eurealist.co.uk

The Swedish military has accused French soldiers of torturing civilians during the EU-led Operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2003, one of the bloc’s first joint missions.

Five years ago, the European Union sent some 1,500 soldiers to DR Congo as part of a UN mission to take action against the bandits marauding the north-eastern part of the country. The troops were there to protect the civilians.

Report MONUC

Technorati Tags:
Swedish military, French soldiers, torturing civilians, EU-led
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Debate on Quaequam Blog
Which claimed the Constitution was 95% the same as the previous treaties.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts.

I will go into this a bit later, but first I would like to put to bed the difference between a treaty and a constitution - a treaty is the expression of sovereign power, a constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power, i.e. without sovereign power you cannot exercise an expression of that sovereignty by making a treaty.

Things now get a bit complicated because we have a situation with the European Project where sovereign states make a treaty between themselves to pass a proportion of their sovereignty to a supranational third party, that treaty then becomes the constitution of the third party. The founding treaty of the UN, the WTO, the Council of Europe etc. fall into the same category, as they all become the constitution of the third party.

Now it begins to get very complicated because in the case of the EU unlike the other international organisations the power does not remain at all times within in member state, whereas with the other organisations it does or to be honest is has so far. In the UN for instance the power to veto any proposal always stays within the member state.

The basic difference is in the foundations of the Project the framers of the Project constructed a supranational, not an intergovernmental, set of institutions, the EU is what is known as, path-dependent, in that all the institutions of today were there in embryo form in the original treaties constitution of the Project. The path and the basic direction and the end result of the project are all predetermined and any differences which can be observed are nothing more than temporary opt outs or temporary delays.

When one starts to talk about percentage change it should be remembered that only slight changes to clauses can make a great deal of difference to the meaning and the following actions that will result from the commitment made by our government when signing the treaties.

As illustration only: the Maastricht treaty states: Thanks to EU Referendum

The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.

This is changed slightly in the Amsterdam treaty and again in the Nice treaty, by the time of the Constitution it has become a different animal from a very vague provision in Maastricht, this has firmed up substantially:eventual framing of a common defence has become the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy and “might in time” has become “will”.

The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

You have asked several time in the comments what are the major difference between the previous treaties and Lisbon/Constitution there are so many that it would be impossible to list them all here, but the real major change is the Constitution and Lisbon both fundamentally change the basic structure of the EU and its relationship to its member states.

Its laws and its Constitution are made superior to those of the member states. Please do not fall into the trap of arguing that EU law has always been superior to state law it has not, because it has never been in any of the other treaties.

The EU becomes an actor on the international stage in its own right and is invested with the power for the first time to both join international organisations such as the UN and to make international treaties in own right.

The Council of the EU becomes an institution of the EU and is obliged to act in the interests of the EU first.

Our own parliament is obliged to consider the interests of the EU.

Our nations foreign policy is weakened considerably in that we mat not take any action without first consulting our partners in the EU with the intention of ensuring that the EU`s interest is promoted.

The reason we should have a referendum on this treaty is because it radically changes our own Constitution, this is not a Eurosceptic myth, but a fact which is proven by the Irish having to hold referendum, because it is written into its constitution that changes can only be made after holding a referendum, also the French have just recently voted to change their constitution to allow for the introduction of the Lisbon treaty.

Sorry this was so long, but I was struck by your contention that EU sceptics were guilty of a logical fallacy, something I knew to be wrong and I wondered how you could have reached that conclusion, you did so by making the basic assumption with the original post, that the Constitution was 95% the same as the treaties, it is not, it is radically different and as the Lisbon treaty makes all the institutional changes that were in the Constitution it too is radically different. After ratification we will be in a totally different EU with totally different balance of powers between the supranational and the national governments.

Technorati Tags:
treaty, constitution, European Project, Council of Europe, referendum, The EU,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Security Council Seat Lord Malloch-Brown Eureferendum

I have been pondering this for a couple of days, and I am saddened that my first real post for a very long time should be to question one of the icons of our fight to regain our sovereignty both from the EU and our own political class.

Whilst I have always greatly admired the work being done by the best EU sceptic blog by miles, and have no desire at all to question the knowledge of those who write EU Referendum. I do find the odd occasion when something in a particular post sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. Not wrong of course on the basic facts, but on the interpretation of those facts. I fully understand that for me to even question this blog is akin to a stickleback nibbling at a pike. However:

One such post was written on Tuesday ” Is This Really News”

Apparently there is problem with the MSM coverage of the Lord Malloch-Brown comments on the possible loss of our seat at the UN.

The major point appears to be that when he made these comments last October he was not then a Foreign Office minister, but was an exalted employee of the United Nations, in fact he was a Deputy General Secretary of the UN at the time. It is reported that he told Brussels diplomats that the EU was heading toward one single seat within the UN institutions. I think heading is the important point to make, because the statement was qualified, when he said: “I think it will go in stages. We are going to see a growing spread of it institution by institution. It is not going to happen with a flash and a bang.” And on a personal note, he apparently added that he hoped that it would happen “as quickly as possible. I’m a huge fan of it.”

Now to be honest I really cannot see where EU Referendum is going with this one, a senior employee of the United Nations has made it clear that at some time it is very likely the EU would be heading towards one single seat on the UN council. Of course as we all know the EU cannot even apply to join the UN at this stage, but if the Reform Treaty is ratified that will all, change and we will find ourselves in a totally different game.

Some idea for the reasons become clearer when we read the following:

“Presumably the rush to produce this non-story was triggered off by Wee William huffing and puffing and demanding explanations. It might be better for the lad if he got down to some serious work in politics (or leave the Front Bench) and read the new Constitutional Reform Treaty. There is plenty there about the common foreign policy though nothing about permanent seats on the Security Council.”

So is this then an attack on Mr Hague, rather than a serious comment about the possibility of our eventually loosing our seat on the UN Security Council. If so I do find the argument somewhat lacking in the usual depth of though I have come to expect from this blog, the post continues:

“He might ponder over the fact that it is the Security Council that decides who can and who cannot have a permanent seat and there are countries that have been clamouring for some time:

That might well be the case, but has a senior UN employee taken the trouble to visit Brazil, India, Japan, and make a speech extolling the virtues of their becoming a member?

The real weakness in the argument can be seen by the following:

Mr Hague might also like to ask himself (or somebody else) how a junior member of the British government who is not the British representative at the UN is going to affect a reform in that organization?

But when those comments were made Lord Malloch-Brown was not a “junior member of the British government” was “an exalted employee of the United Nations” He obviously was not then speaking as a British Minster but as an employee of the UN.

It is quite clear that EU Referendum has a thing about the Shadow Foreign Sectary, but I do not find this particular post has any authority, especially if you consider that this blog is in the forefront of EU Sceptic thought and it’s writers are fully aware that the way the EU increases its influence over time, is exactly the way described by Lord Malloch-Brown “the EU was heading toward one single seat within the UN institutions” “I think it will go in stages. We are going to see a growing spread of it institution by institution. It is not going to happen with a flash and a bang.”

There are much better posts on the blog about the problems with the Conservative position on the new treaty, Mr Hague and the treaty itself. Some of which directly conflict with the thrust of this particular post

“Joined at the hip” for instance:

The closeness between the EU and UN was reaffirmed as recently as March when the UN deputy secretary general gave a speech to the EU parliament in Strasbourg. He then acknowledged that the EU was “one of the great supporters of the United Nations and a believer in the strength of multilateralism”, declaring that “the European Union and its institutions are superb partners of the United Nations”.

The “closer union” is facilitated by the the new treaty, which gives a legal personality to the EU. This allows the Union specifically (Point 42) to conclude formal agreements with the bodies such as United Nations.

Security Council seat

Sir - The replacement of our seat on the UN Security Council with a single EU seat (report, August 7) would seriously hamper our ability to form alliances with other non-EU nations or take unilateral action to defend British interests.

We could even find ourselves engaging in a conflict opposed by our own Security Council representatives. Recent conflicts have shown that EU governments often have conflicting views on security issues.

The UN Security Council is rightly criticised for its inability to take action. Imagine if one of its seats needed to take a straw poll of 27 governments before it came to a position. The UN and the EU would be dragged into chaos.

Syed Kamall MEP (Con), Brussels

Well sort of half right, but the last paragraph sets the stage for even further intergrationalist measures, because that is exactly the argument that will be used to push for more QMV and less “interference” from 27 governments.  

A Tangled Web posts that 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. So it would seem to add to the evidence that the long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars which of course rather undermines the human Co2 global warming scam.

Also this morning Tim Worstall links to a Guardian article by their Science editor Robin McKie who puts the boot into Channel 4 The Great Global Warming Swindle, which is described as a documentary which says claims that carbon emissions are causing global warming are ‘lies’ and that attempts to debate the subject are being suppressed.

In order to undermine any effect this program might have on the global warming debate and yes to close down the debate, McKie places the suggestion that the ICCP might have got it wrong, alongside other well known conspiracies. “Princess Diana was killed by Nazis; 9/11 was the work of the US government, while the manned lunar landings were hoaxes filmed in TV studios. To this list of internet-fuelled daftness, we can now add a new plot: that the world’s scientific community is not just wrong about global warming, but is collectively lying when it says industrial carbon dioxide emissions are heating up the planet”

Then misinterpreting as Tim Worstall points out the recent ICCP summary for policymakers as. “Given that the world’s climatologists have just published a careful, sober report showing global warming is real and worrying,” (The full report is still a couple of months away, currently being rewritten to make sure it accords with that summary.)

McKie says “the programme is an astonishing foray into the debate. Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4’s problem. Yet a couple of important points do emerge from this nonsense and we should not make the mistake of ignoring them.”

Before launching into a virulent Ad Hominem attack

“To back his case, director Martin Durkin interviews climate-change deniers including Phillip Stott, Piers Corbyn, Nigel Calder and Nigel Lawson who reveal their antipathy to the idea we are altering Earth’s weather systems.

These names are scarcely unknown. Listeners to Today and viewers of Newsnight have been hearing Stott and the rest promote their views for years. Indeed, they have dominated and distorted the whole global warming debate, a point stressed by Alan Thorpe, head of the Natural Environment Research Council. ‘These people are never off the radio or TV, yet now they claim debate is being suppressed? It is preposterous.’ So what, we might ask, is the deniers’ problem? Examine their movement and you see a common thread: most proponents are elderly, only a few are scientists and several have pronounced pro-market views. And hereby hangs a tale.”

Later in the article McKie tries a little bit of double think when he writes;

The problem is that denial - in all its ludicrous glory - makes it easy for us to gloss over genuine concerns about society’s right reaction to global warming and carbon emissions. And that is what is wrong with Durkin’s programme. It opts for dishonest rhetoric when a little effort could have produced an important contribution to a critical social problem.

Society’s right reaction is most likely reliant on the acceptance of real scientific proof and not on a political controlled UN summary of the state of scientific knowledge. More so when the last two summaries issued by the ICCP in 2001 and 1995 have both been comprehensively shown to be biased towards the human causes of global warming and the Mann Hockey stick graph on which the ICCP based its claims last time out, has been proved to be totally unreliable.

But the morsel which I found most instructive was Mckie`s attemt to justify himself against any suggestion of double standards, when he says

“I refuse to feel guilty because I have a family holiday in Spain and then write about the threatened glories of the Great Barrier Reef.” As “air travel accounts for only 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions”

If we are to accept this basis then why on earth should we in Britian feel guilty at all, as according to government figures in Britain humans contribute only 0.06% of total world output of Co2.

It also seems according to Eureferendum that the EU is doing its bit for global warming by claiming a bit of Hollywood glamour. Because the Oscar winning Al Gore documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” drew on some results produced by the EU-funded EPICA environmental project.

The EU fisheries commissioner Joe Borg says that the EU fisheries policies that encourage the throwing away of thousands of tonnes of dead fish are “morally wrong” and must be reformed.

According to the United Nations Worldwide, 8 per cent of the catch is discarded, but in some waters around Scotland and Ireland it reaches almost 90 per cent. Up to 880,000 tonnes of fish are thrown back, dead, into the North sea annually.

A recent study found the Dutch beam trawler fleet discarded almost half its catch. This cost it €160m ($210.1m, £108m) annually in future revenues, 70 per cent of the value of its annual landing.

I suppose one shouldn’t carp we have after all only been screaming about this stupidity for so many years that even the Conservative party managed to produce a report on better fishing practices of course Mr Cammaron has dropped the idea and consigned the report to the dustbin along with many other conservative policies. But now when the EU fisheries policy has brought the industry to its knees and practically destroyed stocks of some fish the commissioner finally is thinking about doing something. But he is expecting a tough fight when he presents his plans which seems to include reducing the fishing fleet.

I do not know if this actually makes sense, many fish are thrown back because they would take the boat over its limit, I will wait to see what Eureferendum has to say after all Dr North does know of what he writes.

Full story FT

I know a lot of Scots would take issue with that headline but I will try to explain why I belive it to be true.

But first I would like to explore why some Scots are calling for the break up of the United Kingdom.

Brian Adam is the MSP for Aberdeen North

Independence is a state of mind.

We can seek to be totally independent and reject any responsibilities for others. We can aspire to share rights and responsibilities, to be co-dependent and participate in society with others. Or we can be dependent and leave the responsibility with others, reserving the right only to complain.

I also want Scotland to accept its responsibilities, as well as assert its rights, by recognising that we share this world with others with whom we are co-dependent. Hence I want us to engage directly with other countries through membership of the EU and organisations such as the UN.

Dr Ian McKee is the SNP candidate for Edinburgh Pentlands.

The most successful nations in Europe are not the largest. The advantages of economy of scale are more than offset by other factors. But when you look at the reasons for success of small to medium size countries, you may at first be confused. This country is rich in oil, that country has few natural resources. One successful country levels high taxes whilst yet another prospers by providing a low tax, business friendly environment. The consistent formula for success does not seem to exist.

Yet it does. Because what all these countries have in common is their independence. They can speedily make decisions regarding tax, investment or social policy that suit their own circumstances. Norway invests its oil revenues in a fund for future generations because that is what its citizens wish to happen. The Republic of Ireland has invested heavily in the education of its people so that it now attracts hi-tech investment from overseas.

Graeme McCormick is the founder and senior partner of Conveyancing Direct and the SNP candidate for Dumbarton.

‘In 1974 I was a student at Edinburgh University when Gordon Brown was University Rector. Then, Norway and Scotland had a similar standard of living. At the 1974 elections, Scotland was within an ace of voting for Independence. Today Norway is internationally recognised as having the highest standard of living in the world. Scotland is 21st.

There is only one significant thing which separates us from Norway and Ireland: That is Independence. They have it; we haven’t!

It seems the idea is that Scotland feels independence will allow it to become co-dependent and participate in society with others, through membership of the EU, but that is not independence.

The SNP says it is a strongly pro-European party, but wants national governments to retain control over many key issues like their countries’ taxation, spending, and constitutions.

They argue that with Independence, Scotland will at last be able to represent itself to the world on international bodies like the United Nations.

The problem is that the SNP is painting a picture of the EU which is very far from the truth; “There is no comparison between the centralist structures of the UK, and those of the EU, where member states co-operate but retain their sovereignty”.

The SNP are ignoring the EU Constitution, the EU claim to represent its members in international bodies like the United Nations, the WTO and Council of Europe. They are, by claiming that Scotland would have a greater voice in the EU, ignoring the fact that the EU is not about retaining the sovereignty of Nation States, everything it does takes it in the opposite direction towards a centralised structure.

The SNP claim that Scotland would have seven votes in the Council of Ministers and would be able to nominate a European Commissioner. Just exactly what power they think seven votes would give them they do not say, but with the increase of QMV within the EU councils seven is not a very big number and the Scots will find themselves outvoted on every occasion. Working together is all very fine but it only assists a nation if the working together is in the direction it wants to go, if not, then working together forces it to accept rules a and regulations that do not benefit the nation. Their Commissioner would of course have to swear allegiance to the EU so would not be representing Scotland, in any event in the EU Constitution there are plans to reduce the size of the Commision and Scotland like the rest of us would find they were only represented on a rotational basis.

The main problem with the SNP argument is that they are pointing to dissatisfaction of rule from the south, from the Westminster Parliament. Even ignoring the fact that for the last three parliaments the Scots have dominated Westminster with every major position of power in the British state being filled with Scotsmen and the majority of the British Cabinet being Scottish. Dissatisfaction with rule from Westminster is misplaced because most of the powers of Westminster has now been passed to the EU level, so if the Scots find themselves dissatisfied the way forward cannot be through the same institutions that have created that dissatisfaction. If they were calling for independence so that Scotland could take more power back from the EU it would make a great deal more sense than their present position. What exactly are they hoping to achieve by breaking apart the union.

The SNP points to two countries they see Scotland aspiring to emulate, Norway and Ireland, yet Norway is not a member of the EU, it has retained its independence and therefore its sovereignty, Ireland on the other hand has given away both its independence and its sovereignty, but has been and still is, the recipient of massive EU subsidies. The Scots might like to contemplate the fact that as Britain is a major contributed to EU funding they have contributed to Irelands success because it is their taxes that have been and are being spent in Ireland to make it the success it is.

Ireland is a dependant state of the EU, the Scots say they do not want to be dependant yet a recent calculation estimates that just 163,000 Scottish taxpayers, from a population of 5m, make any net contribution to the British exchequer. The rest receive more than they pay out in reliefs, subsidies and benefits.

Even Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, admits that Scotland has the highest unemployment, the highest proportion of income support claimants and the lowest business survival rate in Britain. Of course he blames the UK for Scotland’s poverty.

Scotland is not just dependent on the UK state; it is state-dependent full stop. A full 50% of Scottish GDP is spent by government. The state employs one Scot in four. To have any hope of creating the thriving independent economy of which they dream, an SNP government would have to impose economic policies Scotland has rejected at every election since 1945 and which the party dare not even propose, Scotland has not voted for a party prepared to cut taxes since 1955.

I would argue that Scotland far from wanting independence is prepared to become a minor actor within the United States of Europe, with less power than it presently has to determine its direction, and it will remain a dependant state within that union. None of the SNP arguments hold up to scrutiny because they are not addressing the real cause of their problems which are basically the same problems we all face and that is we can no longer determine who will be our rules who will make the laws and what direction the laws or our country should take, those decisions and that power has been transferred to the EU. If they really do want independence and really do not want to be dependant, they should address this real problem and then face up to the fact that without support for either the British Taxpayer or the EU Taxpayer Scotland and the Scottish people will have to make their own way in the world, and that will require doing a lot more than pumping oil out of the sea and waiting for the support cheque to arrive.

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

From Anne Palmer 20.4.2006.

Without doubt, one of the most important jobs of a Prime Minister and His/Her Government is to ensure that the Country is always ready, able and willing to defend itself. To ensure their military staff has adequate supplies and that the forces that have to use them, can rely on them at all times. This has not always been the case. The forces equipment and supplies should not be open to EU Competition Policy for we need to be sure that “trade secrets” remain secret, available, and most of all, reliable. This makes absolute common sense. We may not always be able to rely on ‘our friends in the European Union.’ The most expensive is not always the best, and the cheapest often turns out to be the most expensive in the costly loss of life. Even our own suppliers in the last war sabotaged bombs at times. The lives of our forces depend on their training and equipment, and fairly recently there was a problem with supplies when our forces were (about to go) on active service.

The Security and Defence of the State is probably the one that lends itself least of all to such a body that is the European Union. We are in NATO and also take part in the United Nations, but neither of those two make our laws or rule every nook and cranny of our lives. The EU however does and now also requires a Common Policy on both Security and Defence and Foreign Policy, and that is a step too far. A Country must at all times be in complete control of its own defence and foreign Policy. If it places itself in a position that it cannot defend itself, or its forces are not kept up to strength, more ordinary people will die as a result. Britain was unprepared for war in 1939 for the warnings went unheeded. We had had the war to end wars in the First World War hadn’t we? If we listen to the politicians now there will never be another war. We are more likely now to have another war than we have been in the last 50 years. We should be prepared for that war regardless of what the European Union wants, or dictates, for the responsibility is our Prime Ministers.

Javier Solano, the would be European Foreign Minister has written, ”No one would have dared to bet that the Union would soon have direct responsibility for crisis management, have a military committee and military staff, be responsible for military operations, have an armament agency, a solidarity clause in the event of a terrorist attack and, above all, a common vision of the threats we face and appropriate responses to them—in other words a genuinely European security strategy. However, these are now tangible realities in the European Union”.

In ”Open Europe” briefing note it states, ”One area of EU policy where Tony Blair’s legacy will be most noticeable in the future is defence. The Government has long argued that its decision to integrate the UK’s capabilities into a common EU defence would not undermine NATO or the UK’s relationship with other allies such as the US.

But the American Congress’ recent decision to block UK access to cutting edge US technology (the ITAR waiver) over fears of leakage’ to other European allies and the loss of the contract to make engines for the joint-Strike Fighter show that this strategy is fast becoming unstuck”.

Whether it undermines NATO or not is not the main importance of this decision. It is a totally wrong decision for this Country. It will not prevent wars, but may have the opposite effect. The European Union even if it becomes one state or a United States of Europe can never be equal to or like the United States of America, for Britain is an Island race, we are not even attached to mainland Europe, and unlike America, we do not all speak the same language, understand each other’s ways or customs, and to even socialise with them, we need an interpreter.

This article has been brought about because of my concern over the proposed treacherous (I will go further, and say treasonous) Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill for it gives far too much power to one person and the right to remove any laws, even our long standing Constitution of our Country and, as you are aware, according to R v Thistlewood 1820, to destroy the Constitution, is an act of treason. The Bill, should it go forward in its present proposed form into an Act,

would also provide the opportunity to ratify the EU Constitution, or what ever name it ends up with, thus going against the wishes of the vast majority of people here in the United Kingdom. Why would any member of our Parliament want such powers? This is not the Germany of the 1930’s and the rise of the Third Reich, even though we vowed no one should ever have such powers again, they have already been taken, for in a real emergency there is the Civil Contingences Act.

Eventually, if we remain in the EU, slowly at first and under a weak leader, full authority for the control of everything to do with our forces will go to the European Union. Our present Prime Minister agrees to a European Defence Agency, a Common Policy and a European Foreign Minister, the next one may not. What then?

But who will eventually be in charge of our Nuclear weapons? There is a desire for one finger only on the button. The first time I came across that need was from Monnet’s speech before the European Congress of the German Parliamentary Social-Democratic Party February 25^th 1964. Part of the speech was blocked out in the English version, but I happened to also have a copy in French. My translation may be a little rusty but I am sure you will get the gist.

“It is evident that it will be dangerous to contemplate a proliferation of national nuclear forces which goes against Europe’s unification, which separates instead of unites and which creates some dangerous equality.

The situation will be altered fundamentally when our Countries resources create a district authority capable of administering and controlling the nuclear mediums.

The Multilateral organisational power when this is transformed and takes place in a European Community Force in association with the American Force. It is in effect essential that the United States and Europe are in an equal partnership. It is a matter that together and without ambiguity that the world is namely convinced of their association and that together they try to find the organisation of peace and a peaceful coexistence with the USSR.

It is essential to be clear to everyone in the East and West alike that our goal is not the increase of nuclear forces, but on the contrary the establishment of conditions which will gradually make it possible to eliminate them. Indeed, the achievement of European unity and equal partnership with America are not only vital for the economic future and the defence of the West; they are also indispensable to the organisation of peace.

While the federal German Republic is already united to the European Community, and participates with other countries of the West in a common future, the Germans are still divided. The tragic problem of the divided Germans remains in its entirety. It must be solved. The reuniting of the Germans in the European Community is a necessity for the maintenance of peace.

I cannot and will not forget that, only five years after an appalling war, former enemies met to build together a common future in equality and freedom. Their common destiny took the name of Europe. Since that beginning in 1950, great progress has been made. The work of transformation has continued; the institutions set up are at work; the union of Europe is being established on foundations which every day grow firmer”. (That reminds me of Commissioner President Barosso, on the 31^st March 2006, when he said, “Firstly, the Community is a creation of law. It is this, at the end of the day, which has allowed the successful and peaceful unification of our continent, when all previous attempt to unite Europe by force have failed.”

I will end it with Monnet’s own sentence, for this theme runs throughout the whole speech); “The United States of Europe has begun to be built”.

In the European Parliament on the 14^th Feb 1984 a Mr Faure said, “The European Union means political union, and political union of course means a federal structure, in other words the United States of Europe. Like the United States of America? Just so. Although this is a timid document, it is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe that we can and must authenticate today with our votes.

………. As the currency is the essential fuel of the economy, so a nuclear strike force is the supreme guarantee of security. A proper European defence entity should have a single decision –maker for this ultimate weapon, in other words a President of the United States of Europe. It is unthinkable that control over nuclear weapons should be shared among twelve countries (as they were then) and entrusted to twelve key-holders. It is no less unthinkable that the countries which are most advanced in those technologies, of which my own country is one, should jealously guard a monopoly of them, of arrogating to themselves a suzerainty totally out of keeping with the spirit of a community of free and fraternal peoples: fratres consanguinei”.

“As high technology in industry conditions economic and social well-being, so high technology in armaments conditions diplomatic influence. The future President of the United States of Europe alone, and he alone, will be able to make his voice, our voice, heard, to ensure that Europe’s security does not depend on decisions over which it has absolutely no control. He will assume the authority necessary to secure a halt, world wide, in the senseless arms race and escalation or procurement budgets, etc” END.

Although we have been told many times that there is not going to be a European Army, European Police force, a European Foreign Minister etc, (Romano Prodi helpfully reminded us, “You can call it what you like. You can call it Margaret. You can call it Mary Ann. It is still a European army.”) I have taken the trouble to write this down because I want to bring to the attention to those in power, the dangerous path they tread, for I am going back even further than Monnet’s speech, to one Klaus Fuchs, a man that my own father met when Fuchs was held in Stafford Gaol. (Just to clarify, my father worked as an instructor there) Klaus Fuchs was a brilliant scientist, born in Russelsheim Germany and when Hitler came to power he made his way through France to Britain. In 1943 he was sent out to the United States to work on the atom bomb. He was also in touch with a Soviet man and it was to him the Fuchs gave drawings of the “Fat Man” bomb, (the bomb that the Americans dropped on Nagasaki)

Back in the UK he worked at Harwell Atomic Research Centre but, unbeknown to the British, he was still in touch with his Soviet contact. It wasn’t until 1949/50 that he was suspected of having given classified nuclear weapon secrets to the Soviet Union. He betrayed all those in America and the UK that had trusted him and had given him sanctuary out of reach of Hitler during the war. He was tried at the old Bailey but had pleaded guilty because he hoped his confession would help atone for his wrongdoing although I understand he did expect the death penalty. He wasn’t hung for his treason, but other Countries had the opportunity of learning the Bomb’s secrets much sooner because of his treachery. How quickly the world can change and how quickly a friendly Country can change into an enemy? We can never be sure, or be too careful. For most people, the giving away to another country the plans to new weapons would be treason, the same can apply to the giving away of the bomb itself.

There is great danger in closer and deeper integration into the European Union for we are at a point where the Union is implementing new Agencies that were in the EU Constitution that was rejected by two Countries and Governments are accepting this tactic. One of the things that might be a temptation to give away is control over our nuclear weapons through a European Common Defence Policy or European Common Defence Agency. I have no idea if the Prime Minister’s legacy is to complete the new State of Europe, for if that is his legacy he has to destroy his own special Country to do it, and it is indeed ‘special’. Not only would the £44 Billion a year cripple us, so is the loss of our great industries and essential services through EU Competition Policy, which only the UK appears to be applying.

We are already vulnerable as a country. The tide is turning financially-deliberately so I believe- so the time may come when the cry goes up, “we will have to join the euro”, or, “we cannot survive on our own” etc. This Country is not for sale and it is not for giving away either.

I will conclude by looking at the EU Constitution through the eyes of Martin Ortega and a couple of the comments he makes about them, in which he points out Article 1-40 (1) The Common security and