The commission is not expected to mention the New EU council president’s salary in its first budget draft for fear of upsetting the current ratification process of the EU treaty - particularly in Ireland which is to have a referendum.
Does it not strike anyone just how dishonest and manipulative this sort of thing is?
Those who would suggest that the EU is not destined to become the United States of Europe as originally envisioned by the founding fathers of the project, might like to answer one simple question. If that were not the case, then why on earth do we continually have new treaties thrust upon us? No sooner than one treaty has been ratified but they are working on the next one, in fact there is already a “group of wise men” tasked with studying for the next treaty, even before the Lisbon treaty has been ratified
Are we really to believe the alternative, that the leaders in the EU are so stupid that they cannot write a simple treaty agreement and stick to it, instead of continually being forced to change it by events?
(more…)
The Conservative party are echoing the views of many when they say they want to work to create a different direction for the EU. They say they would like an EU of Nation States, an EU that respects the existing national boundaries and has fewer areas of competence, and an EU that actually adds value, by doing what the states have asked of it better, rather than just claiming it does.
It should however be noted that this has been the professed goal for a very long time, I believe Mr Heath also professed the desire to be in the Project so as best to affect its direction. We have been blessed with being at the top table, at the heart of Europe, on the train, on the bus and making sure that we are not left behind, in order to protect our national interests, ever since Britain first joined.
Yet if we stand back and actually look at the EU of today we will see an entirely different, more encompassing and much more integrated union, than the Common Market we joined in 1971.
(more…)
The British Education Act expressly prohibits political indoctrination by banning the teaching of partisan political views and by requiring that political issues are presented in a balanced manner.
Section 406 of the Education Act 1996 clearly states that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers
shall forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school.
Further if political issues are brought to the attention of school pupils, the authority, the governors and the head are required by Section 407 to take
such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that… they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.
The legal position is thus quite clear: Not only are school teachers required to refrain from partisan political activities in the classroom, they are under an active obligation to prevent other individuals and groups from engaging in such pursuits. The direct responsibility lies with the governing body and the head teacher.
(more…)
The Scottish fishermen are concerned about a proposal from the European Commission. That would allow the Commission to give any unused fishing quota from one country to another.
It is felt that the industry which has already suffered a reduction of more than 50% of its capacity because of the Common Fisheries Policy would be further penalised by this new proposal.
This has led to some complaining that Scotland would be better of negotiating directly with the EU as an Independent member state, and blaming Westminster for not protecting the Scottish fishing fleet from EU legislation.
(more…)
The EU propaganda Minister seems to be spinning a line in her latest post on her blog she implies that the British press is lying in reports about the Council Presidents Plane, Palace and Staff.
The post is not clear about the facts ie, is the press right to state that the president will have a plane, palace and a large personal staff.
Only it seems the press is lying when they report that these decisions were taken at a dinner attended by the Propaganda Minister, who attests that this subject was not raised at the dinner.
(more…)
It is claimed that Britain has no written constitution. We often hear quoted the doctrine ‘No parliament may bind its successor’. Today most often it is used to imply that there are no constitutional obligations limiting Parliament’s power.
If this were true there would be no constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament would be unlimited.
The reality is we do have a constitution which is both written and unwritten, but modern politicians by stressing only the parliamentary convention, which are nothing more than gentlemen’s agreements between the parties have raised those conventions above the written parts of our constitution.
But more than that they have also undermined those very same Parliamentary conventions, governments and parliaments do constantly bind their successors.
(more…)
Well good for Mr Brown fighting for the power to make make our own laws in our own parliament! oddly I thought we gave them that power when we elected them, still if they do not want the power to make our laws one is entitled to ask what possible reason could there be for them holding their posts. Have they never heard of the word NO.
ePolitix.com - PM ‘in EU talks’ over temporary workers
Gordon Brown is reported to be holding secret talks with EU officials over proposed legislation to protect the rights of agency and temporary workers.
The Financial Times revealed on Wednesday that the prime minister was attempting to strike a “behind-the-scenes” deal on a European directive which would provide temporary workers with full pay and conditions after six weeks in the job.
President of the EU Commission is very concerned about Democracy freedoms and the wishes of the people.
EU chief concerned about Zimbabwe election delay
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso says he is very concerned by delays in the release of results of Zimbabwe’s presidential election. He told reporters in Brussels that one thing should be made very clear to President Robert Mugabe and that is that the people of Zimbabwe want change, democracy and freedom.
Kissinger believes EU losing will to go to war
PARIS - The reluctance of Europe’s leaders to risk soldiers’ lives in Afghanistan is rooted in the emergence of the European Union and the decline of nationalism and patriotism here, former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger argued in an essay published Tuesday.
I have not read this essay but if the report is anything to go by perhaps Kissinger has a certain point but then on the other hand the EU is not actually asking us to go to war. Now he know who to call perhaps he is realising there is not much point calling?
Remember the government road pricing scheme that was all the rage last year, but was then suddenly and quietly dropped for no good reason. Well I can confidently predict that it will soon be removed from back burner.
News today EU Transport Ministers gave their final approval for the Galileo satellite navigation project almost ensures that I am right, because the road pricing scheme was the intended method of raising cash for the project.
Both the BBC and the Guardian report on the WTO rulling that the EU Bannana import regime breaks international trade rules. Because the rules block imports from Ecuador.
But this cannot be the EU argues that when our press point out the EU has rules governing bannanas that they are perpetrating a myth.
Recipients of extremely handsome pensions from the EU, that is former Commissioners and MEPs, do not have to declare their pecuniary or any other interests when speaking in praise of the European project. It is worth recalling that the EU has the right to withdraw that pension, should any recipient make a statement that could be deemed to be against the interests of that organization. I don’t suppose they have ever done that to a former high official, not even when Lord Dahrendorf, a former Commissioner, spoke his many words of criticism.For all of that, if a research assistant has to declare his or her employment outside the House of Lords, handsome pensions from the EU cannot be seen as irrelevant to the matter in hand.
A new report of a study for the WWF this morning detailing the windfall profits to power companies from the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) the EU’s flagship market-based mechanism for a progressive reduction of carbon emissions.
Power companies in Spain, Italy, Germany, Britain and Poland are all set to make massive profits from their gifts of free emissions permits. The trick is these companies can pass on the costs of the emissions permits based on the trading figure even though they did not buy the permits in the first place.
The figures are staggering, the companies are set to make 71Billion euros profits, British supplies are set to make between €6 and €15 billion Germany between €14 and €34 Spain between €1 and €4 billion Italy between €6 and €9 billion and Poland €2 and €9 billion.
The idea behind the scheme is that it delivers additional revenues to low carbon forms of generation and they are a benefit because they do not incur any additional costs themselves by having to purchase pollution allowances.
A further benefit to reducing carbon is that increased prices to the consumer will cut demand for power and also boost the sales of energy efficient measures.
Even more good news for power generators was released this morning when Carbon Positive reported that the prices of EU carbon allowances have seen an upward trend over the past month, climbing 13 percent since a low point in early March. Prices are now at their highest levels since the early days of January.
I am probably missing something important here, but I am quite sure that if our old government - you know the one we used to elect to run this country,- came up with a hair brained scheme that penalised us the consumers and incidentally the voters, whilst at the same time rewarding the main polluters, in order to reduce carbon so that we can all save the world. Ignoring the fact that no matter what cuts we do, or do not make, will make not the slightest difference, because the overall world production of carbon will increase, because countries like China can produce as much as they like, if our old government were to come up with such an idea, there would be a massive political price to pay, come the next election.
It cannot therefore be an unconnected factor, that the EU, by not having to face the voters, can do anything is likes without any political fallout accruing to itself. And of course we are all supposed to applaud the EU for taking such action and happily stand by and see our industry hobbled on the world stage, in the cause of equalising our relative standards of living.
Technorati Tags:
Power companies, carbon emissions, ETS, EU Trading
A strange thought process is alive and well in Nulabour, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is just the latest to conflate basic negative human rights with a governments duty to protect its citizen or subjects in our case, the concept of universal human rights and the later added concept of state donated social rights.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has stated that it is “A Fundamental Right not to be a victim of terrorism”
I wonder is it truly the case that we have fundamental right not to be a victim, we can dismiss the terrorism part because in reality it matters little to nothing to the victim if the attacker is defined as terrorist or bank robber.
But can we really claim that there is a basic human right not to be a victim?
When I hear a politician proclaiming the cause of human rights I feel it is time to check my wallet and hide behind the nearest tree, the claim of basic human rights has become the calling card for all sorts of disparate groups making all sorts of derisive claims ;
Abortion must become a basic part of the human rights, Access to Quality Higher Education in Science and Technology is a. basic human right. Access to safe and secure housing is one of the most basic human rights According to the UN, basic human rights are violated when countries cut off Internet access.
And when you hear the words from the mouth of NuLabour politicians they usually mean we are going to infringe on your basic rights (as is the case with Smith). The reason for this is the modern politician is more inclined to propose the concept of universal human rights, than they are to recognise human rights which are firmly grounded within the nation state.
Not that I would oppose the ideals of universal human rights as proposed by Islamic scholars in the 8th century (all human beings must have the right to life, property, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, family and honor) A basic right applies to all humans whatever their nationality creed or colour, all have the right to life the right to support themselves and the right to defend themselves the right to free speech. I believe we could all or should all sign up fully to that concept. I believe we can recognise universal human rights because they are basically the same as our own human rights which have developed over the years.
However that is not to easily dismiss nationally based human rights, especially our human rights because those are the rights that protect us from our own government.
In this instance our human rights were to protect people as individuals from abuses by the state. They were to limit the risk that legitimately elected, i.e. formally democratic, governments might commit crimes and cruelties in the name of majority rule.
This one of the reasons why our politicians would wish to transplant these limitations on their powers with the more political elite friendly version that developed on the continent.
This version of perceived rights as a sort of grant given by the state as a form of fulfilling its obligations to the society. Among these obligations was also the duty of the rulers to protect the citizens and to take care of them in times of need or deprivation.
Rights understood in that way, were not to protect individuals from the government but to be realized through the government of an active rather than passive state. This vision of rights was embodied in the French revolutionary constitution of 1790 as well as the second Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1793 and in the social legislation that spread throughout Europe in the in the late nineteenth century, and in its latest manifestation in the EU Charta of Fundamental Rights.
But when the term universal human rights is extended to include social rights that in reality mean someone has to pay for some others rights, then it cannot so apply to everyone, hence social rights gifted by government must be firmly rooted in the nation state an applicable to only those who pay for them.
In Britain for instance we have the right to free medical care at the point of use, but at the point of use, implies that the medical care offered by our National Health service is not in fact free, in fact it obviously is not a free service, we pay for it from our tax.
So we are all paying for our national health service, if you omit the last part, the paying part, and open our NHS to anyone based on the concept of universal rights it is a nonsense. Just because we do not pay for the service at the point of use, it is not an open door policy that the rest of the world’s population may use the same service. To argue otherwise is to argue that we owe the world free medical care. It might be a basic human right to own property but is it a basic human right to be gifted property in the form of free housing, within the nation state we have decided that no one should be without adequate housing, can that really be extended to anyone in the world who happens to come here legally or illegally.
The concept of social rights, which has served as the basic underpinning of the welfare state cannot be extended to universal human rights because we pay for those social rights. So although we can openly accept the concept of basic universal rights those rights cannot include social rights.
But anyway I have digressed, we do have the right of self defence, or we used to have the right of self defence but as argued by Max Weber that a central feature of the modern experience was the successful expropriation by the state of the “means of violence” from individuals.
In the modern world, in contrast to the medieval period in Europe and much historical experience elsewhere, only states could “legitimately” use violence; all other would-be wielders of violence must be licensed by states to do so. Those not so licensed were thus deprived of the freedom to employ violence against others. This of course is now used to imply that we do nor even have the right to use violence to protect ourselves, we have all heard of instances where the victim of a violent attack has responded by meeting violence with violence and had ended up in court as a consequence.
It is a very large step from the point of self defence to the point of having a basic human right not to be a victim, it rather smacks to me of the state usurping the right to self defence and then failing its duties to protect and using that failure to infringe further on our basic rights i.e. suspected terrorists must have less protection from the state than the rest of us, but the law will apply to all of us, because who know who will turn out to be suspected of terrorism the definitions of which are manifold and seemingly arbitrary, in fact one EU commissioner has stated it is a terrorism to protest if the that protest becomes violent.
The other point about the about the EU Charta of Fundamental Rights is that far from being as advertised a universal set of human rights it is human rights in the national sense because it sets out the rights for EU citizens against the EU intuitions and members states. It retains the power for the EU to overturn any of the Rights included in the interest of the Union. And worse the rights it offers are self contradictory that will only become clear if challenged in the ECJ, for instance:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression
Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
The first two rights above do not slot neatly into the third, if one has the freedom of thought conscience and religion then a Christian Bishop would not be forced to employ a homosexual youth worker, or fined for not doing so one of the rights which are said to be fundamental must give way to another in which case how can the right be fundamental.
Elmar Brok MEP, EP Rapporteur on the Enlargement Strategy, sees a high degree of agreement with regard to its future implications.
The EEA model also offers a visible political and economic added value for ENP states but also for example with respect to their internal security. In addition, the EEA model provides an enormous flexibility as an intermediate stage between the previous neighbourhood policy and full membership. At the end of this process, a far-reaching transfer of the EU acquis can be possible, such as in the case of Switzerland or Norway, Brok concluded.
The EU is to invest in operations of spas in the Asia-Pacific region by training up to 1,000 spa therapists over the next two years.
The programme has two key objectives. The first is to improve the business potential of 50 spa operators from each of the four participating countries by providing spa services that conform to European standards of spa operation.
The second is to enhance business relationships between spa operators and travel agents in the participating countries, in order to increase spa visits by European travelers.
I suppose they will tell us they need to spend this money to protect EU Citizens. But I cannot see what benefit it can be for British taxpayers to assits turism projects in the Asia-Pacific region. Perhaps EU Eletes spend their time in spars in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, but do the majority of the rest of us have any money spare for the air ticket.
The EU has also given another a €61million grant to the Philippines.
The money is to help towards funding a series of reforms recently planned by the Philippines government for the health service, better protection of human rights and efforts towards finding peace with Muslim rebels.
The EU Propaganda Minister has now updated her Blog to cover yesterday’s announcement of a further Plan D initiative.
From the measures undertaken so far with Plan D and the measures intended with this new proposal one can safely conclude that all them are propaganda initiatives.
But according the spin Plan D was regarded it as a starting point for a long term democratic reform process.
The Commissioner says - The Plan D projects have confirmed for me what I already felt to be true: when they are consulted on complex political issues citizens will not only respond – they will demand more. Plan D has shown that European democracy should and could be founded on an active European citizenship. There is clear demand for measures to strengthen and expand political dialogue on European issues. It is clear that deliberative and participatory democracy can usefully supplement representative democracy.
It would seem then that EU Democracy is going to be developed along the lines of deliberative democracy and deliberative polling, which the EU calls participatory democracy.
Deliberation has long been considered an essential component of genuine democracy.
deliberative democracy is rooted in the ideal of self-governance in which political truths emerge not from the clash of pre-established interests and preferences but from reasoned discussion about issues involving the common good. In a representative democracy this would entail an ongoing open debate with our representatives on policy matters rather than just leaving it to their individual preferences, the policies would evolve not from the party machines but from a public debate.
Unfortunately within the EU context this means an initial acceptance of the undemocratic methods so far employed to create the European Union, and turning a blind eye to the fact that the institution would not exists in the first places had we the choice in the matter.
If one takes a step back it is easy to see why the EU is so keen on the idea of a deliberative democracy; its debates are easy to control from the centre, it will set the agenda for debate, it will control the forum for debate, only those issues desired will be debated and it creates the semblance of democracy without ever having to actually face the voters. Thus leaving the decision up to the technocratic centre on whether to implement any of the proposals emanating from a debate.
The power at all times remains within the control of the centre.
Deliberative Democracy implies that citizens would be allowed the chance to take the reins of state. however, in reality it is an illusion.
William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, wrote in 1693:
Let the people think they govern, and they will be governed.”
Taking a … random sample of the electorate and transporting these people … to a single place. Immerse the sample in the issues, with carefully balanced briefing materials, with intensive discussions in small groups, and with the chance to question competing experts and politicians. At the end of several days of working through the issues face to face, poll the participants in detail. The resulting survey offers a representation of the considered judgments of the public.
So essentially it is polling after a period of attitude adjustment because the EU will only offer a balanced view from an EU perspective.
Unless there is a way to curb and control politicians within a system then all the talk in the world will not make it democratic. Deliberative democracy and deliberative polling aims to pacify citizens, not leash politicians.
Being permitted to talk about politics is no substitute for genuine democracy being permitted to vote when your vote can be ignored is no substitute for democracy, and that is all the EU is offering a substitute for democracy.
Technorati Tags:
Democracy, Plan D, genuine democracy, deliberative democracy
The opponents of party democracy
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||
| By N2H | ||||||||||||||||||||||
eurealist.co.uk
