The Scottish fishermen are concerned about a proposal from the European Commission. That would allow the Commission to give any unused fishing quota from one country to another.

It is felt that the industry which has already suffered a reduction of more than 50% of its capacity because of the Common Fisheries Policy would be further penalised by this new proposal.

This has led to some complaining that Scotland would be better of negotiating directly with the EU as an Independent member state, and blaming Westminster for not protecting the Scottish fishing fleet from EU legislation.
(more…)

“It’s too early to tell because the data is incomplete, but it looks like there’s been maybe a 1% rise in emissions in 2007 compared to 2006,”

Oh well what do you expect!

European Commission authorises Polish State Aid for coal industry

Perhasps given the last item?

Belgium issues early veto against Blair bid to become EU president

Oh Goody!

EU to begin Northern Rock aid probe

So Who runs Britain?

ECJ RULING Same-sex couples granted with same pensions as traditional ones

sectarianism the new religion!

Europe wary about Bush NATO plan

Bush will be gone soon so don`t worry!

Austrians want EU-treaty referendum

don`t we all !

Brussels to probe Channel 4 digital switchover funding

So who runs Britain?

Poland slams NATO foot-dragging on continental missile defence

Against whom exactly?

tag: rise in co2 emissions, European Commission, veto against Blair, Northern Rock ECJ RULING, EU probe Channel 4, Poland slams NATO

Technorati Tags:
rise in co2 emissions, European Commission, veto against Blair, Northern Rock ECJ RULING, EU probe Channel 4, Poland slams NATO
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

This Directive could well mark the beginning of the end of the NHS.

Labour backbenchers attack Health Directive:

“This Directive could well mark the beginning of the end of the NHS.”

Thirty two Labour backbenchers have today put down an early day motion attacking the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Health Services. The motion argues that “this directive would undermine the fundamental principles of the NHS, impose unnecessary burdens of cost and bureaucracy, over-rule clinical priorities and act to worsen health inequalities.” MPs signing the motion include former Health ministers Frank Dobson and Gisela Stuart, Jon Trickett and Jon Cruddas, and Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party Health Committee John Grogan.

The motion calls for the Government to oppose the directive, which is to be decided by qulaified majority voting under internal market rules. In a press release Jon Trickett, who put down the motion, said: “This Directive could well mark the beginning of the end of the NHS.

EARLY DAY MOTION 526 - Trickett, Jon

EU CROSS-BORDER HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTIVE

10.12.2007

That this House notes the European Commission proposals for a directive on cross-border health services, which in their current form would force the National Health Service to pay private health providers abroad for non-emergency treatment of United Kingdom citizens who are wealthy enough to pay the fees up front, to further develop an internal market by setting a tariff for all treatments and create a bureaucracy to advertise and facilitate the right of patients to seek private treatment abroad;

– further notes that the proposed directive’s legal basis is under the internal market, and that it is explicitly based on encouraging competition between health providers and over-rides the consideration of cost versus medical need;

–further notes the support of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament for such a directive; believes that this directive would undermine the fundamental principles of the NHS, impose unnecessary burdens of cost and bureaucracy, over-rule clinical priorities and act to worsen health inequalities; supports the Unison campaign against the proposals; and urges the Government to veto any such directiveSee Gisela Stuart below

This from Euobserver

Radio ads run by the European Commission in Ireland have been ruled in breach of Irish media law as they were "directed towards a political end," according to Dublin’s independent body dealing with complaints on broadcasting content.

 
Parts of the ads, paid for by the European Commission’s representation in Ireland, were strictly awareness-building with phrases like "To find out more log onto euireland.ie or call into any of the Europe Direct Information Centres. Europe Direct Information; its all about EU’."

But the BCC also found that the majority of ads also carried a political message, which represents a breach of Irish broadcasting advertising regulations.

"The [BCC] was of the view that overall the advertisements of the campaign advocated and promoted EU membership and therefore, were directed towards a political end. Such advertising is prohibited," according to the BCC’s decision reached at its March board meeting.

"The [BCC] is of the opinion that the EU can be considered a political ideal and therefore, advertisements directed in favour of, or promoting, such an ideal may be considered to be political," the report says.

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.

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.

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

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

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

The reality is somewhat different.

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

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

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

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

This is quite clearly a load of crap;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regionalism - An alternative strategy for Europe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An article by James Kirkhup in the Scotsman said;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading and background

A new teaching pack on the EU has been introduced for use in Key Stage 3 and 4 “citizenship” classes that claims to offer a balanced view of the organisation and its role. Officials responsible for the pack say “The resources have been designed to offer a balanced introduction to the European Union and the European Parliament, to encourage students to take part in discussion and to form their own view on the subjects covered in the resources,”

The taxpayer-funded materials – available to schools in bulk and at no cost from the European Parliament’s UK office – hail the effectiveness of EU legislation on everything from smoking and workers’ rights to genetically modified organisms and food labelling

But many think this is nothing more than brainwashing propaganda akin to that used by the Soviet Union

The UK Independence Party, which blew the whistle on the pack, also attacked the way the Eurosceptic character featured in the pupil worksheets – “Portsmouth plumber Charlie Bolton” – is an ageing, white man who contrasts with other young, smiling, fresh-faced people. Below a chart showing how the various institutions of the EU, such as the European Parliament and European Commission, interact, Charlie Bolton says: “Europe – it’s just faceless bureaucrats – none of them elected.
“And they impose their laws on us from Brussels whenever they fancy. All that red tape to make our lives harder.”
It then guides pupils to reject the notion that the EU is anti-democratic by reminding them of the elected European Parliament.
“Do you agree with Charlie? What does the flow chart tell you about how laws are made?” it asks.
The teacher is also instructed to show pupils how to counter his argument and to lead the pupils to conclude that he is wrong and that the EU is democratic.

The lesson plan reads: “Discuss Charlie Bolton’s attitude to EU legislation. If Charlie knew that the Members of the European Parliament are elected and that the Council of Ministers represents our governments, do the students think that he would change his mind?”

Yorkshire’s UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom hit out last night at the pack, branding it “bias and propaganda, masquerading as neutral fact”.

Tory MP Philip Davies, spokesman for the Better Off Out campaign, added: “The EU gets more like the Soviet Union every day when it resorts to brainwashing children. “All it does is confirm my worst fears.”

Full Story the Yorkshire Post

How the EU uses education and academia to sell integration

Take Action on EU propaganda

The Brussels propaganda machine

Federalist Thought Control: The Brussels Propaganda Machine

In an interview with Bild am Sonntag newspaper Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission, has said. the EU constitution in its current form will not come into effect. “We should not fool ourselves. It’s important now to maintain its values, its principles and its substance. Above all, we have to improve the decision-making mechanism, and we need to do that as quickly as possible.”

I could I suppose applaud Barroso for making this statement after all I have been against this leap forward of EU integration since the beginning, but I have a nasty feeling that Barroso is saying something else entirely. His recognising that the actually document will not come into force, is not much to crow about, as he wants to maintain “its values, its principles and its substance” and to as “quickly as possible” “improve the decision-making mechanism” There is only one way they know how to improve the decision making mechanism within the EU and that it to remove ability of a member state to stand against a decision which it feels goes against its interests, this can only be done by removing the power of the veto and by extending the requirement for Qualified Majority Voting (QMV).

Scraping the Constitution will effectively remove the necessity for any referendum to be called on the contents of the document but will allow the leaders to institute its values, its principles and its substance by the back door.

Link

IP/06/1835

Brussels, 19 December 2006

What did the EU do for me in 2006?

The European Commission is launching a new multimedia product, the European Union Yearbook, which sets out 10 major policy actions undertaken by the European Union this year and is available in 22 languages. “Europe and you – a snapshot of EU achievements” aims at giving citizens a better understanding of what the European Union does and how this impacts on their daily lives.

“People can better understand the added value of the EU if they can see the real examples: cheaper mobile phone charges, a cleaner environment and no misleading labelling of food.” said Margot Wallström, Vice President of the Commission responsible for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, about the EU Yearbook.

“Europe and You” is a selection of 10 concrete examples in areas where the European Union is active. These areas range from new legislation on chemicals to cheaper roaming fees; from the tackling of illegal immigration to the Galileo project.

This new communication approach developed in the White Paper on Communication (http://ec.europa.eu/communication_white_paper/doc/white_paper_en.pdf) aims at reaching out to larger audiences through new channels which are better adapted to people’s lives. Apart from the technical aspect, the novelty of this approach lies in the way it highlights the efficiency of joint European action in concrete areas of daily life.

The EU yearbook is available on the website: www.ec.europa.eu/snapshot2006 where each example will be presented through a short text and a video-clip. A printed leaflet will also be available for the general public and a DVD has been produced for media professionals.

The official launch will take place on 19 December 2006 at a press event hosted by Vice-President Wallström.
TV Link

http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/video_prod_en.cfm?type=detail&prodid=673&src=1

Direct Taxation: The European Commission proposes an EU co-ordinated approach of national direct tax systems

(see MEMO/06/499)

The European Commission has adopted a Communication announcing a series of initiatives to promote better co-ordination of national direct tax systems in the EU. The aim is to ensure that national tax systems comply with Community law and interact coherently with each other. The initiatives seek to remove discrimination and double taxation for the benefit of individuals and business while preventing tax abuse and erosion of the tax base.

"Discrimination and double taxation prevent individuals or business from reaping the full benefits of the Internal Market and undermine the EU’s competitiveness. There is an urgent need to improve coordination of national tax rules to allow them to interact more coherently" said László Kovács, the Commissioner responsible for Taxation and Customs Union. "Moreover, I am convinced that coordination would help Member States to prevent unintended non-taxation or abuse and hence avoid undue erosion of their tax bases"

The main objectives of a coherent and coordinated tax approach are to:

• Remove discrimination and double taxation,
• Prevent unintended non-taxation and abuse, and
• Reduce the compliance costs associated with being subject to more than one tax system.

Linked to this Communication, the Commission is presenting two Communications on cross-border loss relief (IP/061828/) and exit taxation (IP/06/1829), which provide the first two examples of specific areas which could benefit from a coordinated approach.

I had only read the headlines of this case and thinking it was a possibly an EU myth gave it no further thought, but what Booker has disclosed in his column this week is a travesty of justice. The EU Commision has against all the evidence connived to force the British Food Standards agency to close down a British company, it and the ECJ says was doing nothing wrong.

Bowland Dairies in Nelson was an £8-million-a-year business making curd cheese, mostly exported to five EU countries, including France and Germany

On June 12, inspectors of the European Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO), issued a “rapid alert notice” that its products were unsafe. The milk in the cheese, they claimed, broke EU rules on antibiotic residues.

On June 20, after thoroughly inspecting the plant, Britain’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) strongly disagreed. It recommended one or two minor changes in procedure, and allowed production to resume.

On July 4 the commission repeated its claim that the milk did not comply with EU rules. The FSA responded that the FVO inspectors seemed to be confused over the type of milk the firm used. Telling the European Standing Committee on the Food Chain that “no evidence was found that contaminated milk was used”, the FSA issued a notice to all EU member states that Bowland’s cheese was entirely safe and fit for market. The commission appended its own negative comments to this notice, effectively maintaining the ban.

Bowland took the commission before the ECJ and, on September 8, Judge Bo Vesterdorf, president of the Court of First Instance, having reviewed the case legally and scientifically, found unreservedly in the company’s favour.

The commission was ordered to withdraw its notice and its comments about the firm. Twice it refused. On September 12 Vesterdorf ordered it to “stand aside”. The commission tried to add a statement to the court order, claiming that it had lost on a mere technicality. The judge ordered this to be removed.

On September 27 the FVO returned to Bowland, this time for an exhaustive two-day inspection, but could find little wrong. (Any findings, the commission’s chief inspector told Mr Wright, would be “non-emergency”.)

However, on October 4, the commission asked its standing committee to approve a commission decision banning Bowland from further trading. The 25 members present were not shown the court’s judgment or any technical evidence, other than a defence of the new procedure for testing antibiotic residues – from the firm which had devised it. Twenty two countries voted for a total ban, with Britain abstaining.

The commission announced that it would seek to have the UK food safety authorities fined for failing to protect consumers against contaminated milk (despite the court ruling and the lack of any evidence of contamination).

Despite the FSA’s solid support of Bowland and its insistence that no rules had been broken, the Department of Health bowed to the commission’s diktat. On October 16 it rushed through a statutory instrument, the Curd Cheese (Restriction on Placing on the Market) Regulations 2006, to take immediate effect. Section 3 read “No person shall place on the market any curd cheese manufactured by Bowland Dairy Products Limited”.

Full Story

Technorati Tags: eu-law, the-eu, trade
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

EUOBSERVER reports 

EU parliament MEPs have reacted furiously to a UK parliament report which questions the right of the European Parliament to make laws on criminal and police matters due to the fact that most of its members are non-British.

Which is not quite the point made by the report but this slight myth is used by Andrew Duff to introduce a xenophobic line of attack on the “European Scrutiny Committee” Duff says the report is “fairly scandalous.”

“This challenges directly and explicitly the legitimacy of the European Parliament to legislate. It is an absurd idea that the parliament would have no right to legislate because it has ‘foreigners’ in it,”

The same line is used by Richard Corbett, UK Labour MEP, called upon like-minded pro-EU members of his party to “protest” against the report by writing to the chair of the House of Commons’ European Scrutiny Committee who is also a Labour member.

“If a matter is to be decided at EU level, then the European Parliament will be involved- and of course it contains non-Brits. Similarly the British Parliament contains non-Scots,”.

The Select Committee on European Scrutiny Forty-First Report; Actually did not mention foreigners or non-British they were quite specific- the problem is that European Parliament Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of the UK.

In our view, the proposal for the use of the passerelle is of constitutional importance. Decisions on, for example, what constitutes a crime, what sanctions there should be for offences, procedural rights and other matters covered by Title VI of the EU Treaty concern national sovereignty. We share the Government’s concerns about the implications of the proposal for external competence and national security and about the need for safeguards. We note with alarm that, for example, the UK might not be able to make bi-lateral agreements with third countries for the extradition of terrorists.

50. Moreover, there is the question whether it would be acceptable for the European Parliament to have the right of co-decision on measures about police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters when the most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of the UK.

Passerelle clause Under this, the European Council would be able to agree to abolish all that remains subject to the national veto, decreeing that it be subject instead to qualified majority voting. Neither the House of Commons nor the British people would have any say in the matter.

But Mr Duff argues that if there is a problem in resisting change to QMV in fields where, under the protocol, we anyway have the right to opt-in or out of the decisions taken.

In other words he is suggesting that we would still have a veto for Britian. He is however ignoring the report which makes it clear that the right to opt-in must be made at the start of the negotiations and there is no possibility of opting out if we are not satisfied with the directions of the negotiations.

51. We have considered whether the “opt in”, described in paragraph 7 above, might provide a sufficient safeguard if the passerelle were used. We understand that the UK would not be bound by any measure on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters unless it expressly opted into it. There could be cases where it appeared to be in the national interest to opt into a proposal soon after the opening of negotiations on it. Subsequently, however, amendments to the proposal might be agreed by QMV which radically changed the measure and were unacceptable to the Government. There is no provision for the UK to rescind an opt-in. So, once the Government had opted-in to a measure, the UK would be bound by it as it emerged from the negotiations.

This all about the proposal by The EU Commission to transfer criminal justice and policing into the first pillar of the EU’s treaties. This would abolish the national veto and would also greatly increase the powers of both the European Commission, European Court of Justice (ECJ) and allow the European Parliament to have a voice over the UK’s criminal justice system.

“The proposal that is being discussed would give the European Commission even more power than it would have gained under the rejected EU Constitution, and wou