eurealist.co.uk

Those who would suggest that the EU is not destined to become the United States of Europe as originally envisioned by the founding fathers of the project, might like to answer one simple question. If that were not the case, then why on earth do we continually have new treaties thrust upon us? No sooner than one treaty has been ratified but they are working on the next one, in fact there is already a “group of wise men” tasked with studying for the next treaty, even before the Lisbon treaty has been ratified

Are we really to believe the alternative, that the leaders in the EU are so stupid that they cannot write a simple treaty agreement and stick to it, instead of continually being forced to change it by events?
(more…)

The Conservative party are echoing the views of many when they say they want to work to create a different direction for the EU. They say they would like an EU of Nation States, an EU that respects the existing national boundaries and has fewer areas of competence, and an EU that actually adds value, by doing what the states have asked of it better, rather than just claiming it does.

It should however be noted that this has been the professed goal for a very long time, I believe Mr Heath also professed the desire to be in the Project so as best to affect its direction. We have been blessed with being at the top table, at the heart of Europe, on the train, on the bus and making sure that we are not left behind, in order to protect our national interests, ever since Britain first joined.

Yet if we stand back and actually look at the EU of today we will see an entirely different, more encompassing and much more integrated union, than the Common Market we joined in 1971.
(more…)

Kissinger believes EU losing will to go to war

PARIS - The reluctance of Europe’s leaders to risk soldiers’ lives in Afghanistan is rooted in the emergence of the European Union and the decline of nationalism and patriotism here, former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger argued in an essay published Tuesday.

I have not read this essay but if the report is anything to go by perhaps Kissinger has a certain point but then on the other hand the EU is not actually asking us to go to war. Now he know who to call perhaps he is realising there is not much point calling?

The EU propaganda minister has just announced the Commissions new propaganda initiative is to be launched with a budget of €7.2.

Debate Europe is part of the commission Plan D a propaganda programme started to boost the EU public image after the Constitution was voted down in 2005.

The propaganda minister said the idea was to promote the EU by using our money to stage exhibitions, debates, seminars and training sessions on EU matters, these will involve EU officials in activities at regional and local levels in the different member states.

The Propaganda minister said in addition to involving citizens in decision-making, the EU is also still aiming to make itself more popular.

She also said “It’s ironic, isn’t it, that 50 years after the foundation of the European Union, we are still discussing democracy and how can we become more democratic,”

“A lot more” could indeed be done to improve democracy within the EU, as “decisions have moved up to the European level, but the political debates, the media reporting and so on, are still mainly national,”

Isn’t it ironic that the Propaganda minister is worrying about democracy in the EU whilst at the same time doing absolutely nothing to address the subject. I have told her before on her Blog that debating the EU does not introduce democracy into the EU, only allowing the voters a real voice would do that.

We can debate all they like and learn all they wish about the EU, but at the end of the day the EU has ensured that there is no mechanism by which we can influence the policies or the direction of the EU. That is why I call Margot Wallstrom the propaganda minister because that is exactly what she is about.

Ms Wallstrom please take note democracy, is not information, it is not debate, the only way to involve citizens in the decision making process is to allow them a vote and then to be ruled by that vote. You do not ignore the expressed wishes of the citizens and still have the moral right to call yourself or the organisation you work for democratic.

You are not, and the EU is not, democratic, so will you please stop using our money on propaganda initiatives to try to convince us that you are. I will call you a democrat when you can be voted out of office for wasting our money on propaganda.

tag: Propaganda, Plan D, democracy, anti-democratic

Technorati Tags:
Propaganda, Plan D, democracy, anti-democratic
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

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 |

AH Ha! just as I wrote that NM (please excuse the initials but I simply cannot take seriously someone who calls himself Nose Monkey, and I believe that the issues he raises are serious) was convinced that the reform of the EU was a possibility, he comes up with a post in which he explores this contention further.

But not of course without the usual put downs of we who rely on historic evidence to back our claim that the EU is far from being re-formable in the way we want.

NM invites us to answer the question:

How can hardcore anti-EU types maintain that reform is impossible yet simultaneously believe that the EU is heading towards a superstate - which would, in itself, be an immense reform?

Perhaps this is the wrong question a much better question would be how can someone continue to believe the EU can be reformed against all the historic evidence that it cannot?

The point is, as usual, the question is loaded, not only does Dr North EU Referendum not make the claim that the EU is heading towards a “super state” but rather a super overarching government. Further NM is misrepresenting our position, we do not believe the EU is incapable of reform, in fact it is continually reforming itself on its march toward its goal of a totally unified Europe. If that were not the case then there would not be the necessity for so many reforming treaties.

Monnet as NM mentioned is often misquoted, however not on the substance of his Method but on the words, and certainly not on his declaration that the direction of the “Project” was towards a United States of Europe. Thus whilst airily dismissing the quotes of modern superstatists! Such as “Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker” NM conveniently ignores all of the present evidence that the goal of a fully united Europe is still the driving force of the EU.

He would rather have us believe that the ideal of a fully united Europe is not now on the agenda and it is only diehard anti EU types who use old quotes of long dead EU autocrats to bolster an outmoded view of the EU.

Yet the Laeken declaration made it clear that the dream is still very much alive and still at the heart of the EU. That this remains the goal is made absolutely clear, and that clarity directly contradicts the notion that the dream is dead, with clauses such as “the dream of a strong, unified Europe” and “The unification of Europe is near.”

NM ask us to take a gander at the “failed compromises that are the Treaty of Nice and Lisbon Treaty” Yet each and every EU treaty including the Treaties of Nice and Lisbon, makes the claim that the people of the EU member states want the EU to work towards further integration. This confirmation of the Monnet message reaches forwards across the decades, in the treaties and in the actions of the EU. Showing us without a doubt, that the EU is not the least incapable of reform, it is just that it is always reforming and seeking reform in one direction only.

What the EU is incapable of, is letting go of the original dream of a united Europe.

Even the idea of a multi-tier, multi-speed EU on which NM relies as a basis for the future of the Project, is only a mechanism in the direction towards a fully united Europe, as the various tiers are only evidence of differing speeds towards the goal of a fully united Europe rather than differing objectives. The EU objectives are set out in the EU treaties, for all of us to read and they do not indicate the slightest intention that the ideal of a fully united Europe is not now the goal.

This idea that the multi-tier, multi-speed is only a mechanism for further unification is made abundantly clear in one of his links; to the EU s own website

“Multi-speed” Europe is the term used to describe the idea of a method of differentiated integration whereby common objectives are pursued by a group of Member States both able and willing to advance, it being implied that the others will follow later.

and again Romano Prodi

At this point, a vanguard of countries could…be the best way to proceed towards a more integrated union, on condition that door remains always open to those countries willing to join later,”

No I am very much afraid that the ideal of a fully united Europe is still very much alive and still very much at the centre of the European project. And anything else is only evidence that some members feel their citizens do not want to proceed at this pace at this time rather than they do not want to proceed ever. The EU will advance a fast as it can and as slowly as it must, but it will advance, even if it means waiting for us to elected a unifying government.

If the pro EU “it wont happen” brigade want to offer us some convincing evidence then perhaps they could work towards an EU treaty that does not contain the dream of a fully unified Europe, a treaty that does not protect the Acquis, a treaty that returns power to the member states. Instead of the integrating unifying treaties that have historically been offered to us, and then forced through our parliaments on a three line whip, without the chance for us the people of this country to give or refuse our consent to the constant changes of the way we are governed.

Technorati Tags:
EU Constitution, Eu Propaganda, Founding Fathers, The EU, UK Government, reform of the EU
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.

I see Jim Murphy Minister for Europe, is maintaining the historic perversion of British ministers who are quite happy to blatantly lie about EU treaties.

In the Telegraph Letters he actually argues;

“The reform treaty will lead to no transfer of power away from Britain” but just like Mr Heath he adds a qualifier “on issues of importance to our sovereignty.”

He might like to note that what is important to our sovereignty is that it remains at all times in our own Parliament and cannot be overridden under qualified majority rules where we have only 8% of the votes.

And he even has the unmitigated gall to say “Let us have a debate about the reform treaty on the basis of fact, not fiction”

Supporters of the EU are always keen to use the propaganda of the dead to promote the project, Churchill, for instance is always wheeled out in support of the cause, even though he is clearly on record as standing against.

This one though takes proverbial the biscuit; Roland Rudd Chairman of Business for New Europe opines in the Telegraph that of all People Lady Thatcher would have supported the EU Constitution/reform treaty/Lisbon Treaty.

As she is still with us Rudd might well be going out on a limb to make such a claim perhaps someone should ask her?

“That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era.”

” Tony Blair is committed to the progressive extinction of Britain as an independent nation, and indeed to British democracy as it has developed over the centuries.”

Dear Foreign Secretary,

I write to explain why I shall be among thousands of angry and despairing British citizens attending the Referendum Rally in London on Saturday 27th October and why I and others now urge our fellow citizens to overturn hundreds of years of highly developed Parliamentary tradition and demand a national plebiscite on the Reform Treaty.

In refusing us our referendum, you repeatedly say that Britain is a Parliamentary democracy; that the British people have chosen to send representatives to Parliament and to allow themselves to be governed by their decisions; that it is not our national tradition to resort to referenda. (You wish us to overlook the fact that it is your political party which has repeatedly used referenda when you have found it convenient, and you cannot possibly imagine the contempt in which you and your associates are whenever you dishonestly pray in aid ‘tradition’. Your government has done more than any other in recent centuries to destroy our traditions, jeopardising coherent governance and the integrity of the nation itself.)

But you are right - we have not customarily used referenda. However, something so fundamental has changed because of your government’s actions that we have no choice but to use the referendum to preserve our democracy and our right to self-determination.

What has changed, Foreign Secretary, is our Parliament. Your government has rendered it incapable of representing the people and acting in the nation’s best interest. Your government, Foreign Secretary, is in the process of forcing Parliament itself to betray us. We no longer trust our Government, formed from the members of our Parliament, nor our ancient Parliamentary process, and for the very simplest of reasons.

You and the Prime Minister intend to castrate our Parliament by giving away to the European Union the power which was loaned to you by the British people in order that you could protect and defend us. You intend to pass this power, permanently and beyond recovery, to a foreign power while knowing exactly what you are doing and while lying about it to us even as you do it. You are doing this this not only without our consent but against what you know to be our wishes.

Your government has become a dictatorship. You are following the same pattern as dictators throughout history: you have accepted the acclaim of the people and then turned the power they have given you into the means to ignore and oppress them

Let me briefly specify the chief of the list of crimes against your country which you have committed, and about which you have brazenly lied to us:

You tell us that you have obtained an abiding ‘protocol’ (you call it a ‘red line’) to the Reform Treaty which, you say, prevents the future transfer of further ‘competences’ from Britain to the European Union. At the same time you have agreed to a formula by which — the British veto abolished with your approval — the Union may arrogate to itself additional ‘competences’ without any further treaties.

In other words, this Treaty, the founding document of a new legal entity is, in essence and effect, the final treaty. It enables the European Union to exert indefinitely extensible power over Britain regardless of the wishes of the British people.

There will never be another opportunity for Britain to loosen the chains placed upon us by the European Union.

Your contemptible ‘red line’ is worthless and you know it, and to offer it to us as though it were some kind of democratic assurance is a gesture of contempt. An insult. You insult us, Foreign Secretary, and we will have our revenge on you for this, too.

You have a peculiarly un-British vision of what one might call ‘the future history of Europe’ as a socialist analogue of the United States of America. You think its emergence historically inevitable, as a Marxist historian might. In the furtherance of your pan-European socialist vision, you have exceeded your authority. You have ignored the cry of the British people who disagree with you - as you are well aware - and who employ you - which you seem to forget - and you would now sign our nation away into an international organisation with quite awesome and unaccountable power over us. You are destroying the most precious element of Britain’s ancient and flexible constitution — our Parliament. You would reduce to a pathetic, muttering, impotent, regional assembly the people’s means of self-government and their ultimate recourse when they seek protection from oppression by native dictators or inimical foreign powers.

You would rob us of all hope of democracy and self determination. Our inherited rights, liberties and protections, gained with our forefathers’ blood over centuries, now fail us, because of your actions. You leave us no choice but to find and use whatever new, peaceful means we may, to express both our outrage at your crimes and our determination to prevent you from any further traitorous actions against us.

In previous centuries, Foreign Secretary, we would have hanged you. In these enlightened times, we will not do this, but you should be aware that this is only because we are determined to rescue our constitution, our institutions and our nation from yourself and your associates.

You do well to be very afraid of the outcome of any referendum on the Reform Treaty, and indeed of the general election when it comes. It is obvious, of course, from your refusal to conduct a referendum on the Reform Treaty that you are fully aware of the position as I describe it here, and therefore culpable of the crimes of which I accuse you and the Prime Minister.

If you had any honour in you, you would not have agreed to this Treaty without the approval of the British people by referendum, but no-one could accuse you and the Prime Minister of being honourable men. In view of your traitorous behaviour to date, though, might I ask you to at least have the grace to cease using the words tradition and British when you address us, lest you anger us to the point where we have to reconsider the proper way to deal with traitors?

I remain, sir, anything but your obedient servant,

Prodicus

The Telegraph reports that Blair may announce his resignation as Labour leader before next Thursday’s local elections in an attempt to limit the expected electoral damage. May the first seems to be the day most favoured by the pundits who say that the announcement would dominate the news in the run up to the local elections and overshadow any inquest into the expected Labour defeat.

The sooner the better as it would seem that Blair has totally lost his marbles and is increasingly relying on his own twisted logic, which can be evidenced by the Timothy Garton Ash interview in the Guardian yesterday;

Whilst accepting that the UK remains “stolidly Eurosceptic” Of course this is mostly due to the Eurosceptic media. HA Ha. Nevertheless “the British people are sensible enough to know that, even if they have a certain prejudice about Europe, they don’t expect their government necessarily to share it or act upon it”.

Of course that is why we have elections in the first place so that the British people can choose their representatives but we don’t actually want them to represent us or our opinions.

When opinion polls are telling Blair and his colleagues that we do not want to give away any more power to the EU and we do not want an EU Constitution, instead of allowing us the promised vote he is doing everything he can to ensure that we do not get a chance to scupper planned integration and the erosion of even more of our powers.

Well I have news for Mr deluded Blair

Yes we do expect our government and all other political parties and political leaders to listen to the people and to act upon their wishes and we do expect a chance to voice our opinions on the political elites plans to create a United States of Europe.

Looks like Labour Movement for Europe trolls are out today.

This from the Independent

Sir: Marc Glendening is talking through his hat in when he mentions the “over-centralised structures of the EU” (Letters, 27 March). The EU can only legislate with the approval of the ministers from its member states in the Council and any legislation requires well over a two-thirds majority of their votes to be adopted - hardly a structure in which power is centralised.

The central administration itself (the Commission) has a smaller staff than Leeds City Council or the BBC. The commissioners are nominated by the member states.

The proposed constitutional treaty will not increase the areas with EU competence - the key political issues such as health, education, pensions and taxation will still be legislated on by national parliaments.

PAUL BLANCHARD

My letter to the Independent, with thanks for the stolen material Eureferendum I wonder if they will publish it?

Sir, I assume the Paul Blanchard who responded to Marc Glendening is the same Paul Blanchard who is also Labour Party councillor at the City of York Council and member of the Labour Movement for Europe. If so it is clear why he repeated the hoary old fiction concerning the size of the EU Commission Staff being smaller than Leeds City Council or the BBC, and inviting your readers to infer from that there is no over-centralised structures of the EU.

The very fact he mentions it indicates the centralization he is denying, in any case it is a specious argument there are many historical examples of very small numbers of people dominating large populations, not least the British Raj. When 300 million Indians were ruled by barely 1,500 British administrators of the Indian Civil Service, and perhaps 3,000 British officers in the Indian Army. Excluding British soldiers, there were probably no more than 20,000 Britons engaged in running the whole country – fewer than the number of permanent officials currently employ-ed by the Commission.

The fact is that those directly employed by the Commission are only the tip of a a very large the iceberg “Brussels” acts the centre of a network, linking thousands of other organisations throughout the Community, not least the civil services of all the member states. The preparation of much legislation and many of the technical reports is contracted out, or otherwise farmed out to outside agencies, ranging from paid contractors, universities and other academic institutes, think-tanks and even the growing legion of non-governmental organisations in the pay of the commission.

Mr Blanchard is also attempting to mislead when he writes that the EU can only legislate with the approval of the Council, it is the Commission who has the only right to instate legislation in the EU and QMV means that our ministers can and often are outvoted.

The EU Constitution in fact gives the EU sweeping new powers, not lease it allows the European Council new powers to change the treaty without recourse to national governments, it transforms the EU into an international actor in it own right, for the first time makes its laws and its constitution superior to states laws and constitutions. It extends QMV to 27 new policy areas, this means the loss of any national veto in theses areas, it makes Britain constitutionally committed at the Union level to the ultimate goal of a common defence. The Constitution gives the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, binding legal force. Etc.

Health, education, pensions and taxation might still be legislated by national parliaments but only under the overarching umbrella of the EU because the EU already influences all of these areas.

It would be helpful in any debate about the EU if those who are strong proponents for the project were to limit themselves to the truth instead of cloaking their intentions in a series of specious illogical and misinformed letters to the national press.

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.

John Redwood

has a post ridiculing a glossy brochure sent to him and doubtless many others, by Margaret Hodge, entitled “Creating prosperity in every region: England’s Regional development” Agencies”.

“She tells us the RDAs help to bring prosperity to all parts of England. Nowhere does she point out that the reigonal disparities have grown substantially during Labour’s period in office, with the regions that have least government interference growing much more rapidly than the ones with most. Her brochure lists a series of small initiatives which entail the RDA getting hold of some public money which some other branch of government could have spent, influencing conduct on the ground a little with the money, and then spending more of our money endlessly claiming credit for spending some of our money!”

Reiterating Conservative plans to abolish both the Regional Assemblies and the Regional Development Agencies, if elected, Redwood says:

“Margaret Hodge’s brochure did one good thing. It reminded me how important it is to abolish these insignificant bodies. The money spent on their administrative and PR budgets should be returned to taxpayers, whilst any sensible expenditure on development or education should be sent with all the other monies to HE or local Council’s development departments.”

Although I would agree with the plans to abolish both the Regional assemblies and the RDA`s, I wonder what if any thought has been given to the opposition to these plans which must be expected from both the Regional actors and the EU. It is obvious that the Conservative stance on abolishing the regional level of governance is at odds with the EU based aims of increasing regional power and EU integration, as can be seen from the recent Committee of the Regions “Declaration for Europe”

Eupolitix

“We are convinced that devolution and multi-level governance are among the best routes towards European integration,” the Rome declaration states.

“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.”

And it is not just the representatives from the regional government who think the way ahead is through more regional power and more EU influence at the regional level.

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”.

I have become so used to our politicians saying one thing on the EU and then when in power doing something else that I want to read the small print before I accept that they actually mean what they say. David Cameron has already a record of promising action on the EU to keep the EUsceptics in his party on board and then weaselling out when it comes to the crunch, that I have my doubts that they would if elected really go against the wishes of the EU leaders and the strong federalist objective of the Union and really abolish the vehicle of EU influence in this country. If he did, then of course as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly and the London Assembly have already grown beyond the initial regional assemblies, there would need to be some other questions asked as to their positions, if the British government does abolish all Assemblies and all RDA`s it would be reasonable to assume that would include those organisations as well as those in the rest of England.

The points in the Independent are mainly irrelevant to the existence of the EU - Cannot the Europhile press and Europhiles generally come up with something other than this same old lies and propaganda that has been challenged so many times in the past that it has become boring to even produce the evidence to debunk the rubbish? Or perhaps they belive that if they just carry on repeating the same nonsense people will eventually start to belive it and begin to love the EU.

I have just noticed a couple that are totally stupid

47. British restaurants now much more cosmopolitan because of European influences
49. Europe has revolutionised British attitudes to food and cooking

I happen to know a little bit about food and its development it is worth exploring this just for fun.

Well yes Europe has revolutionised British attitudes to food and cooking but in the last 50 years it has done nothing culturally on that front because the greatest influence has come form the far-east China, India, Pakistan, the Pacific rim and recently the middle-east.

Europe really did influence our attitudes to food and cooking long before the European project was off the ground. Before the 19th century, great cooking was experienced almost exclusively in the private homes of the wealthy. This began to change after the French Revolution, when the fall of the aristocracy left a number of talented chefs unemployed.

Many of these chefs later opened some of the Continent’s first fine restaurants, winning devoted followers among the French bourgeois, who were eager to display their elevated tastes in food and fashion. This phenomenon produced some of the first "star" chefs, many of whom published compendiums of their repertoires and opinions. Their cookbooks not only served as self-advertisement, but also enabled the newly rich to reproduce the professional dining experience in their own private homes.

Marie Antonin Carême (1783-1833), Thanks to Carême’s books, French chefs working at home and abroad had a basic, shared vocabulary to refer to in their cooking. L’Art de la Cuisine Français au Dix-Neuvième Siècle is an exhaustive survey of classic French cooking. Published near the end of Carême’s career as a master pâtissier and chef, the three-volume work was completed after his death by his friend and colleague Armand Plumerey.

Some of these French chefs went to work for ambitious restaurateurs in major cities like New York and London, or cities newly flush with wealth, such as post-Gold Rush San Francisco. The influence of these chefs slowly permeated British and American culture, exposing growing numbers to French cooking techniques and dining manners.

Most important, these 19th century French chefs helped to codify what came to be known as French classical cooking, their books defining by systematic repetition the basic French recipes and technique. Sauces such as vélouté, hollandaise, and mayonnaise, for example, were refined and regularized during this period.

Later another French Chef Georges-Auguste Escoffier continues the work and started the moves towards lighter foods, then in the 1960/70 it was yet another French Chef Fernand Point who took Escoffier`s work forward further lightened the classic cuisine at his restaurant La Pyramide, thus setting the scene for a group of other young chefs to produce a new style of cooking, where the sauces and dishes were lightened still further, this style became to be known as cuisine nouvelle.
.

Escoffier also developed the modern brigade system in London’s Savoy Hotel. It was based on the organisation of a French military brigade and the Chefs uniform also developed from the uniform of the French army hence the double front.

For maximum efficiency, Escoffier organized the kitchen into a strict hierarchy of authority, responsibility, and function. In the brigade, widely adopted by fine-dining establishments, the general is the executive chef, or chef de cuisine, assisted by a sous chef. Subordinate are the chefs de partie, each in charge of a production station and assisted by demi-chefs and commis (apprentices). The number of station chefs can get exhaustive, including the saucier (sauces), poissionier (fish), grillardin (grilled items), fritteurier (fried items), rotissier (roasts), garde manger (cold food), patissier (pastries), and tournant (roundsman, station relief).
Today, most restaurants use some simplified variation of Escoffier’s kitchen brigade.

It was yet another French Chef Fernand Point who took Escoffier`s work forward further lightened the classic cuisine at his restaurant La Pyramide,  His influence, was enormous, his students carried his philosophy to all of French cuisine. thus setting the scene to produce a new style of cooking, where the sauces and dishes were lightened still further, this style became to be known as cuisine nouvelle. Fernand Point Died in 1955.

I know that the Europhile likes to claim the EU is responsible for everything wonderful and likes to claim that nothing would have happened without its breathtaking influence but in the those great Europeans who really did revolutionise British attitudes to food and cooking have long departed this earth leaving it much more culturally enriched which is something the EU could never do in a million years.

Technorati Tags:the eu, food, restaurants
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

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.

A post on