eurealist.co.uk

There has been a lot of angst in the press about the refusal of the government to allow retired Ghurkhas the right to live in this country if they retired before 1997.

EU Referendum is compelled once again to point out the lack of understanding exhibited by the British media and even the leader of the LibDems Nick Clegg and one of the main movers in the Ghurkhas campaign was himself a former commission official and MEP.

The rules preventing the pre 1997 Ghurkhas from settling in Britain are not made by the British government but by the EU.

Update post

Daily Referendum

Post about cigarettes displays and the consultation process offered by the Westminster government,

This governments’ consultations are just a smokescreen to push through any policy they like, they don’t give a monkey’s what we think.

Man in a Shed

Is complaining about the failure of the New Labour integrated transport policy

and the dishonesty of New Labour he say this country desperately needs a new government. But fails to note that transport policy is an EU competence and that a new British government will not be able to address the problems, which is another sort of dishonesty.

Strange Stuff

Fisks the Tories Tony Makara post on Conservativehome Britain imports too much

Wow, the Stupid Party appear to be trying to live up to its name. When the very first paragraph setting up the argument is a fallacy then you know that the argument is going to go seriously wrong.

Nation of Shopkeepers

Is having a go at the defence sectary trying to gag coroners from telling the truth so as to deflect any criticism of the MoD and its incompetent ministers.

This obviously plays well with conservatives wanting to find a big stick with which to beat the government, but if you want a different fuller perceptive try here

Neil Herron

Has picked up on the Adrian Butler story in the Sunday Mirror

Traffic spies watching CCTV screens will dish out parking tickets from next week - without drivers knowing.

Minister Rosie Winterton is so far off the pace. Giving tickets to people two weeks AFTER an alleged contravention is not fairer Mrs. Winterton, it’s outrageous. As for saying that it will improve safety … for who? Those sitting watching CCTV harvesting cash and sticking the stamps on the parking fine envelopes?

The Daily Pundit

Posts information about Charles Clarke`s list of the 24 most threatened Labour seats.

Which reminds me I was going to write a post about how this sort of thing must tend to undermine our democracy, if the parties are only concerned about what will gain them kudos in a few seats across the country, but I don’t need to now!

Tommy English

Is posting about ex serviceman Craig Briggs who has been barred from joining the police — because he’s got an the word ENGLAND tattooed on his arm.

Tommy asks- How come the UK government didn’t seem to mind when Craig was representing his country in Iraq?

Almost - Richard Corbett MEP (With Comments)

Not Richard Corbett is ruminating about the job of President of the European Council.

The Thunder Dragon

Suggests there is media war going on between the Catholic and Anglican churches as to which can get the most column inches.

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 |

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.

Phillip Johnston Home Affairs Editor of the Telegraph has an article in Mondays edition on how measures of constitutional significance are handled in the British Parliament. One might wonder exactly what Mr Johnston has been doing with his time if he has only just realised the impact our membership of the EU and the way we handle its legislation in our own parliament has undermined the basic controls the MPs we elect can exert on the Government, and has freed the Executive of any accountability to Parliament, thus allowing a minister to agree to something in the EU forum which must be passed into British Law without any debate in either houses of Parliament.

Mr Johnston tells us that he is surprised to find that the only control our Parliament has over EU legislation comes from the European scrutiny committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and the only weapon those committees have in their armoury to stop the executive simply agreeing to anything in this country’s name is something known as a scrutiny reserve. The theory being when they are unhappy with a proposal they can require it to be debated in Parliament, even then not in the full parliament but usually in a committee. Once they have issued a scrutiny reserve the proposed directive cannot be agreed by a minister at the European Council until the reserve is lifted.

The theory in this instance Mr Johnston mentions has not worked because the House of Commons European scrutiny committee placed a scrutiny reserve on a new EU scheme under which prisoners would be transferred, without their consent, to their country of origin, and wrote to Joan Ryan, the Home Office minister responsible for European matters expressing their concern. However when the opportunity arose of a quick deal at the EU justice and home affairs council the scrutiny reserve was simply ignored and Britain signed up. A very similar thing happened when the European arrest warrant, stripped of its dual criminality protection, was agreed by Tony Blair at an EU summit despite a scrutiny reserve placed on it by the Lords.

This rather puts the argument I have been having on another forum about the power of the British Parliament into perspective. The contention is one which is often promulgated by Europhiles “Anything that is agreed in the EU (by the national government themselves) must be ratified by the national parliament,” and the very idea that “the British parliament is powerless is just another conspiracy theory” This needless to say is a an inversion of the truth as the only time our Parliament has the power of veto is on treaty change, this is the time when Primary legislation is agreed which gives the EU authority to pass secondary legislation. But once that treaty is agreed, usually on a three line whip which forces the troops into line, there is only the European scrutiny committee and their scrutiny reserve to prevent a government minister signing up to any extension in a given area.

According to an Open Europe report “the Government makes a mockery of this system by its heavy use of a loophole which allows it to “override” the scrutiny reserve. Since figures were first collected in 2001 the “override” has been used 346 times – i.e. to pass 346 pieces of key EU legislation without proper scrutiny in Parliament. 2005 saw one of the greatest ever uses of the override.

Some of the most controversial pieces of recent legislation have been exempted from any proper scrutiny in this way – including the creation of the controversial EU Arrest Warrant, and the setting up of the European Defence Agency.

While in the past the Government has claimed that the timing of legislation by other member states has made it necessary to use the override to avoid undue delay in the Council, this argument has been undermined by the Government’s extensive use of the override during its own presidency of the EU – when it itself controlled the timing of meetings and decisions. The Government used the override 22 times during its own EU Presidency in the second half of 2005.” – when it itself controlled the timing of meetings and decisions. The Government used the override 22 times during its own EU Presidency in the second half of 2005.”

Helen at Eureferndum also posts on this subject with perhaps more insight !

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 would also sweep away some of the safeguards contained in the Constitution such as restrictions to act only in a limited number of serious cross border fields – not the entire sphere of criminal justice as is proposed. The ECJ would become the highest court in the UK’s criminal law system and would begin to determine the substantive criminal law for EU nations.

As the EU legislates in particular areas it gains external competence over them. This means that it begins to represent member states in international negotiations on these issues. Which would mean the UK will lose its right to negotiate bilateral extradition treaties with foreign countries as well as deportation agreements. This could make it even harder for the UK to deport or gain custody of foreign suspects in the future.

In 1997 Tony Blair promised that he would not give up the veto on crime and justice. He said: “we have agreed better arrangements for co-operation on police matters, crime and drugs. However, such co-operation will remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity” (Hansard, 18 June 1997).

In 2003 Peter Hain repeated the same promise: “Criminal procedures go the heart of our legal systems, and this is one area where we have got to keep unanimity” (European Convention, 3 April 2003).

The Report

And the Gangplank this is an alternative name used by the Select Committee for the description of the passerelle as a “gangplank” rather than as a “bridge” - the usual EU translation.

The term “gangplank” usually refers to a temporary bridge for getting on and off a ship, but in pirate legends, the plank would be used to force victims to walk into the sea. Corbett and Duff, said “I hope this is unfortunate drafting,” noting that a gangplank “is a thing you fall off to your demise – through suicide or murder. You will die after the fall.”

The president of the Commons’ EU Scrutiny Committee, however defended the word as “quite appropriate,” saying “once you go off the end of the passerelle, you give away the power to the commission…so it is like a gangplank more than a bridge. Once you plunge off it, it is difficult to get back onto.”

From Eureferendum

At a meeting in Brussels today, Claude-France Arnould, Director of Politico-Military Affairs at the European Council declared that the EU Battle Groups were more a tool for political integration than to attain military objectives.

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

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

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

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

One comment from the UK was much more succinct:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EU’s External Action Services/Embassies/Consulates/High Commission/Missions.

In a declaration attached to the Treaty, the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) stated that “as soon as the Treaty ESTABLISHING a CONSTITUTION for Europe (meaning the Union) was signed, the Secretary General of the Council or High Representative for the CFSP, the Commission and the Member States should begin preparatory work on the European External Action Service (EEAS)

In the European Council of 29^th June 2004 they nominated José Barroso as the new Commission President. Also agreed was Javier Solano as the first Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. He will however, only be able to assume this office when the EU Constitution has been ratified by all 25 Member states and actually then comes into force.

All this was provided for in the Treaty ESTABLISHING a CONSTITUTION for Europe (meaning the Union), but the Constitution is not now applicable (it is dead) as it has been resoundly and democratically rejected by referendum by two major Countries. It can hardly be said that any annex or declaration to the Constitution can be ‘live’ to be acted upon when the major Constitutional Document it is attached to is no longer applicable having been rejected by the people of two Countries.. The EU prides itself on democracy (bringing democracy closer to you) yet now, because of the eagerness of those in high office to integrate completely into the Union, we now have an unelected and therefore undemocratic Commission quite deliberately ignoring the wishes of the people. There is absolutely no legal base for the External Action Services, which, I believe, is expected to eventually replace the national diplomatic services. I understand that to operate ‘lawfully’, the EU’s External Action Services require the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty or alteration to existing Treaties.

The Union wants one “voice” to represent all 25 nation states, but that is, at the moment exactly what they are, 25 separates Nation States and each has an embassy in which ever foreign Country allows them to have an Embassy. When holidaying abroad and a dreadful accident or natural disaster occurs, it is to ‘one of our own’ that people turn to for help. Someone that understands national needs and requirements, that speaks the same language and most importantly of all, understands the quaint national tendencies.

The Union wants one voice to speak for all foreign Countries, for it may help to create a stronger profile for the Union in the world. That though, is putting the Union before helping the people.

The EU puts an argument about the cost for all the different Embassies, the diplomats that are employed in them and the cost born by some of the smaller Countries in the EU, when we could be “sharing” and thus save money. Well we, as an independent Country have managed very well paying for our own Embassies over many years and as for the EU wanting to save money, or begin to be concerned about money when its own accounts have not been signed off by the auditors for a number of years, the money the EU wastes and costs to Member States in trying to implement many of its wasteful directives, is really a very silly ‘call’. If the matter was not so serious to all of us, it would be laughable. The EU wants power. It wants one voice in all matters. BUT it too must obey the law it makes and in this case before any External Diplomatic Service can be set up, it must have a Treaty or alteration to a previous Treaty.

It has been suggested that all staff should be trained and particularly joint training with perhaps the establishment of a ‘European diplomatic academy’ and these trainees should go on courses preferably in a country other than their own. I would suggest that the established Embassies already have perfectly good staff, that are indeed well trained, and if they are not, it is up to the Nation States to train them, not the European Union. They are answerable to their own Country and not as is suggested, to a would be EU Foreign Minister.

It matters not whether separate buildings are being built, or existing buildings are shared, an EU external Action Service cannot lawfully operate without ratification of a Treaty.

It was with great sadness that I now understand this ‘service’ is apparently going ahead already and being implemented under Article III-296 (3) of the non-applicable EU Constitution. If the people are ignored in this fashion, it should come as no surprise that the people will begin to ignore Commissioners and MEP’s. For legislation to work, it has to be accepted by all the people. Of course, if there was an independent Court, the people could place an objection, but there is no such Court.

People, the ordinary people, realise that Embassies, defence and foreign affairs matters should remain totally under the authority of their own national States, working with other nations when or if they feel it is right, and within international law to do so. Most definitely not under any European Foreign Minister.

If any Government acted unlawfully, especially deliberately so, as this matter appears to be, there would be tremendous consequences. The people do rather expect a better example from the Heads of such an organisation this Country contributes so heavily into financially and otherwise.

What can the people do if the EU and Heads of State carry on implementing these new Agencies or Articles etc from the EU Constitutional document and ignoring the wishes of the people? That is a question that should be given a great deal of thought.

Anne Palmer. May 2006.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Will the Home Secretary confirm that people are right in thinking that this is all part of an EU requirement to prepare for a common system across Europe, and that that is why he is in such a hurry to get rid of our liberties in this respect?

Mr. Clarke: I am happy to confirm that that is total nonsense. There is no proposal either for an EU identity card or for an EU-wide card of any sort. As far as I am aware, there is no proposal on the table. What has been discussed in the EU is biometrics for passports and biometrics for residents’ documents. That has been discussed not only in the EU but in countries throughout the world—especially the United States—as a means of helping people to travel more effectively. There is no requirement, and the canard, if I might use a Frenchism, that this is all an EU plot—something that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes suggests—is not true in this instance.

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I agree with my right hon. Friend about the lack of an EU conspiracy. However, will he comment on why the UK alone is going down the route of having a centralised data base and an audit trail, which is not in line with recommendations that are coming from Europe?

Mr. Clarke: There are no recommendations coming from Europe on this matter so that the issue of being in line does not arise.

Clarke is being somewhat economical in that he is right to say there are no recommendations coming from the EU, that the government have to meet, but it would be misleading to say there was no EU involvement in ID cards, or to try to infer that the EU was not interested in and EU wide ID scheme.

See page 17 re ID cards COM (2000) 257 final 3.5.2000. (27 pages)

(Adoption by the European Parliament and Council of a package of Regulations on a uniform format for the EU passport, identity card and residence permit. (Their emphasis)

Conclusions of Brussels Presidency, 32 pages. Re ID card, page 18

The European Council invites the Council, the Commission and Member States to continue their

efforts to integrate biometric identifiers in travel documents, visa, residence permits, EU citizens’

passports and information systems without delay and to prepare for the development of minimum

standards for national identity cards, taking into account ICAO standards.

The Hague Report. 33 pages. ID cards Page 17

Another document, Council of European Union Brussels 11^th November 2005. 14351/05

Subject Draft Conclusions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on common minimum security standards for Member States’ national identity Cards.

ID Cards: EU launches European Biometrics Portal to assist governments”

http://www.europeanbiometrics.info/index.php

The Government would like us to belive that the ID cards are their idea and that the implementation would have no impact on an EU wide basis, or that the EU would not have a say in either the content of these cards or the exchange of the data which will be collected for the national data base.

From Lords Hansard 23 Nov 2005: Column 1667 Lord Stoddart of Swindon “The problem is that if it were decided by the European Union that we should have a Europe-wide card, they would, without further reference to this House or this Parliament, be able to insert various requirements themselves, perhaps even one for DNA. That would be imposed on our citizens, whether they liked it or not. If I am not mistaken, the decision would come not under the basis of unanimity, but on the basis of qualified majority. Therefore we could have items imported into our system of a national register for the national identity card which our own Parliament, after proper discussion and assurances have been given by Ministers, did not want and particularly sought to exclude.”

Baroness Scotland of Asthal reply’s : Identity cards are only an intergovernmental issue; the EU has no competence on the matter.

Lord Stoddart: I appreciate that at present it is an intergovernmental matter; but she will be aware that the European constitution has been signed by all member states. Indeed, it is still a live issue, although there is a period for reflection on the matter, following the rejection of the constitution by France and the Netherlands. Does she agree that under the constitution intergovernmentalism will be no more, because the constitution will collapse the intergovernmental position into one single entity? Therefore, does she agree that if this country was foolish enough to vote for the constitution, it would no longer be an intergovernmental operation and the European Union would have some override over our identity cards and the national register?

The interior ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom met in Heiligendamm, Germany, on 22 and 23 March 2006. They welcomed the interior minister of Poland as a new addition to their group founded in 2003.

The co-operation between the six countries is intended to provide an additional impetus to strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice. Similar to a “laboratory” this small circle will draw up concrete proposals to intensify co-operation in European home affairs. Other EU Member States will be fully informed about proposals made by the G6 countries and can participate in their implementation.

In order to promote integration and fight illegal immigration and terrorism, the ministers have agreed on the following specific measures.

The ministers emphasized the major importance of successful integration for the stability of society. Against this background, they agreed on an intensive exchange of information about their integration programmes and prerequisites, particularly information on types and methods of related tests, if in place. The ministers decided to set up an expert working group to analyze the possibility and main contents of an integration contract with immigrants or comparable instruments.

4. Principle of availability

The ministers again highlighted the importance of significantly improving cross-border information exchange between law enforcement authorities, as already set out in the Hague Programme. To rapidly achieve this objective, they advocate focusing on DNA, fingerprints and motor vehicle registration data. At the same time they stressed that the promising model offered by the Prüm Treaty, including online requests and hit/no hit access, should be considered at EU level as soon as possible.

The ministers underscored that rapid implementation of the availability principle must not depend on the adoption of a framework decision on data protection in the third pillar.

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments: “This self-appointed governmental pressure group sees itself as leading the way on justice and home affairs - but have they consulted their people or parliaments on the measures they are putting forward? A classic instance is their position on the so-called “principle of availability” whereby all information and intelligence (often guesswork or supposition) on individuals held by a national law enforcement agency (police, immigration, customs) can be accessed by any of the hundreds of agencies across the EU (where it can added to with more information and “intelligence” and passed on again, inside or outside the EU).

Their conclusion is that the “rapid implementation of the availability principle must not depend on the adoption of a framework decision on data protection” - in other words state agencies should be allowed to exchange information and “intelligence” without any data protection rights for the individual being in place.”

Thanks to Anne Palmer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governments have been flooded by legal actions from large corporations claiming, often successfully, that differing tax regimes in the EU are unfair. The UK is fighting big claims from Marks & Spencer and Cadbury Schweppes, among others. These claims could cost the British taxpayer billions if the ECJ finds aginst the governments and it looks as if it will. So up steps our Tone who id trying to stop the court from making rulings which interfere in member states’ tax laws.

Unfortunately it looks as if this move will be strongly resisted by the EU Commission The Observer reports today that a senior official at the European Commission indicated last week that it would probably oppose the British reform initiative. ‘The ECJ exists to implement European law across the Union. I don’t think we would ever support an attempt to hinder its ability to do that,’ he said. The official added that any reform of the court would have to be agreed by all 25 EU states, a near impossible task.

Now what was the FCO Myth site said about tax

We control tax and social security
The Government negotiated successfully to keep a national veto over tax proposals. Social Security proposals are subject to an effective veto through a national ‘emergency brake’ mechanism allowing any Member State to refer a proposed law to the European Council (the body composed of national heads of state/government) for decision by consensus.

Some negotiation some myth.

An article by Anne Palmer

Although two Countries (France and Holland) have given a resounding NO to a Constitution for the European Union, and the peoples voices were loud and clear in a referendum, it is as if everyone in the Commission and the European Council were deaf because the work to implement certain Articles contained in the EU Constitution is going ahead before ratification of all 25 Countries.

There is no legal basis for implementing these articles without a new treaty.

a A European Diplomatic Service
b. A European President (whose new office has already been set up)
c. A European Foreign Minister confirmed as Javier Solana;
d. A European Space Policy with officials concluding an agreement on its
implementation.
e. A European Defence Agency
f. A European Fundamental Rights Agency to implement the Charter of
Fundamental Rights right across all EU legislation, to become enforceable as a Bill of Rights for the whole of the European Union.
g. A European Asylum and Immigration Policy.
h A European Public Prosecutor.

Although the principle of subsidarity (contained in article 5 TEC) is already enshrined in the EC Treaty, there is at present no mechanism for applying it. If there is no legal basis without the very necessary EU Constitution, will anything brought forward before ratification, be “legal? Will anyone affected by the alleged illegal acts have any “come back”? Compensation rights? Redress? Will the EU be ‘taken to task’ for going beyond their remit? Abusing their authority? If we, (our Country or any person) act in such a way, what action is taken against him/her or Country? We all know the answer to THAT!

Many are the questions that should be officially asked about the present conduct of the European Union by national governments. Which then poses the question, WHY are these questions not being asked? Especially, when many in high office are allegedly “concerned” that the people (their citizens, as they have called them) are not with them, or feel about the Union in the same way that the Commission and Council feel about it.

Let me clear one point before I go further. The EU Constitution is just that. A real Constitution and why on earth the Government chose to pretend that the Constitution, which henceforth, if ratified, would be the source of authority of the EU and would be open to interpretation by the European Court in entirely unpredictable ways, was a mere tidying up exercise is completely beyond my comprehension, but it should make everyone wary as to what the Government might be up to now.

All the previous EU treaties will be revoked, they will no longer exist. The Constitution creates a new primacy creating a new constitutional arrangement, a new legal order, if implemented into UK law by an Act of Parliament. The word Constitution as expressed by Bradley and Ewing-Constitutional and Administrative law, 13th Edition, Chapter 1-refers to the whole system of government of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the Government.

The drafters of the Constitution, the length of time it took in the Convention, the signatories to the Constitution are well aware of what they wanted and what they have done. Our Government simply did not have the guts to tell the people.

Full Article

The Future of the European Constitution. Parliament Research Paper 05/45 13th June 2005. (47 pages)

Upon reading the above Paper, it becomes obvious it was a great mistake to allow the people a say on this proposed EU Constitution. The people obviously cannot be trusted to come up with the right answer and the decision whether to have a Constitution for the European Union could have been done by Parliaments ratifying the Constitutional document themselves, without involving the people.

This Paper is well worth a careful read by all those that read this e-mail and worth while involving all the people each person can reach. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is not “just another treaty” and is meant and regarded as necessary as a Constitution for the European Union. It is meant as a true “rule book”, as the law above the law. A Constitution like the ones most independent sovereign Countries had (and should have always looked up to and obeyed) before their involvement in the European Community/Union.

Page 21 “Is the Constitution dead”?

I Quote, “Under Article 48 TEU the European Constitution must be ratified by all 25 Member states before it can come into force. The flexible arrangements for future amendments under Constitution Article 1V-444 will only apply once the Constitution has entered into force, not to its initial ratification.”

“The failure to ratify by one or more Member States will prevent the Constitution from coming into force. Many observers believed that a straightforward ratification by all 25 Member states was unlikely and that a more likely scenario was that one to three States would not ratify the Constitution initially. The UK. Ireland and Poland were seen as possible non-ratifiers. Referendums were seen as being the most unreliable means of ratifying.”

Declaration No 30, which is appended to the Constitution, concerns the possibility of non-ratification by one or more Member states. It states:

The Conference notes that if, two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four fifths of the Member states have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council”.

In the past, when small Member States (Ireland and Denmark) voted against an EU Treaty amendment, thereby preventing it from coming into force, ways were found for the new treaty to be ratified. In the case of Denmark, this involved opt-outs that were negotiated by the European Council. However, it had not been envisaged that the people of France and the Netherlands, two of the EU’s founding Members, would have voted against it. Somewhat ironically, it was President Chirac who told a press conerence on 28th April 2004 that “friendly pressure” should be exerted on Member States that failed to ratify the Constitution and who wanted a “ratify or leave” clause to be written into the Constitution”. End of Quotes.

Noted from the above, the document was referred to as a “Constitution”, and that is exactly what it is and was always meant to be.

Anne Palmer. 15.6.2005.

Thank you Richard, all better now.

Taking account of the Dutch peoples’ overwhelming no, the Dutch parliament has decided not to ratify the EU Constitution. The government has withdrawn the bill without waiting for the European Council meeting mid-June. Le Figaro says that this rules out having another referendum on it in the future.

Two of the main architects of the Constitution John Kerr and Giuliano Amato, Tony Blair the Labour spin machine Kinnock from the House of Lords, even Denis MacShane are all calling for the end of the referendum process. Arguing that the rejection of the constitution by the French and the Dutch means the Constitution is dead. Whilst on the other hand all the other EU States leaders and Commissioners are demanding the process should be continued. The Commission President Barroso was on Newsnight last night insisting that as all the 25 member state leaders had signed up to a procedure set out in Declaration 30, they should all “respect the procedure” because every member state has a right to give its opinion on the treaty.

However listening to those who want to scrap the process they are not suggesting that the proposals should also be scrapped, again last night Denis MacShane almost fell out of his chair when Paxman suggested that stopping the referendums would also mean no changes to the present treaties. Not the case at all there is still a need to bring in the changes, but this time they will not be asking the voters to give their consent, this time they will bring it in through the back door, of course MacShane did not say that in so many words but that is exactly what he meant.

It is obvious why Tony Blair wants to get himself out of a promised referendum he has little chance of winning and can only damage him politically, it is equally clear why those who put together the Constitution in the first place want to prevent any more damage to their dreams. As Giuliano Amato there may be nothing left of the constitution to rescue if ratification continues in other countries.

But what of the arguments for continuing Declaration 30 “The Conference notes that if, two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council.” Note “If four fifths of the Member States
have ratified.” This is not the same as an obligation on them to proceed with ratification. If one Member State has said No and the others decide to respect that No, States are free to abandon the ratification process if they choose. It boils down to a decision on whether to respect the results of the referendums in France and Holland it is not up to Tony Blair to pronounce on a decision that can only be taken by the French and the Dutch leaders. If they take the view that they have asked their citizens for a mandate to ratify and that mandate has been refused, that is the end of the Constitution because it must be ratified by all 25 states. If on the other hand Chirac and Balkenende say the process should continue, they are saying they will not respect the results of the referendum, and intend to work around the no votes at a later date either by ignoring the votes and ratifying anyway or by asking the people to vote again.

Chirac has already written to the commission asking for the process to continue and Balkenende, in a press conference after the result had been announced, called for all other member states to continue with the ratification process. Thus both the French and the Dutch referendums are to be sidelined, this leaves Tony Blair as the only leader who has yet to agree to continue with the referendum. The meeting of the heads of state on 16th 17th June is going to be interesting and I suspect that we will have to wait until then to see if we in Britian are going to be allowed a voice in the process or if Blair will win the day, if he does that is still not the end, because they will be bringing in the major proposals anyway.

Eurealist :: Main Page: “View Article A COMMON corporation tax
by Eurealist on May 25, 2005 10:55AM (BST)

A COMMON corporation tax could be in place across Europe within three years, the EU Tax Commissioner predicted today. Laszlo Kovacs said those countries that currently opposed such a move, seeing it as an attack on their sovereign right to fix economic policy, would come around.

Skip additional links’My assessment is three years if everything goes well,’ Kovacs told a conference on EU policy in Stockholm when asked when the common corporate tax base would be ready.

He said a working group of senior officials was already looking at different ways that tax bases could be harmonised.

‘At the moment there are 25 different ways to calculate the corporate tax base … If we manage to have only one EU-wide set of rules that will increase competitiveness,’ he added.

He said 20 countries backed having such a single way of calculating corporate tax, with 4 or 5 other countries more reluctant.

‘They are afraid that it is a Trojan horse to implement the harmonisation of tax rates at a later stage,’ he said. ‘We have no ambition and I have no personal ambition (to do that).’

His predecessor overseeing EU tax affairs, Dutchman Frits Bolkestein, made the original proposal on a common corporate tax base last year and finance ministers agreed in September 2004 to study the possible launch of such a system.

Kovacs also said he favoured allowing the 10 new member states of