish bin is not an option.

Now I fully accept that the headline about what sort of President the majority of us want for the EU is not going to be the final word on the subject, that will be left to horse trading in secret by the members of the council of the EU, but it is polling which will be used to inform that horse trading.

The EU system has been specifically designed to remove the participation of the peoples of Europe’s in its decisions and to also be a self supporting in that it does not require the participation of the peoples. So polling and plan D are nothing more than propaganda techniques designed to make people like Helen Duffy feel that they have a voice in the proceedings, whilst the rest of us can feel confident that the Helens in the future who will be invited and then randomly selected, have the capacity to pass on the UK views accurately.

In reality our democracy is being participated and polled to death.

Technorati Tags:
referendum. Lisbon Treaty, Tony Blai, democracy in the EU, participatory democracy,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

The Daily Mail reports that Tory MEP Sir Robert Atkins has been forced to defend his fact finding trip to the USA. His claim for £2,500 was approved by the EU parliament

I have a long-standing interest in US politics which goes back to 1972

That’s alright then, I have a long standing interest in New Zealand Fly fishing that goes back to 1975, can someone tell me who will pay for my fact finding mission please.

Oh! yes just by the very strangest of coincidences is seems that Sir Robert’s son who is a Brussels lobbyist, was marrying his American fiancée just at the time Sir Robert chose to go on his fact finding mission.

Technorati Tags:
Sir Robert Atkins, trip, wedding, gravy train,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

I have been reading and exchanging some views with NM on his blog, Nose Monkey`s EUtopia my blog being almost dormant.

I should say that on many issues I do tend to agree with the views as presented on the blog, until that is it comes to the EU, there I am afraid I tend to part company. It is not that NM is an out and out unthinking Europhile, he is to my mind rather an optimistic sort, who seems to think the EU can be reformed where I see the building blocks and scaffolding of the supra government the EU is fast becoming, NM only sees evidence of the inability of the EU to ever reach that goal. Whereas I do not believe the EU can be reformed because I just do not see any evidence historically or the present that any reform is on the cards anytime in future, NM sees great hope that at some point reform will take place.

His recent post

Cameron, the Tories’ confusing EU politics, and a chance for reform

Questions why David Cameron is still supporting a referendum after the other two parties backed down on the issue.

This is somewhat evidence, of the previously noted, mental ability that many who support the EU have of putting their own thoughts into the minds of others and then being or acting surprised when the others do not follow the forecast chain of events. In NM mind it was obvious that Cameron did not actually want a referendum and only supported one for political reasons. It is therefore inconceivable that the Conservatives should stick to their election promise when offered a chance to renege, hence the inquiry.

But now we can reflect that there must be another reason for Cameron sticking to the referendum promise. One I hasten to add that does not materialise for several paragraphs, (more later) but when we do eventually get there it appears, in the mind of NM at least, that Cameron has a cunning plan. If he succeeds in getting a referendum the likely outcome would be no. But now it is time for Cameron (who by this time has apparently been elected Prime Minster) to put his cunning plan into action, the no vote would enable Cameron to draw out the whole populist process for years with countless follow-up referenda. And it would also provide a handy buffer against the withdrawalists by taking away the Lisbon Treaty’s introduction of procedures by which a member state can quit the EU, meaning he can safely play around without the threat of having to take the EU-bashing to the logical extreme and giving up membership.

Now why would Cameron want to do such a thing, well apparently this would eventually bring about a multi speed or multi tiered EU something hinted at last year, so there you have it the Cameron plan revealed in all its glory.

In the intervening paragraphs NM explores the problems of Cameron not understanding realpolitik because if he did he would “realise that he needs to maintain good relations with as many EU political leaders as he possibly can if he’s going to have any hope of doing deals in Brussels when he becomes Prime Minister.

It’s basic diplomacy - act nice towards people, they’re more likely to accommodate your wishes.”

This apparently means that when we eventually do come to leave the EU we will get a better deal if we are nice to them. Mr Cameron’s plan it seems would “ piss off all the other EU member states no end. Cameron would position himself as the pariah of Europe, pissing everyone off by his obstructionism and stalling EU reform yet further.”

After we have negotiated the thoughts of Mr Camaron NM actually starts to speak to me; he says for the last decade we have been asking the wrong question we should be asking “have we got the right option for the EU” NM is pro EU but not this EU. Well on that last we can agree I am not pro this EU either, as I mentioned before I do not see it changing.

The problem is that no one with any influence is advocating an approach which would bring about the changes everyone is quite happy to go along with EU flow.

I strikes me that if they do not go with the flow then they are likely to piss off the rest of the EU and thus make our exit that much harder. It also seems to be the case that the only way to reform the EU would be to go directly against the flow, after all the flow is towards further political integration. I do not see how we are ever going to go against the flow and not at the same time piss off the rest of the EU.

This introduces a further point; if by going against the EU flow we piss off all the others, then obviously all the others do not want to go in our direction, otherwise equally obviously we would not be pissing them off, so going against the flow will be necessary to create reform of the EU but at the same time will make it harder to achieve that reform.

To be honest it looks very much like a catch 22 situation on top of wanting to have ones cake and eating it.

Would it not be simpler to decide what we want from the EU see if the Lisbon Treaty works towards that objective and accept or reject it on those terms. Then the EU can decide whether to work towards our objectives or ask us to leave.

Technorati Tags:
EU Constitution, Political Elites, Political Parties, Tories, David Cameron, referendum,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Why Europe’s National Politicians Sign Away National Sovereignty

From Brussels Journal

Well worth reading for a good explanation of the problem we face, it is not only the EU but our own elected leaders who are scheming towards the destruction of our nation state.

Security Council seat

Sir - The replacement of our seat on the UN Security Council with a single EU seat (report, August 7) would seriously hamper our ability to form alliances with other non-EU nations or take unilateral action to defend British interests.

We could even find ourselves engaging in a conflict opposed by our own Security Council representatives. Recent conflicts have shown that EU governments often have conflicting views on security issues.

The UN Security Council is rightly criticised for its inability to take action. Imagine if one of its seats needed to take a straw poll of 27 governments before it came to a position. The UN and the EU would be dragged into chaos.

Syed Kamall MEP (Con), Brussels

Well sort of half right, but the last paragraph sets the stage for even further intergrationalist measures, because that is exactly the argument that will be used to push for more QMV and less “interference” from 27 governments.  

John Redwood has replied to some comments about abolishing the regions;

I want to see all unelected regional government abolished.

The Conservatives will not be abolishing the three elected regional governments in the UK that have been endorsed by referendum, nor the elected tier in Northern Ireland if that is in operation.

The fact that Brussels likes regional government is no argument for keeping this unwanted layer of government, which has been rejected by the people of the North-east, and would be rejected by others elsewhere if given the chance to vote on it.

There is no Treaty obligaiton or legal requirement to have it - and if there were it would still be necessary to change it.

My Comment to Mr Redwood,

Again I must stress that I am in full agreement and I can understand why the Party would feel that it would be acting against a declared mandate to abolish those authorities which been extended after a referendum.

I do however have some concerns that although you are very clear that all other regional government would be abolished, that you seem to be ignoring possible consequences from the EU, you say there is no Treaty obligation or legal requirement to have the regions but the Treaty of Niece makes it absolutely clear that the Regions are part of the EU system of governance and sets out conditions yet to be fulfilled for the membership of COR. (members must also have a mandate from the authorities they represent, or be politically accountable to them)

The Treaty of Niece also lists the member numbers for each countries representations in COR.

Subsidiarity is also used as the Constitutional premise for Regional governance in the EU.

The EU Constitution indicates the moves towards greater regional involvement in the EU system

Article I-5 explicitly refers to the recognition of regional and local self-government as part of the national identities of the member states.

part II (Charter of Fundamental Rights): The preamble specifically recognises the national identities of Member States and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels.

At present the Constitution is yet to be ratified but the Berlin Declaration:

The European Union, the Member States and their regions and local communities share these tasks.

We must continue to renew and update the political shape of Europe. That is why, 50 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, we are today agreed on the goal of achieving a renewed common foundation for the European Union before the 2009 elections to the European Parliament.

The COR “Declaration for Europe” to celebrate the 50th anniversary;

“We are determined to support the heads of state and government in bringing the constitutional process and the necessary reform…to a rapid conclusion, without losing the ground gained by and for local and regional authorities.”

Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European parliament, told CoR members in Rome that the committee would “play an increasing role in the Europe of tomorrow”.

“The new Europe we are building is one where regional and local authorities will matter more, not less, in years to come. The bodies you represent will be extremely important in delivering Europe on the ground.”

European commission president José Manuel Barroso echoed Pöttering’s thoughts, saying that local and regional authorities “continued to provide the basis of the bond of trust between the EU and its citizens”.

Former commission president and current Italian leader Romano Prodi also underlined what he called the key role of local communities, urging them to do more to explain what the EU means, to push for more autonomy; and to strengthen cooperation with other levels of government.

It is clear that abolishing the level regional governance will have an impact on EU policy and its stated ideals, it is equally clear that there will be a concerted attempt by both the regional actors and the EU to move a new Consevative administration away from its adgenda of eliminating regional government.

One other commenter from Wales suggested that there might be a call for another referendum there because; Experience has shown it has become an expensive talking shop, and a third rate imitation of Westminster.

Give us another referendum, there are many of us, who want to see this costly white elephant swept away.

On this day when the Euro enthusiast are gathering to celebrate the 50th birthday of the European Project by patting themselves on the back for a job well done, whilst in the real world the real people of the European nation states have indicated in recent polls that they are not as enthused with the project as they are supposed to be. And in response to the silly 50 reasons to love the EU in the Independent this week, it occurred to me that now would be as good a time as any to post a few reasons why I oppose the EU.

1. It is undemocratic

http://www.teameurope.info/FSno1-whyundemocratic-FINAL.pdf

2. It has created a political elitist class which is increasingly insulating itself and its policies from public accountability.

3. It has removed the sovereignty of our Parliament in most areas of government power and has therefore reduced our national political debate to the few areas that are still within the remit of the people we elect, which is why the main political parties are so close on so many areas of public concern.

4. It has removed the sovereignty of British Citizens to elect and dismiss their own law makers, by passing so much power to the EU we the votes cannot choose between different policies because the political parties simply do not offer us the choice as they are bound by the EU.

5. Reduced consumer choice- with its bureaucratic mania for controlling everything it has removed choice by insisting that all products conform to it own rules. Instead of equal recognition of products to allow each state to sell into every other state the EU has defined what they may sell.

http://www.google.com/search?q=illegal+tomatoes+&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

6 Harmonisation: Reduces the available produce on the shelf- by listing only those products which may be sold and the cost of having a product enterd on the list is prohibitive. Thus we loose the richness of historic fruit and vegetable diversity and miss out on new products.

http://www.cen.eu/catweb/cwen.htm

7. Mass immigration: uncontrolled mass immigration has a detrimental effect on wages and increases the pressure on our housing transport hospitals etc.

8. REGIONALISATION: The regionalization of Britain has only taken the course it has because of EU influence trough its funding.

9. Take over of Higher education system:

SOCRATES, DELTA, REMTEX, TEMPUS and EUROCIS European Commission’s Human Capital and Mobility (HCM) programme, and funding from the Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) and NECTAR programmes CEMP (Creation of European Management Practice) The Jean Monnet Project CORDIS, EU-funded Academic Associations and Organisations

10. Propaganda: The EU using our money to promote its-self trying to convince us that the EU is a wonderful project to us when we do not have the choice in the first place

11. European Document Centres and high street shops in order to “promote and develop the idea of the EU as our nation state and study in the field of European Integration

12. No demos There does not exist a single group of people in respect of whom the EU could be a democracy there is not an EU wide political party, there is not an EU wide press.

13. No mandate: Even if there were or is a European demos, what is done by the Commission is not in response to any expressed or felt need of the citizens. In normal democratic politics you have occasional elections, during which time certain issues are publicly discussed. Whoever wins power has some justification for carrying out whatever programme they were proposing while trying to get elected.

14.Accounts: The EU’s accounts have not been signed off for several years by the EU s own accountants.

15. Lack of Transparency

16. ECJ partiality

The Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) is not an independent court but owes a duty of loyalty to the EU Commission and has been used ion the past to extend the power of the EU beyond the agreed treaties.

17. CAP Common Agricultural Policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy

18. CFP Common Fisheries Policy and the destruction of our fishing industry http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en.htm

19. “new approach” to technical harmonisation. I see the affect of this as totally ridiculous, My electricitian is about 55 years old has been to college to learn his trade and has kept himself up to date by studying the latest proposals yet he is forced to pay an inspector to check hi work for a period of six months so that he can continue in business, my previous electricitian decided he had enough and looked for another job.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/11/more-hidden-integration.html

20. EU Arrest Warrant; now we can be arrested in our own home by our own police at the request of a foreign court and extradited to that courts jurisdiction without any protection from our own government even for crimes which are not recognised in Britian.

21. The Euro, although we are not a member of the euro region there is an ongoing attempt to create the Euro as the currency of the whole EU, if we remain in the EU at some stage we will have to convert to the Euro.

22. The EU Constitution, Voted down by the French and Dutch yet still in the background many EU based moves to represent it, either in is its entirety or piecemeal so that we do not get the chance of referendum. The Constitution refounds the EU as an international actor in its own right with its Constitution superior to member states Constitutions and for the first time recognises in a treaty that EU Law is superior to state law. The Berlin Declaration acknowledges the intention to refund the Union and has set a deadline goal of achieving a renewed common foundation for the European Union before the 2009 elections to the European Parliament. For we know that Europe is our common future. If we do then It would be very nice to actually have a voice!

23. Its anti Christian values : There is something fundamentally wrong with an organisation purporting to be democratic, when the view of the EU Parliament is that there is no place for the basic values of millions of its citizens.

24. Socialism; Nothing wrong with socialism but it should be recognised as only one form of political thought to place it at the heart of the constitutional settlement denies other political thought.

25. The cost of membership: The E U will cost every man, woman and child in Britain £873 this year the combined direct and indirect costs in 2007 will amount to £100,000 a minute, or £52.4 billion. Britain has given nearly £200 billion to the EU since joining what was then the EEC in 1973. Even the European Commission has admitted that excessive regulation could be costing up to 12 per cent of GDP. Put it into perspective, just £1 billion will pay for 222,000 hip replacements, or 46,893 nurses, or 38,782 teachers, or 34,585 police officers.

26. ID Cards

27. EU Passports

28. Forced Citizenship of the EU

29. Trade Deficit Before joining the EU the UK had a trading surplus with other EU countries. Today we have a visible trading loss of £100,000 million. Between 1973 - 1993 EU trade registered a £70,000 million loss.

30. Directives: It took 1368 EU Directives to create the Single Market. One directive can cost Industry £1,000,000,000 (e.g. Waste Monitoring. 94/62 - official estimate!). Such EU law is uniquely, and savagely, enforced by huge new armies of UK bureaucrats. Costs and threats of criminal sanctions ruin many small to medium sized firms. For example, 400 abattoirs (half the industry total) only serving local areas, never exporting, were forced to close! In 1973 there were 343 Regulations, 143 Directives and 194 ‘Other’ EU laws. By 1996 these figures were 3070 Regulations, 2964 Directives and 8037 ‘Others’. They bypass UK Parliamentary control using Statutory Instruments and Ministerial Orders. UK Civil Servants, “translating” EU law, always make things far worse.

31. EU Law corpus Juris

32. it can’t last

http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2007/03/success-of-eu.html

33. It is attempting to create an armed force I do not believe such an anti democratic organisation should control military force.

34. Massive overregulation, of just about every area of life

35. There is a distinct feeling of alienation between the people and the political leaders.

36. Federalism:

37. The break up of Great Britian as a political entity and the destruction of Britian as our nation state.

38. Lies and misdirection.

39. Fundamental Rights, I do not want the EU to gift me the right to life or the right to freedom of speech etc. Which I already have, only to retain the right to remove it in the interest of the Union.

40. Life has got much worse since we joined the Union.

41. The working time directive: I do not want a Eurocrat in Brussels to dictate how many hours I choose to work.

42. Border control immigration, it is our nation state we pay the bills and we should decide who comes to live and work in our country.

43. Turning our back on our Commonwealth friends when Britian was in dire straits in the last two world wars it was people from our Commonwealth who chose to fight for us, we traded across the globe with these countries.

44. EU Embassies and diplomatic service: The EU is not a nation state it is not my nation state and I do not want it to represent me or my country abroad, I do not want to be forced to use an EU embassy and I certainly do not want to see one in London. There is no legal power for the EU to even set up this service it was one of the proposals in the Constitution which has not been ratified.

45. EU waste management:

46. Road Pricing the Galileo space programme:

47. Rapid Reaction Force: we are spending so much on preparation for this futuristic battlefield force that we have little left to correctly supply our troops for the actions they are being asked to undertake now.

48. Pushing the secular adgenda: Conflicting values, the right to religious freedoms and the right to abortion or gay marriage are contradictory principles. By choosing to promote the secular view the EU denies its own fundamental rights.

49: No perceived limits to the power of the EU: The EU continually extends its power, cooperation in one area is deemed to require cooperation in others the Monnet Method. So an open border policy will eventually lead cooperation in criminal law because we cannot prevent even know criminals from entering the country. This is calculated to eventually lead to the creation of one nation state with one central government.

50: Treason: The crime that dare not speak its name; out ministers swear allegiance to the British state not to the EU, after all we elect them and we pay them and they could not hold their positions of power without taking the oath of allegiance. They should therefore work only for the benefit of the British state and the British people. Instead they agree to proposals in the EU forum which do not benefit the British people and they agree to pass powers away from the British parliament, and allow those we have not elected and cannot dismiss to influence our nation state.

Just for those who still like to believe the EU is somehow democratic because the Commission is only after all a glorified civil service at the behest of the member states through the Council.

Senior EU officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Brussels will table a piece of legislation which would force large energy companies to sell off part of their business in order to fully separate production and distribution.

The so-called “ownership unbundling” is seen by Brussels as key to boosting competition and bringing down consumer prices.

According to the summit conclusions, EU leaders approved “effective separation of supply and production activities from network operations, based on independently run and adequately regulated network operation systems which guarantee equal and open access to transport infrastructures and independence of decisions on investment in infrastructure.”

They also agreed that any move towards unbundling should take account of the specific characteristics of the gas and electricity sectors and of national and regional markets.

However the member states argue they have not committed themselves to any specific legal model and “The summit did not call for ownership unbundling,” it would appear that although some nation states including Britian would like to proceed with this others including France and Germany are set against the idea.

Meanwhile, the commission seems to be taking full advantage of the EU states’ wrangling, with its officials saying Brussels “is not going to give up the idea [of ownership unbundling] just because discussion has not finished yet.”

I rather like that “just because the discussion is not finished yet” has the ring of we are not going to wait until you have given your consent but are going to force the issue.

One diplomat told EUobserver in response to the commission’s legal plans, “it was not a surprising move,” given that the EU’s executive arm has been clear about its preference all along.

Oh dear! David Cameron suddenly decides the Conservatives do “do the EU” after all. In a long batch of waffle in the Telegraph Mr Cameron assisted by the Prime Minister of the Czech republic sets out the Conservative vision for the future of the EU, a vision based on the formation of the new political grouping they are building in the EU Parliament the Movement for European Reform

There is nothing much to say about the Conservatives leaders thoughts on the subject that has not been said thousands of times before this does not prevent the commenters in both the Times and the Telegraph saying it.

No chance of the Tories winning the next election then!

Dream on Mr Cameron. You obviously don’t know your British history - still you wouldn’t as you’re only a boy!

I take it Cameron doesn’t want to win the election then. Most of us want out of the EU not in it in any way. I hope the people wake up and realise he is Blair MK2, he’s already been to the Bilderberg meeting,

Visitors from Mars would be bemused not only by the EU, but also by David Cameron’s policy on the EU.

Reform from the inside? We’ve been trying that for years and been ignored.

If he really is going to say these things then fair enough at least he has made a decision. That decision is one of closer EU integration, of accepting that parliament is no longer relevent and that his party will be no different to NuLab.

Maybe Mr Cameron, who incidentally isn’t a leader and may never be, seems to think that having 70% of law made by the EU and not able to be repealed by any national electorate is democracy.

Apparently the EU ‘has helped entrench democracy and stability from the Baltic to the Mediterranean‘.

An interesting point - though somewhat at odds with the fact that we are not permitted a vote on our membership of it.

The Conservatives have already had their time to change the EU, they did not change anything then and they will not do it in the future. The only way for Britain is to repudiate the EU Treaties and then celebrate Freedom and independence.

Fifty years ago the people were lied to about the European Community. They are being lied to today.

The UK has paid its dues to the EU and then some. We now have no fishing industry. We have little agriculture. Democracy is now under a set of higher powers which inch by inch take more and more power.

Oh dear, so Dave thinks he can change the EU. Since 1973, after Heath sold this country out, governments have tried to change the EU without success. All they have done is reduced our sovereignty and under Blair, made sure we pay more.

An EU to be proud of’? The only one I can think of is one which we aren’t in.

It is a scandal that 80% of British law now comes from Brussels where there is no effective power of oversight.

Not so much a vision as a blurry haze of catchwords and jibberish. There is not a single substantive policy view here, not a position or an attitude. This was clearly written by a PR, buffed by a committee, with every shred of sense or meaning ripped from it and buried in trash.

There are a lot of words here, and some loosely stated sentiment, but as usual with Mr Cameron there is a complete absence of substance.

For God’s sake how many more times do we have too suffer some Tory leader saying how he wants an EU of independant states when such a thing has never been on the agenda and never will be.

If you are against further integration and protecting of the ‘nation state” then why not simply pass a law that guarantees parliament supremecy?

This is just more Cameron tosh . When will he realise that we don’t want the EU with all its corruption and sinecures . We have enough of that in this country .

Hmm! An apparently attractive philosophy, but one with all fine phrases and no specifics - sound familiar does it?

All good - that is if it had been written 15 years ago. Cameron knows this, but apparently felt that it was time to spin a bit for the benefit of the real Conservatives. The EU has other plans and is well underway to implement the United States of Europe. It would take a Margaret Thatcher to reverse the flow.

Same tired old propaganda, these statements have been debunked so many times I can not beleive they are still trying to use them.

This ‘vision’ is just the old one dressed-up to make it palatable to the individual in each state. It is more than apparent that Dave is part of a socialist agenda by these words.

Hang on! Didn’t “Dave” trot out a
similar load of tosh a few weeks
back? What has changed
meanwhile? Talk about flogging a
dead horse!

Another new idea and a fresh leader -into the meat grinder they go! How long will it be before we hear “We’re winning the battle of ideas, no really, we’re winning the argument…” Such enthusiasm, such futility.

Building “an EU to be proud of”….an oxymoron, surely.
Thanks Dave, see you at the ballot box.

Dave, you jest surely.

Doing a bit of Surfing based on my own draft folder in which I put links that to posts and article and sites which grab my interest, I came across this letter on the Labour Movement for Europe Site

Written by an Administrator and subsequently locked to prevent any chance that someone might possibly inject a measure of inconvenient truth on the subject of the EU and the Regions, the letter is a lazy attempt to confine the claim that the EU is involved in the creations of the Regions to the Eumyth bin.

Over the last few years, there has been significant confusion surrounding the emergence of regions within the United Kingdom. You often read letters claiming that these regions are part of some sinister EU plot to wipe England off the map.

The reality is somewhat different.

The regions to have been developed by successive British governments, originating with the economic planning regions of the 1960s. They are entirely an internal matter for Britain.

The European Union merely recognises Britain ’s own internal structures, as it does for every member country.

Whether we have such regions or not, how we define their boundaries, whether they should have elected assemblies or not, and whether they should be used as police authority boundaries or not - all these are entirely matters for Britain to decide.

Anti-European campaigners want to conjure up an image of Brussels wanting to break up Britain, but the UK’s regions have nothing whatsoever to do the European Union. That is just another euromyth.

This is quite clearly a load of crap;

I culled this from Bryan Smalley`s The Regionalisation of Britain - a diary account http://www.regionalassemblies.co.uk/3239.html

1965 - The EU published its first Memo on Regionalisation confirming that it is EU Policy.

1972 – Heath took Britain into the EU (EEC) he arranged that money which was returned to us from Brussels should come via the regions

1973 - Regional Development Fund established. Heath instituted Local Government re-organisation with a view to moving local government towards regionalisation.

1986 - Single European Act was passed ‘Regionalisation became the central policy of the EU’.

1992 - The Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) established the Committee of the regions with its Headquarters in Brussels.

1992 - The European Commission published a map - ‘The European Community - a Community with no internal frontiers’. The map showed Great Britain which included Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and nine other regions. There was no mention of England.

1995 - Following a review of the local government structure 46 Unitary authorities were established between 1995 and 1998. Evidence shown later in this paper proves that this was part of the regionalisation plan.

1997 - Labour Government took office. It quickly introduced devolution (i.e. Regionalisation) in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales & London leaving 8 remaining regions in England

1998 - the Labour Government launched ‘the Democratic Renewable Debate’ and in the same year the Regional Development Agencies Act was passed allowing the establishment of Regional Development Agencies. RDAs co-ordinate Land use, Transport, Economic development, Agriculture, Energy & Waste. All RDAs have Brussels offices. Each region will ultimately have two sections of government: an elected assembly and a development agency.

1999 - Regional Assemblies were established - Members are ’stakeholders’ and councillors from local authorities. Representatives are appointed (i.e. not elected).

2001 - Committee of the Regions published its latest paper on Regionalisation entitled ‘Major Steps towards a Europe of the Regions and Cities in an Integrated Continent’.

2001- Government issued a Planning Green Paper. It removes County Councils from the planning process.

15th November 2001, the DTLR Minister Lord Falconer stated in the House of Lords that ‘three tiers of Government are too many’ and the government is ‘looking at county and district councils’

May 2002 the Government introduced its White Paper: ‘Your Region, Your Choice - Revitalising the English Regions’.

3rd Dec 2003. In answering a questions in House of Commons Nick Raynsford MP said: ‘Where an elected regional assembly is established, existing two tier local government will be restructured as unitary authorities. It is now quite clear that County and District/Borough Councils will be replaced with Unitary Authorities and Regions

Also in 2003 the District Auditor upheld complaints that the North East Assembly was misusing funds by paying for the publication of propaganda promoting an elected assembly. This breached the Local Government Act.

1965 First Commission Communication on Regional Policy. The Commission emphasised that its authority on regions came from the treaty of Rome and said every country must draw up regional economic policies.

In 1969 in a second more substantial statement, the Commission said that all economic and social policy had to be determined at the European level or the region but NOT by nation states…and I quote ‘if member states were to remain responsible for regional policy then development of the Community would be jeopardised’.

The EEC began to give grants on a regional basis ensuring that the member countries would have to change their systems of local government in order to receive the grants Brussels.

Article 198 of the Maastricht treaty (http://europa.eu.int/en/record/mt/title2.html) provided the basis of the EU’s regionalisation policy. It introduced the Committee of the Regions and specified how representatives from each region across the EU would sit on that committee.

it was by making funding region based that the EU forced John Major to set up the first regional bodies). Regulation 1260/1999 ‘Structural Funds’ ) details this process.

Direct control will come through Regulations aimed directly at the Regions. The EU parliamentary report illustrates how the EU will exercise direct control of the regions.

Regionalism - An alternative strategy for Europe?

For the European Union to continue seriously upon a path of ever closer integration, and the plans for a single currency are surely an integral element of that strategy, it must also have a long-term coherent plan for the development of relevant political structures. The policy of widening membership of the EU makes the necessity of closer political ties more desirable if we are to avoid political stagnation. What is required is an overall strategy for constitutional and political reforms that more accurately reflect the needs and wishes of its citizens. Short term national interests will by their nature, occasionally conflict with the long term advancement of the integration process in Europe. A gradual but deliberate reduction in the emphasis placed upon the political power and influence of Nation States will allow a more objective long-term strategy of wider European advancement to succeed.

Christopher Booker informs readers of his Notebook in the Telegraph that “In terms of meeting the EU’s targets, the moment when waste disposal counts as “recycling” comes when it is collected and registered for that purpose.”

After that it can be and in many areas, often is simply dumped in landfill sites, there would of course have to be a payment of £21 per ton Landfill Tax to Gordon Brown but the councils will not be fined by Brussels.

Booker explains “The main reason why so much composted green waste now ends up in landfill is that, under last year’s Agricultural Waste Regulations, so much hassle and expense is involved in giving farmers an “exemption” allowing them to spread “waste” on their land. To obtain an exemption, the soil has to be tested, an agronomist must be called in, hefty fees have to be paid, until before long a large farmer may be having to pay tens of thousands of pounds just for spreading compost on his fields.

And who charges those fees and has set up this scheme, the cost of which makes the sensible use of compost so prohibitive that much of it now ends up in landfill? Why, none other than the Environment Agency: the body which is calling for “a united effort to beat the waste cheats”.

Well it’s taken a couple of years but finally the British government have had to cave into the EU Commissions demand that the British people must be subjected to Random Breath Tests.

Even though giving our police this power undermines one of our basic rights; that strange concept of the Presumption of innocence.

Back in 2004 when the EU Commision first announced its intention to force the British government to implement this proposal, The Home Office expressed opposition to the introduction of random breath tests for drivers, arguing that such measures are “inefficient” in catching drink driving offenders.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The police are already quite adept at targeting drink drive suspects and the government would like forces to continue to use intelligence-based methods to catch offenders.”

Neither did the police feel they needed this power 24 may 2004

The Police Federation of England and Wales has warned against the introduction of random breath testing, arguing that officers already have sufficient powers to tackle drink driving.

Rod Dalley, vice chairman said: “We already have sufficient powers to request breath tests. The ability to carry out random breath tests would remove the need for police to justify their actions and may serve to further alienate the public. The answer lies in ensuring there are sufficient numbers of officers deployed to roads policing duties to enforce the legislation.”

An article by James Kirkhup in the Scotsman said;

THE government is facing a bureaucratic struggle to fight off a European Union proposal for British police to adopt Continental-style random breathalyzer tests of motorists to cut down on drink-driving.

The Home Office yesterday rejected as “inefficient” the introduction of random stop-and-search style policing, which is being recommended by the European Commission. Britain, Ireland and Denmark are the only EU countries where random checks are not legal.

Ad Hellemons, president of the European Traffic Police Network, warned that if the UK does not voluntarily follow the recommendation, the Commission will attempt to make the random-testing plan into a directive, giving it legal force over member states.

“We are aware that the UK is not happy about this, but at the end of the day we are talking about making our roads safer,”

And also suggested a reason for the Stirling defence of the British freedom to make its own laws.

With European Parliament elections and final negotiations for the EU constitution due next month, the government is keen to avoid the impression that Brussels is infringing on everyday British life, for fear of handing political ammunition to eurosceptic parties like the Conservatives and the UK Independence Party.

“We don’t need to be told by Brussels that we need to have random breath-testing,” said Michael Howard, the Conservative leader. “This is the sort of thing we will be fighting at next month’s elections.”

Labour also is wary of further antagonising motorists already angry at rising fuel prices and the widespread use of speed cameras.

But now with Tony Blair in his thankfully last days in power and almost certain to sign up to the new EU document to introduce the EU Constitution by the back door next month, such thoughts can be safely confined to the dustbin.

Now they have changes their tune as the Times story announcing the discussion paper says;

Ministers believe that giving the police the power to stop any driver, regardless of how they are driving, would be a powerful deterrent.

Research has shown that many drivers exceed the alcohol limit because they believe that they can still drive safely and they know that there is little chance of being caught. At present, the police can stop only those drivers who have committed a moving traffic offence or those who they suspect have exceeded the limit.

Not even a hint that the government have been forced into this climb down by the EU Commissions demands.

So the government did not want it- the police don’t need it- it undermines a basic human right- the presumption of innocence- but because the EU Commission demands it we are going to get it, so much for our democratic choice at an election.

When we can not longer elect those who make our laws and even those we do elect are forced into something against their will, we are living in an autocratic tyrannical oppressive state.

Further reading and background

On his blog John Redwood wrote that the Conservatives failed yesterday in the House of Commons to get a commitment to a referendum on part of the Constitution, if they decide to smuggle some of it in by the back door. Mr Redwood says it is typical of this government’s approach. It is also typical of the Conservative approach to miss the fact that they are already smuggling parts of the constitution in through the back door.

However he correctly says “most people in the UK strongly oppose a federal EU state. We are fed up with the continual power grab by Brussels, and the dissimulation by this government as they give more and more power away.”