On my desk I have a letter form my own MP who tells me the Conservative party believes that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who first elected them. In the modern world, where people want power and control over their lives to deny them a referendum is a denial of democracy. In our Parliamentary democracy it is right that Parliament decides on how we are governed on issues such as heath care, education and policing.
He also tells me that the Conservatives hopes on the Referendum treaty are placed on the House of Lords rejecting it and that the LibDems will be pivotal, well they have certainly been that, by playing about Nick Clegg has ensured that the Treaty will pass unhindered through both houses.
Ignoring for the moment the point that my MP feels our Parliament should only decide on how we are governed on issues such as heath care, education and policing. Now the pressure is back on the Conservatives to explain exactly what they mean by not allowing the situation with regard to the Lisbon Treaty to stand.

In the mean time it is apparent that they are worrying about MPs loosing their jobs and are concerned by Nick Cleggs proposals to cut the number of MPs to 500.

Time to cut the House of Commons to 500?

Do readers of Centre Right think we need as many as 650 MPs? Is the quality of legislation made better by such a large number of lawmakers? In the United States they seem to get by just fine with just 435 members in the House of Representatives. Could fewer MPs offer a better deal to the voters and enable MPs to be paid at a level that is likely to see less difficulties with expenses? Should MPs sitting for Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland automatically become devolved lawmakers, thereby cutting the number of politicians the public are expected to pay for?

If we do go down such a route one thing seems especially important to me. Equality of voters. Each seat should have a set level - e.g. 85,000 voters. No ifs, no buts. The variance of electorate s around the country is unacceptable and distorts election outcomes. It also results in an unfair democratic deficit for voters in more heavily populated constituencies. I would be really interested to know what Centre Right readers think.

I would contend that this is an unimportant side issue, it matters little how many MPs there are when they have outsourced most of their work load. When they have accepted the principal that EU law is superior to British law and that our Parliament can be bound by the European Court of Justice.
So never mind cutting the wastrels down to 500 how about 100, why do we need such a big expensive local administration when it is no longer the government of this country and no longer oversees or controls the executive any other organisation that no longer did the job it was paid to do would be closed down, I do not see any reason why Members of the Westminster parliament should be treated any differently than any other organisation which has had its day and no longer serves its purpose.

Technorati Tags:
Conservatives, Parliament, EU law is superior to British law, European Court of Justice
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Why do I say the EU is anti-democratic, it is worrying that so many do not know or do not care about basic democratic principals that the question could even be posed - Abraham Lincoln defined the fundamental characteristic of democratic government in his Gettysburg address;

it must be - of the people,- by the people, -for the people

The EU claims to be the last of those i.e. “for the people”, But the EU fails miserable on the first two. Even then, it is only “for the people” in a dictatorial fashion, it is for the people to fall into line with its own central socialist, secular beliefs, and if they refuse, it is for the people to be forced by the use of law to fall into line. If the EU considered the first two then there would be no choice but to accept that the third principal “for the people” would mean that the people themselves decided on the socialist or secular make up of their state. Which is a more democratic a state where the people are forced to bend the knee to secularism, or one where the people are forced to bend the knee to Christianity.

The EU is forever proclaiming it must do this for its citizens or it citizens want it to do that. It even claims it has not just a democratic mandate, but rather like those M&S adverts, it has freshly dew picked, double democratic mandate! through a Parliament representing EU citizens and a Council representing the elected governments of the Member States.

But in fact is has no democratic mandate, because in neither of these institution can the people actually change their EU government, and an election that cannot at least theoretically replace the government is not a true election. We elect our government but they do not stand on any platform that allows us dictate our wishes in relation to EU legalisation. If we vote to change our national government that does not change the government of the EU, we are only changing a constituent part of the EU Government not its policies and not its direction. The Council of the EU as a body in not accountably to anyone, the EU institution body which has the sole power to introduce legalisation and oversee the treaties is not elected. We do elect MEPs but not on any published raft of policies that they promise to fulfil, and the EU parliament although the only directly elected body has the least power of any EU intuitions.

The increasing use of international bodies and the institutionalising of decision-making of formerly domestic issues across national frontiers is inherently incompatible with the traditional framework of democratic control.

As authority is increasingly transferred from our government to the EU, the power of our executive is enhanced at the expense of our local democratic representation in the British parliament.

It has been argued in our own domestic politics that the natural position of our parliament is to be subordinate to an executive, because it is the executive which is the dominate legislator. So by extension the parliament is not loosing much by becoming subordinate to the EU, although it might be acceptable for our parliament to be subordinate to the British executive, that does not dictate that it should also be subordinate to the French or German executive, ie. replacing our executive with an EU executive is a totally different concept, for one thing our executive is a product of our parliament the French or German executive is not.

Thus increased policy making within EU institutions has allowed our national government to evade parliamentary control, at least to some extent, by claiming the collectiveness of the decisions made and costs for the country if the parliament rejects the agreement negotiated. This can be seen in some of the arguments advance for not rejecting the latest EU Treaty or the previous EU Constitution.

We will have to agree to this treaty because it is the product of several years of hard negotiations between member states, it is the best we can achieve at this time and if we reject it we will be forced out of the union into the arms of uncontrolled corporate America and costing us three million jobs.

The fact that over 200 areas our government said were unacceptability to this country when they were negotiating in the convention which produced the Constitution which is now the Lisbon Treaty, have all been included against our wishes seem no longer to be important.

We have already seen a considerable amount of the power of our nation state transferred to the EU by means of opaque and complicated legal treaties that are not easily understood, and as the House of Lords reported the relationship between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) is of “first class constitutional importance” but the Lisbon Treaty is written in such as dense manner at to be almost impossible to decipher. The Lords also reported that the Treaty would not have any constitutional implications for UK citizenship. The fact that they also said the ECJ would be the final arbiter of the meanings of the treaty, seems not have been considered important when deciding how much it will affect us or our constitution. In reality the Lords have made a claim they cannot substantiate because they will not be the ones who will make the final decision.

What the EU fondly likes to call the democratic deficit is not merely a by-product of the transfer of powers to the EU level, but is also one of the purposes of this transfer.

When governments pool their authority in the EU arena they also increase their power in their own parliament, because they weaken the domestic political constraints.

So we have situation where our elected governments are working with others to undermine the domestic controls over themselves by creating binding intergovernmental arrangements. Which are then forced through our parliamentary system using every trick and power at the disposal of the government, aided and abetted by the EU intuitions:.

When you consider that the House of Lords expressed a wish that once the Lisbon treaty had been ratified the EU would publish the full treaty in a legal form, it puts into perspective exactly what is happening. Our Prime Minister has signed and is now forcing though our parliament a legally binding treaty that no one can judge correctly because it is written in such oblique language, and in any case the final treaty has not even been published and the even when it is, its true meaning will only become clear after it has been tested in the European Court of Justice. I would not buy a washing machine under those circumstances let alone a constitution.

The EU has no mandate from the people, but in order to integrate the impression that it has, the EU had decided that it will create a greater understanding of the EU and towards this aim it has created its own publicly accessible knowledge base, now most of the EU papers are converted into several different languages and posted on the internet.

The EU says, proudly, that democracy depends on people being able to take part in public debate. To do this, they must have access to reliable information on European issues and be able to scrutinise the policy process in its various stages.

That, one is supposed to believe is a step toward democratising the EU, in fact the EU leaders are very proud of their openness and try to equate it with the democratic process. Well in part they are right, knowledge is a requisite for democracy, it is not however, much as the EU would like us to believe, a fundamental issue. True a citizen cannot make informed political decisions without at least a vague comprehension of the way in which the political system works. And it true to say it is far harder for a system of government that hides its mechanisms of decision-making to be democratic than one that is open.

But the slight of hand being perpetrated by the EU leaders is although the EU allows for a great deal of openness, there is no mechanism for the people to express their duly informed political decisions, thus there is no democratic accountability. The EU has created one part of the equation but ignored the reason for creating the openness in the first place.

Thus the EU is showing that it is more concerned with the superficial aspects of democracy, with the impression of democracy. Such issues as openness, and discussion are important. They do not, however, address the fundamentally flawed and undemocratic structure inbuilt into the EU current system.

Technorati Tags:
EU, anti-democratic, secularism, democratic mandate, EU citizens
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

The government is using the 1689 Bill of Rights, which establishes the principle that parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned by the courts, as one central argument in its legal battle to prevent Gateway reviews into the feasibility and progress of the government’s ID cards project becoming public.

Gateway reviews ID cards project

As reported in ComputerWeekly.com

The irony of this should not be missed, because much of our recent legalisation is in direct opsition to the Bill of Rights which is why many like to argue that the Bill of Rights has no legal meaning, as it has been superseded by later legislation. Although the final ruling in the Metric martyrs case by Lord Justice Laws specifically ruled that this was not the case because the Bill of Rights was a constitutional statute and could not therefore be changed by implication in later legislation.

The Laws Ruling maintained constancy with the concept of parliamentary supremacy because he did not rule that parliament could not change the Bill of rights, only that to do so it would have to do it directly.

As the Bill of Rights has not been changed directly for over three hundred years most of is still relevant. For the government to use the Bill however is going to be problematic, because by implication they are admitting it is still relevant and they cannot just pick and choose which bits they like and continue to ignore the other bits they do not like.

This is particularly interesting because as I mentioned in a previous post our parliament voted down an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty:

Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.

It would seem our elected leaders want to have their cake and eat it.

Update email exchanges

From: Bill & Ann:

If the government win their case on this then surely the implications

must be that the Bill of Rights precludes the European Court of Justice

from questioning laws passed by parliament.  In other words what Bill

Cash has been trying to achieve in the last few days.  For that reason

alone it is worth watching the outcome. B&A

From Michael Shrimptom:

No, it only applies to parliamentary proceedings.

 The ECJ cannot overturn an Act of Parliament - the Factortame case, which

suggested the contrary, was monist, wrong and is no longer followed by the

courts, thanks to Metric Martyr.

Reacting to the News that the European Union has this week opened its Fundamental Rights Agency in Vienna with the stated purpose of collecting data on violations of the EU`s Charter of Fundamental Rights, provide advice to the EU and its member states and to raise public awareness.

The Times points out that many believe the agency should not have been opened because one of its core aims is to enforce the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which was explicitly adopted as legally non-binding but was then written into the EU constitution and that was voted down in France and the Netherlands so has not been ratified and can therefore have no legal standing.

But legal niceties aside, the agency now exists and will as intended take its place in enforcing the EU political aims.

The Charter itself was until the advent of the Constitution the most, explicit statement of the EU’s claim to direct legitimacy that has ever been produced. The idea being that the institutions and rights provided by the EU should in themselves provide the necessary basis for legitimate government.

There are several problems with the concept of International Human Rights, they are a direct attack on the sovereignty of the nation state, conflict with the ideals of democracy, they create tensions between different versions of human rights, create conflicts with religious doctrines, they are arbitrary applied to different states, many of the ideals are a sham and they are open to manipulation and interest-politics, and offer a disguise for power politics. The EU`s Charter of Fundamental Rights is a coup d’état, for the federalists, and by the left leaning Social Democrats who dominate the EU. They are using this document to permanently enshrine into law left-wing provisions such as the ‘right to strike’ rights to health care, education, and social and housing assistance.

The argument for the Charter runs something like this: The EU has clearly progressed beyond its initial stage of a purely voluntary association. It is an entity with strong supranational elements equipped with executive power. This is evidenced in the supranational character of the legal structure, which is supported and enhanced in particular by the European Court of Justice. In its rulings, it has long asserted the principles of supremacy and direct effect. National law gives way to Community law, and there is a need for safeguarding the rights of the citizens. Through its institutions, it forms a supranational regime with extended competencies for the ordinary man and woman in the EU

In the general scheme of the EU we have been forced to become citizen the Charter now gives us rights over and above our nation states, further diminishing our sovereignty and our choices. So the Charter process represents a very important development in the constitutionalisation of the EU.

The Charter was politically decided by those who stipulate that there must be international law to control excesses of previously sovereign national administrations, yet at the same time claims sovereignty for itself, so the Charta is an expression of EU power politics, and a maneuver to further advance the European Project. Of course quite how an external international agreement can be forced on a parliament which retains its own sovereignty is not debated, but it can only mean that the constitutional sovereignty can no longer reside in the nation states Parliament, which rather undermines Britain’s owns Parliaments assertion that it remains sovereign in all things.

As the EU seeks to turn itself into a single State, it is using common human rights standards, enforced by a central legislature and a Supreme Court, as a powerful weapon in imposing uniformity across the whole of the EU and subordinating national and local Courts and Constitutions to central rule, the Charter marks the EU as a polity with an extended sphere of competencies Giving the EU the powers to decide our rights would bring the EU Court of Justice into virtually every area of life and society.

For Britian in particular it is a very important development because the Charta curbs the power of judge made law, or English Common Law.

The growth of international law limits the principle of National Sovereignty because it forces recognition of equality of rights to non-nationals to those who have no duty to the nation state. Thus a Nation state will find it increasingly difficult to protect itself from those from outside the state who would work to destroy the nation state. This is all very fine for the EU which wishes to create a state of the regions, but it does not answer why the leaders of the nation state would wish to collude with a scheme that is specifically designed to remove the power of its citizens. It enforces a particular secular creed on nation states which are based on religious belifes forcing them to re-write their constitutions and to create laws forcing obedience to secular doctrines. In short it removes the powers of the people to choose their own rights according to their own societies norms.

This of course is why it was only ever adopted as legally non-binding and according to the EU minister of the time Keith Vas to be no more legally significant than a copy of the Beano.

I said I was going to post on Jonathan Freedland article in the Guardian about the reform of the House of Lords, I do not intend to actually comment on Freedland`s article, except to say he is suggesting a fully elected house and use that as a springboard for my own thoughts. Although many belive the present House of Lords is an affront to modern democracy, and a fully elected House of Lords would be a more effective, legitimate and representative chamber. I tend to think that such suggestions need very careful consideration.

The Lords does not actually need to be elected to have legitimacy, nor does it actually need to be representative, it is in fact allready quite effective in its present form and as Lord Norton of Louth, who has been described as the greatest living expert on Parliament- has recently made clear the White Paper - which was presented to Parliament earlier this month - was a recipe for instability, was disjointed and would actually deliver a second chamber devoid of the benefits of the existing House. It does not explain how the election of 50% of members under a list system will ‘increase its effectiveness’. Or how the House that is proposed will work better than the existing House?” Nor did it provide any empirical evidence for the claim that in many people’s eyes the Lords now lacks the legitimacy to carry out “its current role”.

Perhaps “its current role” is the fly in the ointment? what exactly is its current role, and do we want that to be its role for the future, might well be examined before we launch into yet another round of reform of the second chamber.

Without doubt the Labour government has continued the destruction of the original role of the Lords by assuming it is nothing more that a simple revising chamber, thereby removing its original function as a guardian of the British Constitution and part of a democratic system of government. As over the years more and more powers have been acquired by the elected executive in the Commons, the Lords has been relegated to nothing more than a hindrance on the leaders ambitions. We have in effect actually ended up with in the situation where we have in all but name an elected dictatorship that cries foul every time the Lords refuse to accept its proposals at face value.

So it becomes relevant to inquire exactly what role we would ask our second chamber to fill, if it is to be just a revising chamber whos duty will be to examine the legislation emanating from the lower house for legal flaws before rubber stamping it, then the house ought rightly to be filled with lawyers and as they will have no real powers, it really does not matter how they get to fill their positions, if it makes some people happy why not just elect them for a relatively long period.

If on the other hand if the Lords is going to have real power to prevent an elected administration overstepping its powers, it should be filled with people who are totally independent of the political party machines. If that is the case then how are they to be elected if not with the backing of the major political parties who are in any case so short of members and cash that they are working their way toward forcing the voters to pay for their control of the political system which they have invented to suit themselves.

In reality we should not consider the composition of the Lord’s without considering it’s role and purpose as part of a wider constitutional settlement.

It is generally believed that Britian does not have a Constitution, a misconception the political parties are only too pleased to bolster, as it allows them free reign to do anything they like once there have garnered enough votes to get into power. It is true that that this is in reality the situation, because our governments have simply ignored the existence of any existing legislation which would bind their hands, and all attempts to rectify this misrepresentation and force our governments have been thwarted by what has grown into a self-supporting political elite. Reform of the House of Lords would not change that situation and just as the politicians have removed any blocks to their increased power they will not willingly allow a situation to develop that will confine their determination to rule without being restrained by inconvenient obstructions like a written Constitution, any that manages to get through the political system will be as worthless as the present one has proved to be. In this situation not only is the House of Lords an affront to modern democracy our whole political system of government is an affront to democracy, modern or otherwise.

Before we embark on any further reform of the House of Lords we must decide what is going to happen with regard to the whole constitutional settlement of Great Britain, because depending on the outcome of that, the second chamber might well have a totally different role to play, or there might not be any role at all for a second chamber.

We need to decide if we are going to remain a member of the European Union, if so it would be much better to accept that all of our government power will not reside in Britain but will be decided and delegated from the EU level. In that instance I would have thought that a second chamber would become surplus to requirements, because the EU constitution would be our constitution and it would be the controlling influence on our government and the laws would be checked by the EU parliament and council and backed by the European Court of Justice, in that event we could operate in Britian with a really slimmed down national parliament, with extra powers being delegated from the EU level to the Regional Parliaments.

If we decide we do not want to swallowed up into the maw of the United States of Europe and opt for a looser association retaining and regaining some of our sovereignty, we would still have to face the left over damage of the EU Regionalisation Program; The Conservatives have promised to disband the embryo Regional Parliaments- Regional Assemblies, they have not as far as I know mentioned the Regional Development Boards, which were set up as the embryo regional civil service to receive and distribute out taxes the EU returns to us. But assuming they do also disband those, we will still be possibly left with the London assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. If we also had an English parliament perhaps the second chamber would be better suited as something approaching a federal chamber with representatives from the separate British parliaments.

If we now leap headlong into further reforming the House of Lords either by fully or partially electing the members, without first deciding the constitutional settlement and the second chambers place in that settlement, we will be devoting a great deal of time effort and money on something which will not improve the effectives of the present chamber and something that could itself become another impediment to creating a new constitutional settlement for the nation state of Great Britian or a group of regions in the in the USE.

ECJ rules that UK can’t tax dividends on foreign subsidiaries of British firms – will cost Treasury up to £9billion

The European Court of Justice yesterday ruled that the British Government will have to pay back up to £9 billion to companies with subsidiaries in other EU states whose dividends were taxed under advanced corporation tax (ACT) rules, which were repealed under Gordon Brown. British American Tobacco originally launched the case, but several other multinational companies are now involved.

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.”

Hat tip to Tommy English for the link to this essay

…Our next general election should be about much more than schools and hospitals. Britain’s sovereignty is at stake. And although the Government wants to pull the wool over our eyes, we need an elevated debate on Europe…

Brian Durrant - Other articles
Mon 17 Jul, 2006

Imagine the next general election is held in 2009. David Cameron’s Conservative party beats Labour by two million votes, and gains enough seats to form a majority government.

But Gordon Brown refuses to go.

“I really believe that the electorate did not reject the Government,” he says. “Unfortunately the electorate did not realise what the General Election was about. Indeed, the voters have requested more Labour policies – not less. The rejection of Labour’s programme was a mistake, which will have to be corrected.”

Impossible to believe? It has happened in Zimbabwe, Haiti, Uzbekistan and Belarus. Thirteen months ago, it happened on our doorstep.

In May 2005, the French and Dutch electorates rejected the EU Constitution put forward by Brussels in two separate referendums. Yet a fortnight after the “non”
and “nej” verdicts, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister, Jean- Claude Juncker, said at a press conference:

“I really believe the French and Dutch did not vote no to the Constitutional Treaty. Unfortunately the electorate did not realise that the Constitutional Treaty was specifically aimed at meeting their concerns and that’s why we need to have a period of explanation for explaining this to citizens”.

Eight months on, Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the EU Constitution, showed his contempt for the democratic process. In a lecture at the London School of Economics on 28 February 2006, he said: “The rejection of the Constitution was a mistake which will have to be corrected. The Constitution will have to be given a second chance…If the Irish and Danes can vote yes in the end, so the French can do too. It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.”

If you thought that was bad, three months later, the former French President told the Financial Times: “It was not France that said no. It was 55% of the French people.”

This madness has afflicted the political classes in the other main nations of the EU, too. Italian Foreign Minister Giuliano Amato told Agence Europe that “[the no votes were] a request for more Europe not less”. In May this year the new German Chancellor, Angela Merkel,said: “The negative results of the referendums in France and the Netherlands were a setback, but this has no bearing whatever on whether or not we need a constitution. I say yes, we need the Constitutional Treaty.”

So there you have it – the contempt with which top European politicians view the popular will. They have responded to the free referenda’s result with wilful self-delusion, and they certainly won’t take “no” for an answer. Hopes that the French and Dutch verdicts would trigger reform of the EU have been dashed.

Indeed, the main topic of conversation in EU circles today is how – not whether – to bring back the Constitution. Over the last 13 months, the supporters of an “ever closer union” have chosen to interpret the “no”
verdicts as a protest against economic liberalism, opposition to further enlargement of the EU, and a desire for greater powers in Brussels. In short, they have chosen any interpretation other than the obvious one: that the people of Europe are against deeper integration of the EU. This is borne out by a recent opinion poll by BVA and Maurice de Hond. Two-thirds of voters in both France and the Netherlands want to either take back powers from the EU or leave it altogether.

What’s more, several European leaders are now arguing that the Constitution is legitimate because it has been ratified by 15 states, the latest being Finland which agreed the constitution on 1 July. But only two of these states, Spain and Luxembourg, ratified the Treaty after a referendum. Nine of the member states that ratified without a referendum are actually more euro-sceptical than France or Holland. You can see how popular opinion is being ignored. Britain, meanwhile has delayed its ratification process, as did the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden.

Of course, none of this would matter if the Constitution were merely as Mr Blair describes it – “a tidying up exercise”. It will enable Europe “to work more effectively,” he says. But let’s remind ourselves what the fuss is about.

The full text of the Constitution is available online, and in a reader-friendly version, at www.euabc.com. On page 3, in Article I-5a, it says, “This constitution shall have primacy over the laws of member states”. The doctrine of the supremacy of EU law is an invention of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Until now, it has never been recognised in a treaty. But now EU governments have effectively sided with the ECJ against their own judges. In legal terms it makes the EU a state, and this state henceforth derives its authority from its founding charter, the EU Constitution.

This point is reinforced by the next clause, Article I- 6, which enables the EU to act as a state under international law. And now look at Article I-11: “The member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence”.

Did you get that? Member states are allowed to run their own affairs, to retain sovereignty, only where the EU does not. Jurisdiction from Brussels is specified in transport, energy, trade, competition, agriculture, fisheries, space exploration, social policy, public health, employment policy, consumer protection, asylum, immigration, criminal justice and foreign affairs. No wonder our politicians waffle on about schools so much. It’s pretty much all that’s left!

And when our Prime Minister tells you there will be “no federal superstate”, he is half right. The EU will be a superstate all right, equipped with all the trappings of statehood that international law recognises – a defined territory, a citizenry, a legislature, a legal system and supreme court, a defence capability, a head of state, a flag, a national anthem, a national day (9 May), and finally a constitution. But it will not be a “federal state”, because member countries will have fewer powers than “federal” implies.

There was a great deal of characteristic self- congratulation when the Prime Minister removed the F- word “federal” from the draft. He claimed a victory over euro-fanatics. He shouldn’t have bothered. In federations there is clear demarcation between central and state authority. Once the EU Constitution comes into force, member states of the EU will in some ways have less freedom of action than the federated states of the USA. They can decide, for example, whether to retain the death penalty.

The Constitution also creates an EU foreign minister and diplomatic corps. It establishes a criminal justice system, with its own prosecuting authority and police force, as well as common rules on asylum and immigration. So if a politician tells you that the Constitution is a mere tidying up exercise, he’s lying.

Every time Britain is asked to sign a European Treaty, we are given assurances that our sovereignty is not under threat. And every time, we lose more autonomy to the integrationist cause. In the early 1990s Douglas Hurd called the Maastricht Treaty the “high tide of federalism”. Now the Constitution will remove our veto in 40 areas, including immigration. At the same time it fails to return a single power to legislate back to national parliaments.

It looks as though the Constitution will be revisited in the spring of next year, when both France and Holland have national elections, and pro-Constitution Germany holds the EU presidency. Member states, including the UK, have agreed that on 25 March 2007 they will sign a document on the future of the EU called the Declaration of Berlin. The Commission has made it clear that this declaration will be the precursor to a new Treaty and will be modelled on the Messina Declaration of 1955. That led to the founding of the Common Market. EU President Barrosso has said that the document will not only set out the values and ambitions of the EU, but also embody a shared undertaking to deliver these objectives.

The EU is meanwhile pressing ahead with all kinds of integrationist projects in the interim. The European Defence Agency proposed in the Constitution has been set up. The veto on asylum issues has been abolished, while the veto on justice and home affairs legislation is in the process of being abolished. Furthermore, a recent court decision has given the EU the power to propose criminal laws which are then adopted by majority vote.

The ambitious integrationist agenda has been proceeding stealthily in other areas. While it has not been formerly renamed, the EU’s diplomatic network has been expanding. EU Foreign Policy Representative Javier Solana said in May last year “that even if the Constitution was rejected in France, I think it is suitable to keep on working on the establishment of a European External Action Service. This service will certainly come into existence sooner or later.”

This de facto implementation of the Constitution by stealth works to build momentum for a formal return of the treaty. At last month’s EU summit, marking a 12- month period of reflection on the “no” votes of France and Holland, EU leaders agreed to sign a new treaty by the end of 2008. This treaty is likely to contain many of the proposals in the rejected EU Constitution.

There is still some disagreement as to the form of the re-heated Constitution. Those member states that have already ratified want to keep the text almost exactly as it is. Others like France, Denmark and the Czech Republic want to cherry pick and come up with a new slimmed down treaty under a new name which will include many of the features of the original Constitution. And at the other end of the spectrum is the Dutch government which has gone against the grain and accepted the will of the people. The Netherlands is the only country to have described the existing text as “dead”. Unfortunately Holland is isolated.

The role of the UK in the debate about the future of the Constitution has been almost non-existent. The UK government is in denial and has got its head in the sand. It knows that if it holds a referendum, the verdict will be a resounding “no”. Meanwhile, several EU leaders talked about the need to put “pressure” on the countries resisting the Constitution.

The infamous Mr Juncker said: “It is absolutely possible that the EU will move forward without the British if they reject the Constitution.” An editorial in Handelsblatt, the German equivalent of the Financial Times, said: “The British will have to be confronted in the end with the alternative of approving the Constitution or leaving the EU. And there’s only very few people on the Eurosceptic island who want the latter.”

Oh really? Our government is looking for the coward’s way out. In April 2004 the Prime Minister confirmed that the British people would be offered a referendum on the new European Constitution. The pledge itself was a spectacular U-turn as calls for a plebiscite were gaining an unstoppable momentum. Indeed it was rumoured that Rupert Murdoch had warned Mr Blair he would not let his newspapers support Labour’s re-election unless a referendum on the Constitution was offered.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister insisted at the time that a referendum would go ahead, even if the voters of other EU countries rejected the Constitution. Rupert kept his side of the bargain, but Tony has no reason other than integrity to keep his. Now the UK government has indicated it plans to drop Mr Blair’s 2004 pledge to hold a referendum.

Last month, in an interview with the Financial Times, Europe Minister Geoff Hoon said: “Britain could accept an overhaul of European Union institutions without putting the changes to a referendum”. He went on to say that allowing a referendum on changes to EU treaties would depend on “how comprehensive and extensive they are”. But the Government’s suggestion that there will be no need for a referendum in Britain, because it contains only minor tweaks, is a fantasy.

In the past Europe was an issue that divided and embarrassed the Conservative Party. Now it’s New Labour’s turn. The process leading to a new text for the Constitution should be well under way by the time Mr Blair leaves Downing Street. Indeed, the Prime Minister might well appreciate the irony of locking Gordon Brown into a new treaty. It will be Blair’s baby, but Brown’s problem.

Our next general election should be about much more than schools and hospitals. Britain’s sovereignty is at stake. And although the Government wants to pull the wool over our eyes, we need an elevated debate on Europe. Not only will there be a row about the new treaty towards the end of 2008, the next European elections fall in May 2009. That could coincide with the next general election.

Before then, in December this year, the Government plans to give up Britain’s veto over the police and justice system. That will be a source of embarrassment for New Labour. Then at the start of next year, the EU Budget deal passes through parliament. You may recall that last December Tony Blair brokered a seven-year budget deal at the end of Britain’s EU presidency. Treasury officials claimed that Gordon Brown was dismayed at the outcome.
Britain is giving too much away. The Chancellor is now fighting a rearguard action to save money.

But when Gordon Brown finally takes over at Number 10, he will have a torrid time defending an unpopular return of the EU Constitution. A reheated meal can give you food poisoning but a reheated constitution will be fatal. Bon appetit.

Regards,

Brian Durrant
for The Daily Reckoning

The Europhile spin put on the EU Constitution Exit Clause, would have us all belive that we can not leave the EU at the moment because there is no EU recognised legal apparatus for doing so. The implication being; if we wish to leave the EU then first we must ratify the EU Constitution, which contains an exit clause that will enable us to do so.

This argument, to be blunt, is arrant nonsense, this fact however does not stop this misunderstanding being pressed for all its worth.
Link to the earlier letters in this particular debate in the Scotsman, but Dr Cooper makes the correct case when he says;

“We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU.

Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU”

This is the point which is missed; at present the EU derives its power form the member states, through their treaties, if (god forbid) the Constitution is ever ratified, then it will derive its power from that constitution.

Lord Justice Laws explains the difference between a treaty and a constitution

“There is a categorical difference between a treaty and a constitution. A treaty is an exercise of power by sovereign States. A constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power.
This brings me, then, to the meaning of constitution. In what does a constitution
consist? Stripped to the bone, I think that a constitution’s minimum characteristics are twofold. (1) The constitution consists in the laws which define who shall be the ruler of the State, and what are the legal relationships between ruler and ruled; and (2) there are no laws superior to those which the constitution contains.”

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=140882006

Progressive erosion

Dr DR Cooper (Letters, 23 January) tells us the European Court of Justice exceeded its authority in 1962 in describing the loss of sovereignty of European Union members as permanent and that its view has been rejected by national courts where the question has been posed. He also quotes our joining the then Common Market as authorising its parliament to “contract out” in a succession of treaties practically all its own legislative powers.

However, at that time, the Foreign Office certainly believed the EEC to be “a single permanent coalition”. Hence, presumably, the inclusion in the now resurrected European constitution of a new clause providing for voluntary withdrawal by a member state.

MARY ROLLS, Westerkirk, Langholm, Dumfriesshire

Sir

Mrs Mary Rolls raised an important point about the “exit clause”, Article I-60, in the proposed EU Constitution.

(Letter, January 28th)

Clearly the Wilson government was undeterred by the lack of any such provision in the Treaty of Rome, as it held a referendum to decide whether the UK would withdraw from the EEC. Interestingly, 1975 Cabinet Office papers entitled “EEC Referendum: ‘No’ contingency planning; implications of withdrawal” have just been opened by National Archives.

The government leaflet for the referendum emphasised that even if we decided to stay in Parliament retained the right to take us out in the future, simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. That position has been re-stated by ministers in recent years, and was confirmed by Lord Justice Laws in the “Metric Martyrs” case. We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU.

Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU - which by its crucial primacy claim, Article I-6, purports to become the supreme source of legal authority for our country.

Yours faithfully

Dr D R Cooper

This from appeared in the Scotsman this morning and was sent by e-mail from Dr Cooper with a note above the letter.

Mrs Rolls writes very anti-EU good letters, but I have to disagree with her on this. The editor has deleted “Irrespective of the pretensions of the European Court of Justice” which I had put before “UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired”, but as somebody writing to the Scotsman from England I’m always grateful that they print my letters at all.

The Scotsman
Mrs DA Rolls (Letters, 6 January) doubts whether the Westminster parliament can terminate its contract with the European Union simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. However, that is precisely the basis on which the British people voted to remain in the then Common Market, in the 1975 referendum.

The government leaflet, distributed to every household, said: “Fact No 3: The British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on 1 January, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.”

That remains the case. Indeed, in September 2004, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, told the Commons: “Because we are a sovereign nation, parliament itself will have the final right to decide, at any stage, whether it wishes us to remain a member of this treaty-based organisation.”
UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired. We only have to insist that our MPs do all the work we pay them for, rather than sub-contracting much of it to Brussels.
(DR) DR COOPER

To a certain extent I do agree with Dr Cooper, however I think the point at issues lies in the words “a treaty based organisation” he is most certainly right that the British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market, which in turn means that final sovereignty lies with our parliament. However until or unless they do repeal the act then we must abide by EU rules and EU laws, that is the case at present.

But what about when they introduce or rather re-introduce the EU Constitution, which is still a treaty, but as its title makes clear; it is “a Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”, so in that event it would not be a treaty based organisation but an organisation based on its own constitution.

The point is made clear in the Constitution itself; quite simply because it contains the exit clause, a Treaty between independent nation states does not require such a clause because as Dr Cooper points out in his letter and note “Irrespective of the pretensions of the European Court of Justice” UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired. The UK is thus the final arbiter of its own destiny without reference to any other organisation, this is why none of the other EU Treaties have needed or have indeed had such a clause.

The exit clause at present is quite simple requiring the state which wishes to leave to make its decision known and to wait two years; however just like all other clauses this can be changed and the rules tightened, the constitution allows for such a change, by a simple agreement in the council, without having to reefer the matter back to the British parliament or the people.

The important breach in our own parliament’s sovereign ability would have already been made by the constitution setting conditions on any decisions to withdraw, and once that has happened, it becomes a much simpler matter to change those conditions, until eventually that power is removed completely from parliament.

It is also worth remembering that along the road to a European state the promoters are quite willing to make temporary arrangements, and allow temporary vetoes ect. The important word is temporary the plan is that eventually it will not be possible for a state legally to leave the union.

As was made clear in the FCO paper 1971
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

FCO 30/1048 - 1971

In that event the development of a prestigious and effective directly elected Community Parliament would clearly mean the consequential weakening of the British Parliament as well
as the erosion of “parliamentary sovereignty”.

The process outlined is an exceedingly long-term one, and depends upon
the continuing progressive development of the Community. For a very long
time - almost certainly until the end of the century - the major member states
would retain the practical “last resort” political possibility of succession
(albeit in probable breach of international obligations and with increasingly
damaging economic consequences for the defector). So long as the member state’s
participation is subject to national scrutiny and can in practice be withdrawn,
it may be said that the nation’s status as an equal and independent state
in the international community will be unaffected. Parliament’s power will
likewise survive; if Britain can in practice renounce the Treaty then the
Community laws which are applied automatically within the member states are
seen to depend upon the continuing (and pre-eminent) acquiescence of Parliament
which may in the last resort be withdrawn.

22. Even with the most dramatic development of the Community the major member
states can hardly lose the “last resort” ability to withdraw in much less
than three decades. The Community’s development could produce before then
a period in which the political practicability of withdrawal was doubtful.
If the point should ever be reached at which inability to renounce the Treaty
(and with it the degeneration of the national institutions which could opt
for such a policy) was clear, then sovereignty, external, parliamentary and
practical would indeed be diminished. Eurealist Files

It is time the Consevative Party became conservative again, the Cornerstone Group of 28 MP`s have put their names to A Cornerstone of Policies to Revive Tory Britain. The Cornerstone Blog has this to say about the present direction of the political party, which gives all the appearance of wanting power for the sake of it, I only hope my own MP can overcome his present naiveté and fully support this group, because they offer the only hope for Britian as an independent democratic state.

Sadly, some in our party have come to believe that by aping Blair, rather than studying Burke, by adopting the assumptions of the liberal elite, rather than recalling our Conservative roots, we might become as popular as real Blairites or real liberals. This route is likely to prove as disastrous electorally as it is unauthentic. Why on earth would voters support imitation liberals when they can have the real thing?

“Conservatives must be both brave and authentic; brave enough to undertake the task of challenging the dominant liberal elite in all the spheres and institutions it has so effectively colonised, and authentic enough to regain the respect and loyalty of our natural supporters.

“It is this courageous authenticity that will awaken the interest of all those weary of the current political stagnation.”

From the Blog there is a collection of essays I have only had time to read one, written by Owen Paterson MP “Who governs Britain? Part of is I have reproduced below

“There is a common feeling of helplessness that officials, more than elected politicians, run the country. This must change and Parliamentary Select Committees should have a role here. Employment terms of public servants must be revisited. The perception is that, in far too many cases, when large amounts of public money are wasted or there have been serious failures of duty, no one is found responsible, or those responsible are not punished and in some cases are actually promoted. Governments, whether central or local, must also have the power to terminate the employment of those who fall short of the standards set and should be prepared to exercise that power.

We must get back to the Conservative concept that the State exists to serve the people and that the people are genuinely sovereign. It should therefore be a central tenet of a Conservative government that it cannot delegate its law-making powers to any other organisation or institution. This applies to external bodies such as the European Union and internally, where currently so much effective law is made by officials without political input or control. Law-making must remain in the hands of politicians directly elected by the British people to serve their exclusive interests, affording the people an opportunity to remove legislators if they do not approve of their actions.

It is ludicrous that over 60 percent of the laws imposed upon the fourth largest economy in the world are created by people who have not been elected and cannot be removed in elections. A Conservative government should regain the power currently vested in the European Union by a fundamental renegotiation of all the existing treaties. Central to this would be the removal of the supremacy of the European Court of Justice and other international courts, including the Court of Human Rights. This would entail the withdrawal from the Convention on Humans Rights and the repeal of the Human Rights Act which give excessive powers over British citizens to those who have not been elected. All existing EU legislation should be reviewed and unless an overpowering case can be made for its retention - in which case it should be re-enacted as British law - it should be repealed.

Parliament should not only be supreme but in respect of the actions of British citizens or legal entities in the UK, no institution other than a British court should have jurisdiction over them. In the application of law, British courts should be supreme, headed by the House of Lords which should be the sole, final arbiter of law. Furthermore, no British institution should have the power to levy fines or other penalties on citizens, without their having recourse to a court of law. As to our relations with other countries, we should look to normal government-to-government treaties”

At last some of our elected representatives are actually beginning to realise the present direction of travel along the internationalist road, will lead to the eventual destruction of this country as an independent nation state along with our democracy and are prepared to do something about returning the sovereignty to the people of Britian.

From Anne Palmer
EU judges implement the rejected EU Constitution
The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has implemented a very important part of the draft and rejected EU Constitution by allowing the European Commission to decide on penal code questions.
Until now the questions of the Court case penal code could only be regulated by intergovernmental cooperation leaving the sovereignty by the national parliaments. The 25 governments agreed to include penal code questions in their draft constitution so that the penal code part of a law could be regulated the same way as other parts of a law.
This basically means that the Commission as the main rule establishes a proposal which will be decided upon by a qualified majority in the Council where a Member State no longer has the right to veto.
This system was formally rejected by the French and Dutch voters when they returned the proposed Constitution. The European Court has now rejected the referendums and has implemented it anyway. By doing this the judges are in breach with the principles of law and order - and e.g. the Danish Constitution.
The Danish voters have never transferred penal code powers to Brussels. The verdict from the European Court can only be legal in Denmark if it is approved by 150 of the 179 members in the Danish parliament or is sent for approval in a referendum.
The Danish High Court and all other Danish authorities are obliged to disregard the European Court verdict. It is null and void in Denmark, since it is an illegal decision outside the community competence.
The Danish government should now inform the European institutions and the other Member States about the EU Court’s breach of law and the consequences the Danish government will have to take in order not to breach the Danish constitution.
See the court verdict below.

Website: Amendments proposed during the European convention

Report: The court verdict

Germany’s top court blocked Berlin’s extradition of a suspected al Qaeda financier to Spain, ruling on Monday that a key instrument in the European Union’s campaign against terrorism was unconstitutional

The Federal Constitutional Court ordered the release of Mamoun Darkazanli, a German-Syrian fighting his handover under an EU arrest warrant, a new instrument the court said Germany had not implemented correctly.

The ruling could wreck the warrant, one of the bloc’s most significant security initiatives since the September 11 attacks in 2001 and introduced last year to speed up the handover of suspects and boost cooperation in the fight against terrorism.

Darkazanli, a businessman with dual Syrian and German nationality, has been in custody in Hamburg since last October.

He has been accused by the United States of financing al Qaeda and was investigated by German authorities for links to the Hamburg cell that led the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. He has not been charged in Germany…

However, the dual national could not be extradited since German law prohibits the handover of its own citizens.

The court argued that the warrant infringed rules governing freedom from extradition and said Germany’s implementation contravened basic rights.

Without a new German law incorporating the EU arrest warrant, Germans could not be handed over to other countries, the court said.

This is a lot more important than it appears to at first sight, the point being that the German Constitution Court is ruling on its acceptance of the supremacy of EU law over state law. It is in fact denying the commonly accepted idea that EU law is supreme to state law; the court is reserving the power to itself to make the finale decision and not recognising the ECJ as the final arbiter in these matters. By declaring the European Arrest Warrant unconstitutional the court has made it absolutely clear that it and not the EU is in charge of what happens in Germany. This if replicated throughout the EU would unravel the whole concept of EU law.

The FCO says on this subject:

Without primacy of EU law, Governments could use national laws to get around common trade rules and standards. Without primacy, we could not guarantee a level playing field for British business in Europe or common standards for British consumers. Without primacy, we could not have turned to the European Court of Justice to overturn the French ban on British beef.

Primacy of European Law is not new. It was already well established as a central principle of the single market well before the UK joined the EEC in 1973 and has been reflected in UK law ever since.

No international organisation could function if domestic law undermined treaties. Whether it’s the WTO, the UN, NATO or the EU, no international organisation could function if its members used national laws to get around international commitments. Once made, agreements with other nations must be kept in good faith and domestic law must respect them.

The European Court of Justice defends those rules. The ECJ decides whether countries have broken the rules. It interprets the laws agreed by the national Governments, reaches judgements and can impose penalties. In recent years the Court has reached verdicts including upholding bathing water rules and penalising toxic waste dumping.

Well it seems the German Court for one is prepared to sand against this argument and because it has done so there can be no supremacy of EU law, either all states accept it or none, if the final arbiter of law lies within the state then it cannot by implication lie with the ECJ.

This case has been on my watch list for some time because the outcome would have serious implications for amongst other things the EU Constitution, which states EU law is superior to state law; as the constitution has been passed by both houses of the German parliament it would appear to be a problem that would need addressing should the Constitution be resurrected.