eurealist.co.uk

In order to set the scene; a few years ago Steve a friend bought a villa just outside the little Andalucia town of Competa which lies a few kilometres from Nerja up in the mountains on the edge of the Natural Park of the Tejeda and Almijara mountain ranges.

When they sold their business and house in England Steve and his wife moved out to Spain to take up permanent residence. Steve, unlike many ex-pats has immersed himself in the local culture, and being a amicable gregarious sort of chap has cultivated a good relationship with the locals, learning the language and the local traditions.

My wife and I have visited them on several occasions and have taken great enjoyment at hospitality of the region and its people, with Steve as our guide we have spent many pleasurable hours exploring the surrounding countryside the little whitewashed mountain villages and partaking of the local foods and wines.

Unlike Britian there is a strong local community feeling in the area, perhaps something to do with the relatively recent civil war and its aftermath where in parts of the region constant fighting continued between the resistance movement and the Civil Guard until the 1950s. Immediate evidence of this communal spirit can be seen when one enters any of the local supermarkets, most goods on the shelf originate from a very localised area, although some international goods are available they will generally be found tucked away at the bottom of the shop, almost as is the owner is ashamed to display any evidence of his own disloyalty.

On one visit Steve suggested a picnic outing to an abandoned village about 12 kilometres away, it was known locally as the lost village and had been abandoned in 1949 after the conflicts and reprisals that the inhabitants suffered forced them to leave the village, some of the survivors going to Competa and others to Frigiliana.

Every family tried to rebuild their lives as best they could, but every time they returned to visit they saw how their beloved village was turning to ruins, into a ghost town. Steve had heard about the village because the parents on of a bar owner he knew in Competa had been born there.

The day we visited it was just a collection of ruins, not one house was intact, most had been reduced to rubble, the streets were overgrown with scrub, with the only real evidence of any care, found in the little church yard, that was if not pristine at least it showed some indication of recent human activity.

My wife has just returned from holiday with our friends Val and Steve and the real highlight she tells me was a second visit to “the lost Village”, although it had been abandoned it had not been forgotten, everyone took a small part of El Acebuchal away in their hearts, especially the children, who watched bewildered as they and their families had to leave their houses, the place they all called home and the places where they played. Those same children dreamt of their return and seeing the village again, as it once had been.

In 1998 Virtudes and Antonio “El Zumbo” returned to El Acebuchal with the intention of making that dream a reality. The restoration of the first house was completed in 1998 shortly after my visit, and by the year 2003 mains electricity arrived in the village, the process speeded up by the creation of a neighbours association.

In 2005 the streets of the village were repaired and on 25th June of that same year, they reinaugurated the village of El Acebuchal with it’s first Mass in 50 years.

The village has now been fully restored but now 4X4 and tourism have replaced the mules from Torrox, Frigiliana and Nerja which were the life blood of the village as they were loaded up with fruit, vegetables and fish and taken over the mountain passes to the villages of Fornes & Jallena, where the mule handlers sold their goods and exchanged some for flour.

El Achebuchal was the meeting point and Inn to rest the animals, whilst the men ate, had a glass of aniseed liquor and commented on their journeys. Today the Inn has been reinvented as a tapas bar where according to my wife the lady of the house cooks some incredible real traditional dishes, which thankfully do not even nod in the direction of internationals cuisine.

In this the 50th year of the European Project instead of celebrating the fact for propaganda purposes, it might be better to reflect that the rebuilding of this village would have been possible in any case but has been achieved with the assistance and the grants from the EU Structural funds. The Junta de Andalucia financed the restoration of the villages to encourage rural tourism run by local people and The Junta de Andalucia (regional government) has received substantial resources from EUStructural Funds (ERDF, Cohesion Fund, ESF) to promote development policies.

So for me personally although I am delighted that the forsaken ruined village in the Andalucian mountains has been restored to something greater than its former state and the families who were forced out of their homes can now benefit for their hardship, and it can be reasonably argued that this is evidence of the good the Union can do. It is still a bittersweet thought that the money we are sending to the EU so that the people we do not elect can decide what can be done with it, might be better retained at home and spent on our own infrastructure our own hospitals our own villages which are dying because of lack on investment opportunities available to the people we do elect.

Is it not self-defeating for GB PLC to allow our money to be spent on increasing the tourist industry in rural areas of Spain and compensating Spanish families for grievances against the Spanish government when there are deserving villages in Britian that could do with some investment.

Technorati Tags:regional-assemblies, the-eu
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

A European Vision for the Oceans and Seas: A ‘Roadmap’ for the Motorway in the Sea. Anne Palmer 16.6.2006.

I have always hoped that the people we elect into ‘power’ in this seafaring nation of ours, and yes, pay their wages, would take on the mantle of responsibility in looking after our own Common Law Constitution and our way of life, preserving it for us and for future generations. To even contemplate allowing sovereignty over our seas and coastal waters to pass permanently to such a totalitarian organisation as the European Union is abhorrent to me. The Union wants power; it wants total power and the ability to speak for all the nations, with one voice in everything. To give what will eventually amount to total governance of this Country by ‘foreigners’ is a violation the Oaths taken by our Members of Parliament.

J C Horrocks Secretary General of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) wrote to Mr Richardson at the European Commission that the “ICS understands that the EU Review may look at the position which the EU might adopt towards the future of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea. (UNCLOS), a matter which of course would have implications in other policy areas such as economic exploitation rights, fisheries and defence, in addition to shipping. UNCLOS is in effect a ‘constitution of the seas’, balancing different political, economic and environmental interests, and generally accepted worldwide.” However, from what I have read in the EU’s consultation paper, I rather think the EU will go their own way regardless of UNCLOS and expect or ensure that the UN alters the law of the sea to accommodate THEM. As regard the statement that, “UNCLOS is in effect a constitution of the seas”, the Union has overridden the Constitutions of 25 nation states and soon to override the constitutions of two more states, so why on earth should they take any notice of UNCLOS?

Article 73 of the United Nations Law of the Sea states that, “The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention”. We have already given away sovereignty over our fishing to the EU although the Conservatives were allegedly trying to claw that sovereignty back, but that policy has now, I understand, been abandoned under the leadership of Mr Cameron.

Article 90, “Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas”.

Article 91. “1, Every State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they are entitled to fly. There must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship”.

2. “Every State shall issue to ships to which it has granted the right to fly its flag documents to that effect”

Under Article 119. (b) European Community, The United Kingdom recalls that, as a Member of the European Community, it has transferred (not shared) competence to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention.

(c) The Falkland Islands (We must remember the lives lost in fighting to keep The Falklands under the ‘competence’ of the United Kingdom, I see no point in transferring that competence over the seas and oceans therefore to the European Union)

With regard to paragraph (d) of the Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention by the Government of the Argentine Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands and over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering authority of both Territories, has extended the United Kingdom’s accession to the Falkland Islands and to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom, therefore, rejects as unfounded paragraph (d) of the Argentine declaration.

(d) Gibraltar, With regard to point 2 of the declaration made upon ratification of the convention by the Government of Spain, the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, including its territorial waters. The Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering authority of Gibraltar, has extended the United Kingdom’s accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement to Gibraltar. The Government of the United Kingdom, therefore, rejects as unfounded point 2 of the Spanish declaration.”

Please note also, “The Spanish Government, upon signing this Convention, declares that this act cannot be interpreted as recognition of any rights or situations relating to the maritime spaces of Gibraltar which are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 between the Spanish and British Crowns. The Spanish Government also considers that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is not applicable in the case of the Colony of Gibraltar, which is undergoing a decolonization process in which only the relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly apply.

In mentioning the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 also brings to mind the Treaty of Union 1707 between England (Wales) and Scotland and what the two separate countries agreed as regards flags and shipping before consenting to the Treaty.

On 21.5.2006, in the Telegraph, Justine States commented that “Plans to upgrade the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) into a fully fledged coastguard are buried in a document revising European Union (EU) transport policy that is due to be published next month”. “They come on the back of other “empire building” moves by Brussels, including a planned EU army, a common foreign policy and diplomatic service, and a European-wide policy on energy. The Commission says a European Coastguard would help to enforce maritime legislation. It would have the authority to intercept shipping across all of Europe’s traditional maritime borders, which could require that crews be armed-and raises questions of national sovereignty over coastal waters”

“Lloyd’s list, the daily newspaper which covers the maritime industry, accused the commission of attempting to build up a navy by stealth in a leading article last week”.

“The concept of a European coastguard has a federalist charm about it that causes eyes to brighten instantly among gatherings of Europhiles, tired of endless discussions about fish or agriculture, “ the news paper said “In a way, it is a European navy, by the back door.”

Julian Brazier, the shadow shipping minister, said, “This is very worrying news. It seems the empire building ambitions of Brussels know no bounds. The drift towards an EU Navy must be stopped.” Mr Brazier has tabled a parliamentary question demanding to know the Government’s position on the EU coastguard plans.

“The plan would be a betrayal of the maritime history of our country and tens of thousands of men and women currently involved in our maritime sector,” he said.

There was more to Justin Stare’s excellent Article, it is clear to me at least that the EU was never and isn’t just about ‘sovereign independent states simply working together’ as we have often been told by our Government, it is all about the making of one big state. The EU will not stop until it has authority permanently over all matters and yes it is a complete betrayal by our politicians. A betrayal of trust to us and of all future generations, for they will have to live through whatever the EU has in store for us and there is not one EU law that we or future generations can alter. Correction, unless we get out of the Union now, before it is too late by either repealing the European Communities Act or deliberately and expressly abrogating the Treaties.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) has every right to be worried for there are implications in many other policy areas such as economic exploitation rights, fisheries and defence in addition to shipping in all its forms and of course we must not forget the master of all, the environment. UNCLOS is and has been indispensable in balancing different political, economic and environmental issues and has generally been accepted world-wide and reviewing UNCLOS is a not only a highly sensitive issue it is an important issue (or should be) to all of us.

From, The influence of Europe. ICS and ISF have voiced their concern about the ambitions of the European commission to speak at IMO on behalf of its 25 member nations, believing that it would be contrary to the development of well-considered regulation to reduce the scope for independent action by national experts who are currently free to debate the details of new rules on the basis of their technical merits.

While the European Union can only increase the politicisation of debates at IMO, and damage the quality of IMO decision-making. In June, the European Commission delayed asking EU Transport Ministers to make a decision about commencing negotiations with IMO about EU membership, but it is clear that this goal is still being actively pursued.

EU criminal sanctions for accidental pollution.

ICS is very disappointed by the adoption, in July, of the EU Directive on Criminal Sanctions for Ship Source Pollution, which, in conflict with the MARPOL Convention, could criminalize companies and seafarers involved with genuine accidents. ICS is now considering how best to lobby national authorities to ensure that their interpretation of the Directive is line with their international treaty obligations.

ICS is particularly concerned that the EU may seek to affect changes to UNCLOS to alter the balance between the rights of flag states and coastal states, permitting the introduction of measures within Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) that might interfere with rights to freedom of navigation that have been enshrined in maritime law for decades. At another extreme, it is possible that the Review could lead to proposals, such as extending exploration/economic rights, which by their politically sensitive and controversial nature could – in a worst case scenario – have negative implications for the very survival of UNCLOS as a universally respected legal regime.

Graham Watson MEP has stated (8^th Dec 2005) that “Tory MEP’s are so obsessed with national sovereignty they crave that they ignore the global anarchy it spawns”. Well I am not a Conservative and I do not belong to any Political Party or Organisation but I am true to my oath of allegiance to this Country and I would never have ceded one inch of national sovereignty to anyone. Work with others and yes fight and die with them but always, always remain in complete authority (sovereignty) of your identity and country for that is what we fought for once in living memory and what we or the next generation will eventually have to fight for again. The British Dockers did not like the European Union “Ports Directive” and I doubt they will go a bundle on this present proposal either.

The European Commission has introduced a ‘consultation paper’, “Towards a future Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas”. With a cryptic comment attributed to Arthur C. Clarke “How inappropriate to call this planet earth when it is quite clearly Ocean”.

What A C Clarke failed to spot was the fact that the European Union would like control or sovereignty over all of it. These passages are taken from the 50 page Consultation Paper. “Europe’s geography, therefore, has always been one of the primary reasons for Europe’s special relationship with the oceans for from the earliest times, the oceans have played a leading role in the development of European culture, identity and history”. What our friends in the European Union appear not to have noticed at all, is that the same could be said about the United Kingdom. I seem to recall, in the dim and distant past that we ruled the waves, or something like that. To rule them we built our own Ships in our own shipyards. Through EU Competition Policy we lost most of them.

The way forward for the EU: “Principles of good governance suggest the need for a European maritime policy that embraces all aspects of the oceans and seas”.

The EU Green paper states, “it is the leading maritime power in the world, in particular with regard to shipping, shipbuilding technology, coastal tourism, offshore energy, including renewables, and ancillary services. Looking to the future, according to a study of the Irish Marine Institute, the sectors with most growth potential appear to be cruise shipping, ports, aquaculture, renewable energy, submarine telecommunications and marine biotechnology”.

“Shipping and ports are essential for international trade and commerce. 90% of the EU’s external trade and over 40% of its internal trade is transported by sea. Europe’s leadership in this global industry is beyond any doubt with 40% of the world fleet. 3.5 billion tonnes of cargo per year and 350 million passengers pass through European seaports. Approximately 350.000 people work in ports and related services which together generate an added value of about € 20 billion. The perspectives for both these sectors are of continued growth, with world trade volume on the rise, and with the development of Short Sea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea in Europe. Maritime transport is a catalyst for other sectors, notably shipbuilding and marine equipment. Maritime ancillary services such as insurance, banking, brokering, classification and consultancy is another area where Europe should maintain its leadership”.

“The oceans and seas also generate income through tourism. The direct turnover of marine tourism in Europe is estimated at € 72 billion in 2004. The North Sea is the fourth largest source of oil and gas in the world after Russia, the US and Saudi Arabia. The EU is one of the world’s major world fishing powers and the biggest market for processed fish products. While the number of EU fishers has been declining over the years, some 526.000 are employed in the fisheries sector as a whole”.

“Effective decision-making must integrate environmental concerns into maritime policies and give our maritime sectors the predictability they need. At the core of a new maritime policy must be the building of a mutual understanding and a common vision among all the decision-makers and players of the various policies impacting on oceans and seas, including maritime transport and ports, fisheries, integrated coastal zone management, regional policy, energy policy and marine research and technology policies. This means joining the dots between different policies with a view to achieving the common goal of economic expansion in a sustainable manner, which is the key challenge of a future Maritime Policy”.

“European coastal waters posses many opportunities for offshore renewable energy installations. Offshore wind, ocean currents, waves and tidal movements carry a vast amount of energy. Commission projections are that wind power could generate 70,000 MW by 2010, including 14,000 MW offshore. Other emerging technologies include wave energy devices and tidal current turbines that can be deployed on the shoreline and offshore. In all these cases, competition with other users of coastal waters such as shipping or fisheries is possible, while the needs of the local population have to be respected”

“As the European Seaports Organisation (ESPO) puts it, “The EU simply cannot function without its seaports. Almost all of the Community’s external trade and almost half of its internal trade enters or leaves through the more than 1000 seaports that exist in the 20 maritime Member States of the EU.” Moreover, the EU has a policy of promoting a switch from land transport to water transport. As ECSA points out, “in those sectors where it competes directly with other means of transport, shipping remains by far the most energy efficient form of transport”. This is one of the reasons why Short Sea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea will be further promoted within an integrated EU transport system”.

“Under the rules of UNCLOS, it is the country in which the ship is registered which is primarily responsible for their enforcement, the so-called flag state. If the flag state is lax in the application or control of international rules, a “flag of convenience”, it can become the home register of sub-standard ships or irresponsible owners. In contrast, registers which police international rules strictly, and enforce additional constraints, may find that owners transfer their vessels to less onerous registers. This is not a new debate and the dilemma for governments will remain.

But three things can be done:

(1) First, the EC and its Member States should put the full weight of their specific powers, combined influence and external policy instruments behind a policy to improve the performance of all flag states.

(2) Second, new instruments to strengthen the monitoring of international rules on the high seas and their control by port states should be urgently developed using state-of-the-art technologies such as global satellite navigation (Galileo).[1]

(3) Third, an in-depth analysis, with the participation of social partners, should be conducted, in order to identify ways to enhance the competitiveness of ships sailing under European flags.

Policy Making within the EU. “Any form of ocean governance has to take into account the principles set out in the Treaty in relation to policy areas and the distribution of competences between the EU institutions, the Member States, the regions and the local authorities. On this basis and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, consideration must be given to sectoral and regional specificities”

“Work is underway in the EU Military Committee on the maritime dimension of European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). The Council may also wish to consider the creation of a horizontal working group alongside COMAR, which deals with international legal questions, to support the work of COREPER in preparing decisions of the Council on maritime subjects which require cross-sectoral discussion. It might consider how best to organise high-level political input into maritime decision-making in the light of the way work was coordinated among seven sectoral Councils for the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy. Similarly the Parliament may wish to consider how to take account of the need for a more integrated approach to maritime decisions in its internal organisation of work”

The legal system relating to oceans and seas based on UNCLOS needs to be developed to face new challenges. (It rather looks as if they will have to ‘modernise’) The UNCLOS regime for EEZ and international straits makes it harder for coastal states to exercise jurisdiction over transiting ships, despite the fact that any pollution incident in these zones presents an imminent risk for them. This makes it difficult to comply with the general obligations (themselves set up by UNCLOS) of coastal states, to protect their marine environment against pollution.

“The Commission was invited to submit by the end of 2006 a feasibility study on a European coast guard service. (Art 11 of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on ship source pollution and on the introduction for infringements, OJ L 255/11 of 30.09.2005. [Ah recent then?] See also Resolution by the Temporary Committee on improving safety at sea, P5_TA-PROV (2004) 0350, 2004)”.

“The trend on the seas seems likewise to be towards a “Common EU maritime space”, governed by the same rules on safety, security, environmental protection. This could bring increased efficiency in the management of territorial waters and EEZs by Member States and put Short Sea Shipping in the same situation as transport on land between Member States. This would have implications for cabotage within international trade negotiations”.

“Member States already have no option but to cooperate with each other in meeting certain EU or cross-border objectives” “The potential economies at EU level are that much greater. Member States have already recognized this by setting up a range of EU agencies. The growing need to identify, intercept and indict individuals engaging in smuggling, trafficking of human beings, illegal fishing, clandestine immigration and terrorism suggests some urgency for the coordination of existing national assets and the common procurement of new ones”. “The convergence of civil and military technologies, in particular in surveillance of the sea, should also help reduce the duplication of capabilities.”

“Much of maritime policy, particularly where it concerns trans-boundary activities is best regulated on the basis of international rules. So if the EU develops new ideas in maritime policy, it will want to share these with the international community.” “While the EU can thus contribute towards better implementation of international instruments, it should place particular emphasis on using its external policy to establish an international level playing field, (It seems that these level playing fields are all over the place) and ensure fair competition for economic operators. The Commission intends to review how it can use the various tools of external policy for this purpose”. (If international law does not suit the EU, it obviously has ways of making them change to suit.)

“European shipyards, subject to the EC state aid discipline, have been facing unfair competition from a number of Asian countries, as WTO or OECD rules remain unimplemented. In this regard, it is important to use the anti-dumping rules of the WTO to the fullest extent possible”.

The Commission is aware that this Green Paper addresses a very broad range of what have traditionally been regarded as separate activities and policy areas. The idea of conducting an integrated analysis of maritime activities leading to coordinated actions is new.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the time it takes for important new ideas to be fully understood and accepted. In its own work for this Green Paper, the Commission has become aware of how much new ground needs to be covered and how much new expertise needs to be developed.

The Commission hopes that this Green Paper will launch a broad public debate both on the principle of the EU adopting an overall approach to maritime policy and on the many ideas for action. It wishes to base its further work in this area on the views of stakeholders and it intends to spend the next year listening to what they have to say.

The consultation process will end on 30^th June 2007. By the end of 2007 the Commission will address a Communication to the Council and Parliament, summarising the results of the consultation process and proposing the way forward. END.

I hope and trust that this article will encourage those that read it to respond to the consultation exercise and also, perhaps more importantly, to ensure our own politicians are aware of your feelings on this matter. Sing loudly, “Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the Waves”, “Britons never, never shall be slaves”. Lest we forget.

There are set questions in the paper-see below for web-page. Consultation period: 7^th June 2006-30 June 2007. Contributions can be sent to, European Commission-Maritime Policy Task Force, “Maritime Policy Green Paper”, J-99 7/12 B-1049 Brussels. See Green Paper below for questions and guidance.

Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)

http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=257&doc_id=647

International Convention of the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=678&topic_id=258

Convention on the International Maritime Organisation.

http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=771

Maritime Safety Conventions

http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=257

Full consultation Paper on Maritime Policy,

http://www.ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy_en.html

United Nations Law of the Sea.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

The influence of Europe

http://www.marisec.org/news/mariscne/maritext.htm

“The Rose Tinted Glasses of Lord Haskins
by Eurealist at 11:28AM (BST) on May 2, 2005 | Permanent Link | Cosmos
Christopher HASKINS, (Board member), Britain in Europe,

Not slow to miss an opportunity to don his rose coloured spectacles, Lord Christopher Haskins tells us in a letter to the Times “May 1, marks the first anniversary of the enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 25 members”.

“Preceding this event, the British public faced a barrage of tabloid scaremongering over the threat of a flood of immigration. Apparently, Britain stood to gain nothing from this event but a horde of benefit scroungers and health tourists”.

Haskins speaking for the fat cats club, otherwise known as “Britain In Europe” says that all this scaremongering has one year proven to be unfounded.

“the outcome is the opposite. British business has benefited from skilled migrant workers who have plugged gaps in a variety of sectors. Of those who arrived last year 83 per cent are 18-34 years old. They contribute to our economy — around £240 million from May to December 2004, according to the Home Office. Furthermore, enlargement of the EU is already building political stability in Eastern Europe and providing new markets for British firms”

Which may or may not be true, depending on whether you believe anything emanating from either this government or the self interested BIE group, both have been known to put a gloss on presentation in the past.

Haskins does not of course offer his view on the reverse side of the debate which is captured by the furore surrounding the EU proposal to open the market in services. 1000s of people took to the streets in Brussels to demonstrate in favour of a Europe’s Social Model. They feel it will be undermined by cheap service labour from the east – made possible by such a services directive. Big business as the members of BIE epitomise might well be happy with an influx of workers who are willing to take what jobs they can in Britain, because it is better than the options that may have at home, but there is also the fact that this large pool of cheap labour from the east can undermine jobs wages and conditions in Britain France and Germany, as in the case of Siemens, when large companies threatened to move eastwards, their employees are forced to agreed to freeze wages.

There is also the point that Spain has recently legitimised 1 million plus illegal immigrants, these people will also have now the legal right to come to Britain; that is not to say they all will, perhaps not many at all. But the decision by the Spanish government to solve its illegal immigrant problem by giving them all amnesty, has been passed onto the rest of the countries because we now cannot stop those people from other EU countries coming to this country, this was not a choice of the British government the had no say in the matter.

In any case not all view the EU through rose tinted spectacles as is evidenced in Poland when hundreds of fishermen celebrated the anniversary by catching cod in defiance of a seasonal EU ban. PAP news agency quoted fishermen’s union leader Grzegorz Halubek saying after up to 500 boats sailed out into the Baltic.

“Our people are more afraid of hunger than any sanctions.”

The crews were complaining in particular about what they saw as discrimination in limits on cod fishing between the western Baltic, home to fleets from older EU members like Denmark and Germany, and eastern areas where Polish boats operate.

Enlargement has brought with it feelings of resentment in some quarters. Germany and France particularly resent the low corporate tax rates in east European countries - the rates were lowered just before joining. This prompted recriminations by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder but then a slashing of Germany’s own corporate tax from 25 to 19 per cent, in order to compete with the new member states.

So even if Haskins is right he has only told half the story, which is much more complicated than he would like us to believe. But the real point of Hasking letter is reached in the final paragraph when he makes a claim for the EU Constitution;

“But the draft constitutional treaty is needed to make enlargement more successful. Without reform of institutions and decision-making processes there is a danger that the dynamic benefits of enlargement will be jeopardised by stultifying political bureaucracy. The treaty will provide solid foundations for the new Europe”

Yes the Constitution will provide solid foundations for a new EU, but is it an EU we want to be part of?

Do we want our government to be an unelected and unaccountable Eurocratic nightmare in Brussels? A government that is already costing billions each year, a cost that is set to double in the next two years.

Big business and BIE of course are grateful to the EU, it is that organisation which has set the tax rules which will cost the British treasury upwards of 20 Billion pounds in back corporate taxes. Because the EU says international companies must be able to claim tax relief on any losses their overseas subsidiaries make against any profit they make in Britain, but the British government cannot claim tax on any profits those companies make overseas. It is the EU which says the British government may not stop people from other member states coming here, yet allows Spain to pass on their illegal immigration problem to the rest of us.

When we go to the polls on Thursday it is best to place our vote with the knowledge that which ever party forms the next government, they will not be able to do anything about the real problems facing this country. We are in effect electing a group of super social workers who individually will help their constituents in any way they can, but they will be impotent against the overarching rules of the EU. The one thing that will make this situation worse than it already is, would be to ratify the EU Constitution that will casing in stone all the problems of the Union, and making our own elected Members of Parliament even less relevant they already are.

EU Referendum

the facts are that, from 7 February, the Spanish government is to allow any foreign national who can show that they have a job contract and has lived in the country for more than six months to obtain legal residency.

The amnesty is expected to benefit between 800,000 and one million immigrants who work in the underground economy - about six percent of the labour force – largely originating from Africa and developing countries.

What may be a liberal and humane policy for Spain, however, has, in the words of Otto Schily, the German interior minister, “consequences for the rest of Europe”. This is because, once granted official residency status in Spain, immigrants will then, under the EU treaty rules, acquire rights of “freedom of movement” throughout the rest of the member states.

Thus, what previously would have been an internal decision for Spain now affects the rest of the EU, by virtue of the “open border” policy of the Community.

Full Post

Caribbean Net News: Outside View: The EU, Castro and freedom:

“Outside View: Caribbean Net News: Outside View: The EU, Castro and freedom: “>The EU, Castro and freedom
by Frank Calzon, UPI Outside View commentator
Thursday, February 3, 2005

WASHINGTON, USA (UPI): At a time when President George W. Bush is reaffirming America’s commitment to freedom around the world, the European Union, at the behest of socialist Spain seems to be ready to turn its back on political prisoners of Fidel Castro’s communist dictatorship in Cuba.

The leaders of the EU countries met recently to consider, among other things the recommendation of the Spanish government that they cease inviting Cubans dissidents to their national day celebrations at their Havana embassies. The policy of inviting dissidents dates to 2003, when Cuba arrested and sentenced to long prison terms some 75 peaceful advocates of democracy who Amnesty International identified as prisoners of conscience. Prior to those arrests, a few governments were already inviting members of Cuba’s democratic opposition to the celebrations.

Castro’s immediate response was to freeze relations. Cuban officials would no longer attend any functions at the European embassies on the island, and Cuban diplomats around the world refrained from carrying out most normal diplomatic communications with governments to which they have been accredited.

In political terms, Castro understands ‘the power of the powerless,’ which is to say that if a powerless majority gains recognition and organizes, it can force change. So Castro ignores no opportunity — however petty — to prevent recognition of Cuba’s powerless majority. In this instance, he petulantly demands Europeans make a choice: Deal with him and protect their Cuban investments or invite his democratic opponents to their diplomatic receptions. When Spain’s new socialist government was elected, it decided to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq and to acquiesce to Castro’s demands. Spain carries inordinate weight in determining European pol”

More:

FROM: Philip Benwell MBE
National Chairman
The Australian Monarchist League

TO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

I am taking this opportunity to write to you with regard to two matters
which are of concern to people here in Australia as well as to those in all
of Her Majesty’s other Realms.

The first matter relates to the proposed Ten Minute Rule Motion by Mr
Jonathan Sayeed M. P. on the issue of the retirement of the Sovereign and
the choosing of Her Majesty’s successor by the House of Commons. Very few
people, particularly in the Realms, are aware that few Motions of this
nature ever proceed further and will undoubtedly be unduly influenced by the
media sensationalizing of this particular subject. May I emphasize that The
Crown belongs to all sixteen Commonwealth Realms and whatever the House of
Commons may debate, let alone legislate, will affect all of Her Majesty’s
subjects outside the Kingdom. It is for this purpose that the Statute of
Westminster requires: “that any alteration in the law touching the
Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter
require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom.”

The second matter of concern is with regard to voting in the proposed
Referendum on the European Constitution. Many hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of British citizens who reside outside of the United Kingdom
will be affected by the decision of the Referendum and we ask whether
consideration is being given to allowing ALL British citizens a vote
wherever residing in Britain or not?

Yours sincerely,

Philip Benwell

If in order to attempt to control the outcome of the Referendum on the EU Constitution, Tony Blair were not to allow postal voting for those British people living abroad, either in the EU countries or not, then he would in fact be denying British people a say in their own constitution, and the future of this country.

The Spanish government have rightly in my opinion, said that in Spain the vote is a matter solely for the Spanish people, and are not going to allow British living in Spain to take part in that referendum. Without a postal vote these and others throughout to world will be disenfranchised, if at the same time the government also allows other non British EU nationals to vote in our referendum, which has been mooted, then a close vote will not have a popular mandate from the people.