eurealist.co.uk

Debate on Quaequam Blog
Which claimed the Constitution was 95% the same as the previous treaties.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts.

I will go into this a bit later, but first I would like to put to bed the difference between a treaty and a constitution - a treaty is the expression of sovereign power, a constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power, i.e. without sovereign power you cannot exercise an expression of that sovereignty by making a treaty.

Things now get a bit complicated because we have a situation with the European Project where sovereign states make a treaty between themselves to pass a proportion of their sovereignty to a supranational third party, that treaty then becomes the constitution of the third party. The founding treaty of the UN, the WTO, the Council of Europe etc. fall into the same category, as they all become the constitution of the third party.

Now it begins to get very complicated because in the case of the EU unlike the other international organisations the power does not remain at all times within in member state, whereas with the other organisations it does or to be honest is has so far. In the UN for instance the power to veto any proposal always stays within the member state.

The basic difference is in the foundations of the Project the framers of the Project constructed a supranational, not an intergovernmental, set of institutions, the EU is what is known as, path-dependent, in that all the institutions of today were there in embryo form in the original treaties constitution of the Project. The path and the basic direction and the end result of the project are all predetermined and any differences which can be observed are nothing more than temporary opt outs or temporary delays.

When one starts to talk about percentage change it should be remembered that only slight changes to clauses can make a great deal of difference to the meaning and the following actions that will result from the commitment made by our government when signing the treaties.

As illustration only: the Maastricht treaty states: Thanks to EU Referendum

The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.

This is changed slightly in the Amsterdam treaty and again in the Nice treaty, by the time of the Constitution it has become a different animal from a very vague provision in Maastricht, this has firmed up substantially:eventual framing of a common defence has become the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy and “might in time” has become “will”.

The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

You have asked several time in the comments what are the major difference between the previous treaties and Lisbon/Constitution there are so many that it would be impossible to list them all here, but the real major change is the Constitution and Lisbon both fundamentally change the basic structure of the EU and its relationship to its member states.

Its laws and its Constitution are made superior to those of the member states. Please do not fall into the trap of arguing that EU law has always been superior to state law it has not, because it has never been in any of the other treaties.

The EU becomes an actor on the international stage in its own right and is invested with the power for the first time to both join international organisations such as the UN and to make international treaties in own right.

The Council of the EU becomes an institution of the EU and is obliged to act in the interests of the EU first.

Our own parliament is obliged to consider the interests of the EU.

Our nations foreign policy is weakened considerably in that we mat not take any action without first consulting our partners in the EU with the intention of ensuring that the EU`s interest is promoted.

The reason we should have a referendum on this treaty is because it radically changes our own Constitution, this is not a Eurosceptic myth, but a fact which is proven by the Irish having to hold referendum, because it is written into its constitution that changes can only be made after holding a referendum, also the French have just recently voted to change their constitution to allow for the introduction of the Lisbon treaty.

Sorry this was so long, but I was struck by your contention that EU sceptics were guilty of a logical fallacy, something I knew to be wrong and I wondered how you could have reached that conclusion, you did so by making the basic assumption with the original post, that the Constitution was 95% the same as the treaties, it is not, it is radically different and as the Lisbon treaty makes all the institutional changes that were in the Constitution it too is radically different. After ratification we will be in a totally different EU with totally different balance of powers between the supranational and the national governments.

Technorati Tags:
treaty, constitution, European Project, Council of Europe, referendum, The EU,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

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

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

Brian Adam is the MSP for Aberdeen North

Independence is a state of mind.

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

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

Dr Ian McKee is the SNP candidate for Edinburgh Pentlands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Two Courts
The European Court of Human Rights ECHR
The European Court of Justice ECJ

Confusingly we have two European courts witch our governments have allowed to hold sway over our domestic national laws. As a point of fact no government should allow any other court to make any laws which our courts must obey, we are within the British Constitution supposed to be ruled only by our Laws. However that is a different story, for the purposes of this post I will not go into the rights and wrongs of allowing any other system of law that we the British people do not have influence over to dominate our system.

I am surprised at how many times people often people who should know better, get the two courts muddled, often one court is accused of making laws which the other has made, it is often the ECJ which finds itself on the receiving end of bad press, when it has in fact had nothing to do with the case at all. This was brought home when I was looking at the EU Commission UK web site there they have a section of Euromyths (more of which later) Some of those were not the responsibility of the EU at all and were not the subject of any EU or ECJ intervention at all they were rulings from the other court the ECHR

The ECHR is the Court of the Council of Europe which has 46 member states, and the ECJ is the court of the European Union which has 25 Member States.

The Council of Europe is the continent’s oldest political organisation, founded in London 1949. the first major convention was drawn up: the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and coming into force on 3 September 1953.
Shortly after the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, Robert Schuman, French Foreign Minister approached all the Council of Europe countries with a proposal for a European Coal and Steel Community, to be provided with very different political and budgetary means.
The six countries most attached to the ideal of integration - Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany - joined, and on 9 May 1951 signed the very first Community treaty. Strengthened by the experience and commitment which had brought the “Greater Europe” into existence, the “Smaller Europe” was now making its own “leap into the unknown” of European construction.
So the European Union was begun from the exiting members of the European Council who wished to pursue the path of closer union. From this stage there are two European organisations however the investigation of one or the other, begins to become somewhat muddled, because all members of the European Union are even to this day, also members of the Council of Europe in fact to become a member of the EU it is necessary for a state to first be a member of the COE. This also means that a ruling by the ECHR would apply to all 25 members of the EU but a ruling of the ECJ would not apply to all 46 members of the COE.
The flag we accept as being the flag of the EU the ring of stars on a blue background is in fact the flag of the COE. On 8 December 1955 the Committee of Ministers adopted this as the European flag. It has only been used by the EU/EC since 1986.
As we now have two linked organisations, it is important to differentiate between them as to often even professional writers and politicians who should know better get them muddled.

Council of Europe:
An international organisation in Strasbourg which comprises 46 democratic countries of Europe.

European Council:
Regular meeting (at least twice a year) of the heads of state or government from the member states of the European Union for the purpose of planning Union policy.

Council of Ministers:
Ministers representing the governments of the Member States which ministers attend which meeting depends on what subjects are on the agenda.

Parliamentary Assembly: The deliberative body of the Council of Europe, composed of 315 representatives (and the same number of substitutes) appointed by the 46 member states’ national parliaments.

European Parliament :
The parliamentary body of the European Union which comprises 786 European Members of Parliament of the 25 European Union countries, elected by universal suffrage.

European Commission of Human Rights:
Until November 1998, this international body examined the admissibility of all individual or state applications against a member state in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights; it expressed an opinion on the violation alleged in applications found to be admissible in cases in which no friendly settlement is reached.

European Commission :
The executive organ of the European Union, based in Brussels, which monitors the proper application of the Union treaties and the decisions of the Union institutions.

European Court of Human Rights :
Based in Strasbourg, this is the only truly judicial organ established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is composed of composed of one Judge for each State party to the Convention and ensures, in the last instance, that contracting states observe their obligations under the Convention. Since November 1998, the Court has operated on a full-time basis.

Court of Justice of the European Communities:
Meets in Luxembourg and ensures compliance with the law in the interpretation and application of the European Treaties of the European Union.

International Court of Justice :
Judicial body of the United Nations which meets in The Hague.

European Convention on Human Rights :
Treaty by which the member states of the Council of Europe undertake to respect fundamental freedoms and rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights :
Adopted by the United Nations in 1948 in order to strengthen the protection of human rights at international level.

The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights
approved by the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers at the Nice summit in 2001, The EU Constitution provides
should be made binding in EU law, and therefore become superior to national law.

So not only do we have two Europe’s we have two European courts, two European councils, two European Parliaments two European sets of human rights and if the EU Constitution is ratified we will have two European Constitutions and two European Constitutional courts. On top of that we have the International Court of Justice from the UN and their Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the World Trade Organisation, NATO and a myriad of other international organisations. It would appear that we are really well represented on the Human rights front. The only thing that perhaps should concerns a little is that we have to pay for all of this through our taxes and of course the other thing is that it is quite clear that we the people no longer have the power to elect those people who make our laws, because those we do elect no longer have the power to make our laws without ensuring the laws and regulation they do make are within all the various confines of all the various international agreements they have signed up to.

Under the heading Shoddy Journalism:
The Anglo Saxon Chronicle points out the stupidity of blaming everthing on the EU!

Sunday Mail reports that, EU LAWS TO BLAME FOR LEAP IN BAIL OFFENCES.

This of course is not correct and is a perfect example of the shoddy journalism, by the MSM establishment. The journalism of the euro myth that the Europhile’s jump upon.

So lets knock it on the head right now. The ECHR convention Articles within the Human Rights Act 1998 are not European Union Law. I state again and please note, the ECHR is not a Convention of the European Union, but rather of the Council of Europe (CoE), which is NOT a body of the EU 25, but consists of 46 European states.

Why not drop a note to the shoddy News Editor: Jim Wilson. E-mail: ”

The Two Courts
The European Court of Human Rights ECHR
The European Court of Justice ECJ

Confusingly we have two European courts witch our governments have allowed to hold sway over our domestic national laws. As a point of fact no government should allow any other court to make any laws which our courts must obey, we are, within the British Constitution, supposed to be ruled only by our Laws. However that is a different story, for the purposes of this post I will not go into the rights and wrongs of allowing any other system of law that we the British people do not have influence over to dominate our system.

I am surprised at how many times people, often people who should know better, get the two courts muddled, often one court is accused of making laws which the other has made, it is often the ECJ which finds itself on the receiving end of bad press, when it has in fact had nothing to do with the ruling at all. This was brought home when I was looking at the EU Commission UK web site there they have a section of Euromyths (more of which later) Some of those were not the responsibility of the EU at all and were not the subject of any EU or ECJ intervention at all they were rulings from the other court the ECHR

The ECHR is the Court of the Council of Europe which has 46 member states, and the ECJ is the court of the European Union which has 25 Member States.

The Council of Europe is the continent’s oldest political organisation, founded in London 1949. the first major convention was drawn up: the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and coming into force on 3 September 1953.

Shortly after the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, Robert Schuman, French Foreign Minister approached all the Council of Europe countries with a proposal for a European Coal and Steel Community, to be provided with very different political and budgetary means.

The six countries most attached to the ideal of integration - Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany - joined, and on 9 May 1951 signed the very first Community treaty. Strengthened by the experience and commitment which had brought the “Greater Europe” into existence, the “Smaller Europe” was now making its own “leap into the unknown” of European construction.

So the European Union was begun from the exiting members of the Council of Europe who wished to pursue the path of closer union. From this stage there are two European organisations, however the investigation of one or the other, begins to become somewhat muddled, because all members of the European Union are, even to this day, also members of the Council of Europe, in fact to become a member of the EU it is necessary for a state to first be a member of the COE. This also means that a ruling by the ECHR would apply to all 25 members of the EU but a ruling of the ECJ would not apply to all 46 members of the COE.

The flag we accept as being the flag of the EU the ring of stars on a blue background is in fact the flag of the COE. On 8 December 1955 the Committee of Ministers adopted this as the European flag. It has only been used by the EU/EC since 1986.

As we now have two linked organisations, it is important to differentiate between them as too often even professional writers and politicians who should know better get them muddled.

Council of Europe:
An international organisation in Strasbourg which comprises 46 democratic countries of Europe.

European Council:
Regular meeting (at least twice a year) of the heads of state or government from the member states of the European Union for the purpose of planning Union policy.

Council of Ministers:
Ministers representing the governments of the Member States which ministers attend which meeting depends on what subjects are on the agenda.

Parliamentary Assembly: The deliberative body of the Council of Europe, composed of 315 representatives (and the same number of substitutes) appointed by the 46 member states’ national parliaments.

European Parliament:
The parliamentary body of the European Union which comprises 786 European Members of Parliament of the 25 European Union countries, elected by universal suffrage.

European Commission of Human Rights:
Until November 1998, this international body examined the admissibility of all individual or state applications against a member state in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights; it expressed an opinion on the violation alleged in applications found to be admissible in cases in which no friendly settlement is reached.

European Commission:
The executive organ of the European Union, based in Brussels, which monitors the proper application of the Union treaties and the decisions of the Union institutions.

European Court of Human Rights:
Based in Strasbourg, this is the only truly judicial organ established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is composed of composed of one Judge for each State party to the Convention and ensures, in the last instance, that contracting states observe their obligations under the Convention. Since November 1998, the Court has operated on a full-time basis.

Court of Justice of the European Communities:
Meets in Luxembourg and ensures compliance with the law in the interpretation and application of the European Treaties of the European Union.

International Court of Justice:
Judicial body of the United Nations which meets in The Hague.

European Convention on Human Rights:
Treaty by which the member states of the Council of Europe undertake to respect fundamental freedoms and rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Adopted by the United Nations in 1948 in order to strengthen the protection of human rights at international level.

The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights
approved by the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers at the Nice summit in 2001, The EU Constitution provides should be made binding in EU law, and therefore become superior to national law.

So not only do we have two Europe’s we have two European courts, two European councils, two European Parliaments two European sets of human rights and if the EU Constitution is ratified we will have two European Constitutions and two European Constitutional courts. On top of that we have the International Court of Justice from the UN and their Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the World Trade Organisation, NATO and a myriad of other international organisations. It would appear that we are really well represented on the Human rights front.

The only thing that perhaps should concerns a little is that we have to pay for all of this through our taxes and of course the other thing is that it is quite clear that we the people no longer have the power to elect those people who make our laws, because those we do elect no longer have the power to make our laws without ensuring the laws and regulation they do make are within all the various confines of all the various international agreements they have signed up to.

Isn`t it interesting that the EU which is totaly undemocratic and could not give a damn about what the people think, should be concernerd about fair elections.

EUobserver.com

EU urges fair elections in Ukraine

02.11.2004 - 17:30 CET | By Andrew Beatty

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Following the first round of Ukraine’s presidential elections on Sunday, the EU has urged improvements when the country goes back to the polls in three weeks time.

European observers pointed to flaws in the electoral process after Sunday’s vote which saw government-backed Viktor Yanukovych edge ahead of opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko.

Observers from the Council of Europe and the OSCE said that the conditions of the vote did not meet normal democratic standards, citing examples of media restrictions and fraud.

Squaring the Circle

From EUOBSERVER

Court of Human Rights decisions not binding, says German court

A landmark decision on hierarchy in European law was taken by the German Constitutional court.

The Court on Thursday (14 October) found that it is not obliged to hold to the rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.

According to Germany’s Constitutional court, rulings by the Strasbourg court are “interpreting aids” which have to be taken into account but not strictly followed if they contradict German constitutional law.

The court justified its decision by saying the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) is worth more than the Human Rights Convention agreed under international law.

Under the German system, international law is at the level of a simple national law.

The German judges found that while the constitution wants Germany to be in a community of Free states it does not mean giving up the “sovereignty” of Germany.

They say that German courts, therefore, should neither enforce the Human Right’s rulings in a “schematic” way nor ignore them altogether.

The European Court of Human Rights was founded in 1959 and overviews the upholding of human rights in the 46 countries that are members of the Council of Europe.

The ruling came about after an unmarried father wanted access to his child. A German national court denied him this even though the European Court of Human Rights in a previous ruling had said that it is a human right for the natural father to have access rights to his child.

I find this decision rather interesting, if, Germany is going to insist that her Constitution is superior and her own Sovereignty is more important than international treaty agreements, will that stance not conflict with the EU`s own Constitution and the European Court of Justice claims making EU Law superior to national states, as it must, how then will the German Courts square the circle.