Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
How can you police "fear'?
Career first and Democracy can Die?
The threat of a backbench rebellion was raised after Ian Davidson, a Labour MP and long-time eurosceptic, wrote to the prime minister asking him to listen to his “own people rather than the European political and bureaucratic elites”. His letter followed a decision by pro-European unions to support a motion for a referendum at next month’s TUC Congress because the treaty threatened workers’ rights.Mr Davidson claimed to have widespread private support, including ministers, but said the MPs had yet to speak out because “it is not a career enhancing move”. The link came from a well linked summary on the Reform Treaty in the US Jurist site, linked here, it is some small comfort that Europe's edging towards non-democratic tyranny is at least being followed by some with a knowledge of the concept of the fragility and importance of individual rights and the desperate need for the ballot box as a veto on the abuse of power. Euractiv has more on the MEP press release covered earlier, here. They believe political issues will now be raised!
Britain's economic abyss
Negotiation by Diktat
Brok the parliament’s former foreign affairs committee chair, in an article to be published in the next issue of the Parliament Magazine is adamant that the IGC’s mandate, reached by EU leaders in June, should not be compromised.
“For the European parliament, it is of the utmost importance that the mandate for the IGC is fulfilled as agreed,” says Brok.
“The parliament will not demand any politically motivated changes to be made, but we will also not accept any demands by member states to revise the given mandate.”They then continued, apparently, with suggestions as to changes each would like to see being made or clarifications undertaken. Excellent, for if one substantial change is made from the mandate then the whole house of cards will, of course, come tumbling down. This Brok person, supposedly a close associate of Angela Merkel and part of the dreadfully federalist and overbearing EPP block in the parliament, to which Cameron's Tories still belong maintaining it as the largest block to our nations continuing cost, has been pretty high profile of late, so here are some Google results for the benefit of my own research and my treasured readers. Elmar Brok - EU Parliament Profile; EPP Press Release on his appointment to Reform Treaty Conference; Stop moaning or leave the EU, Brok tells Britain; Britain's EU opt outs humiliating.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Former Labour Home Secretary calls for a referendum
Foreign Office Lying - Oil and Fish
The Sun, 29 May 2003
The proposed EU Reform Treaty states:
==================================Difficulties in the supply of certain products (energy) 84) Article 100(1) shall be replaced by the following: "1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy." =================================== Solidarity in an energy crisis can only mean sharing the misery, in other words 'allocation' of supplies. If Britain at the time of crisis were 90 per cent self-sufficient in energy and the rest of the EU were some 90 per cent short of supplies, sharing the misery would put the UK at a shortage of maybe 89 per cent along with the rest of the Continent! That to me represents a loss of control of our North Sea oil and gas just as surely as we were illegally tricked out of our fisheries, which is now so long past that it can be brazenly stated as an EU resource very early in the draft Treaty, rather than tucked away on page 74 of 145 as may be viewed from here. The fisheries loss is repeatedly rammed home: Article 3 on Page 46: Article 3 1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas: (a) customs union; (b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market; (c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro; (d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy; (e) common commercial policy. 2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope. And on Page 53: Agriculture and fisheries 45) In the heading of Title II, the words "AND FISHERIES" shall be added. 46) Article 32(1) shall be amended as follows: (a) the word "fisheries" shall be inserted after "agriculture"; (b) the following sentence shall be added at the end of the paragraph: "References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term "agricultural", shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector." Christopher Booker has had the most to say on this topic down the years, 'Britain and Europe: The Culture of Deceit', linked here, is particularly apt, I quote: "Another revealing measure of how deeply the culture of deceit had now set in was the curious story of the common fisheries policy, and the Heath Government’s response to the crude ambush set up by the Six to ensure that, as part of their price of entry, the four applicant countries, Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway, would have to hand over to the Community their fishing waters, the richest in the world. (all documents cited on the CFP are from PRO files in FO 30/656-9)
On the very day the applications went in, June 30 1970, the Six hastily approved the principle that member-states should be given “equal access” to each other’s fishing waters, under Brussels control. The point was that, because this had now become part of the acquis communautaire, the body of existing Community law, the applicant countries would have to accept it as a fait accompli. Within a few years, as everyone knew, national fishing waters were due to be extended out under international law to 200 miles. Because the waters belonging to the four applicant states would then contain most of the fish in European waters, this would give the Six an astonishing prize.
In fact the Six knew their new fisheries policy was not even legal. Among the Foreign Office papers released in 2001 was an internal Council of Ministers document, dating from June1970, which shows how desperate the Brussels lawyers had been to find some article in the Treaty of Rome which could be used to authorise such a policy. There was none. The policy therefore had no legal justification, and other papers show that the Foreign Office knew this too.
But so determined was Mr Heath not to offend his prospective new partners that he decided not to challenge them. Britain would simply accept the illegal new fisheries policy, even though this would mean handing over one of her greatest renewable natural assets and would spell disaster for a large part of her fishing fleet.
Gradually the British fishermen got some idea that they were about to be sacrificed, and in the closing months of 1970 various MPs for fishing constituencies wrote to ministers asking what on earth was going on. They were fobbed off with evasive replies. Indeed, as the recently released papers show, civil servants eventually worked out a careful form of words, intended to reassure the fishermen that “proper account would be taken of their interests”. But behind the scenes, as a Scottish Office memo put it on November 9, ministers were being told how important it was not to get drawn into detailed explanations of just what problems might lie ahead for the fishermen because, “in the wider UK context, they must be regarded as expendable”.
The following year the White Paper promised that Britain would not sign an accession treaty until the Common Market’s fisheries policy was changed, Geoffrey Rippon repeated this promise to Parliament and to the Tory Party conference. But in November Mr Heath realised that time was running out. Unless he accepted the fishing policy as it stood, his plans for Britain’s entry in January 1973 would have to be abandoned. He instructed Rippon to give way, and when Rippon was questioned about this in the House of Commons on December 13, he answered with a straight lie. He claimed Britain had retained complete control over the waters round her coastline, knowing that this was simply not true. So barefaced was this deceit over fishing rights that successive governments and fisheries ministers would continue to obfuscate the truth of what had been done for the next three decades."Thanks to some very detailed research in Denmark, which I linked from a posting on this blog last evening, doubts now also hang over Edward Heath's role as EU negotiator in 1961. Is it not now time for the Conservative Party to admit their role in this entire sorry history and put forward a new way ahead for Britain and its relations with Europe. This Reform Treaty which I have now fully read is so entirely unacceptable for any independent nation state that full debate can surely be no longer shrugged aside, especially with the FCO offering mostly untrue juvenile claptrap on its website to put against the repeated untruth's of Foreign Office Ministers, Miliband and Murphy?
Stoiber for President?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
How the EU became self-financing or 'Sovereignty Lost'
Paper for the 9th Biennial EUSA Conference
31 March – 2 April 2005
Own Resources, and the Creation of a Financial Platform for the EU
Ann-Christina L. Knudsen, Ph.D.
Department of European Studies
The Conservative Party and the EU
Labour revolt strengthens
Monday, August 27, 2007
Greek view of EU Reform Treaty
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Sunday Times editorial finally calls for a Referendum
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The pledge and promise of Gordon Brown
Contact the democracy destroying Labour Party direct
Friday, August 24, 2007
Freedom of movement in the EU
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Supreme ignorance from Jim Murphy - Europe Minister
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
No extradition from Manchester to Exeter!
Monday, August 20, 2007
FCO lying continues
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Foreign Office lies must be exposed
What they really mean is they see negotiations going on in secret, behind a Chinese wall, denying them any access to the process.
Margaret Beckett: They are not.------------------
Margaret Beckett: You say it is on the table. Actually, as far as I know, it is not on the table. We do not know what is on the table at present.
Mr Cash: It is a joke. You do not even know as Foreign Secretary what is going on.
Q17 Chairman: Please show some discipline.
Margaret Beckett: May I say in response to that it is not that I do not know what is going on. It is because nothing is going on.------------------ Mr Cash........
. I would just like to invite you to give some indication as to how it is that you are not in possession of the sort of information that we would have assumed the Foreign Secretary of this country would be in possession of in all other previous negotiations at a similar stage in the run up to a proposed treaty.
Margaret Beckett: You say to me, "We know that there are party to party negotiations." There are not. There have not been. There has been a process whereby Member States were occasionally invited to give some views. There have not been negotiations.
Q23 Mr Cash: You do not know what is going on.
Margaret Beckett: There is nothing going on.
Mrs Beckett at the Foreign Affairs Committee 19/06/07 linked here
NOTE that this minutes have not yet been approved by the Committee.
Q170 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I just made the point that negotiations have been taking place, but clearly not with you.Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but I do not accept the characterisation that they are negotiations. ------------------------ For a report on the new Europe Minister, Jim Murphy's equally disgraceful performance read the posting on that subject from Open Europe blog, linked here.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
EU sugar trade blackmail
The ACP countries which are signatories to the existing EU-ACP Sugar Protocol (SP) are being asked to renounce the current guarantees of the Sugar Protocol -- market access for agreed quantities for an indefinite duration, annually negotiated guaranteed prices and a special legal status.
In return, what they are being offered is enhanced market access opportunities -- but without country quotas, for a short-lived period, at unspecified lower non-guaranteed prices, and at a lower return per tonne.
After an assessment of the EU offer at the ACP Special Ministerial Conference on sugar in Fiji and at the ACP Ministerial Council comprising the 79 ACP States in May 2007, the ACP responded to the Commission to state that the EU offer "is tantamount to a unilateral renunciation of the Sugar Protocol and as such it is totally unacceptable."
Open Europe Treaty Guide
Friday, August 17, 2007
You are about to lose your democracy - YES YOU!
Of course lowering the degree of independence of the ECB is a serious risk as it could lead to a less credible monetary policy. Moreover, if political pressure was to be allowed, smaller countries might end up with an EU monetary policy more synchronized with the cycle of the biggest EU economies instead of a neutral pro-EU development one. In the worst scenario the ECB could be even pushed to follow the political or electoral cycles of the biggest EU countries.This is extremely encouraging for we few remaining supporters of democracy in Europe. If powerful figures led by Trichet can force through a change in the terms of the 'mandate' then surely the anti-democratic elements of the Treaty can also be removed, opening the floodgates to decimation and sending the whole thing back to the Commission for yet another re-think and this time we hope an opportunity to give the citizens the essential element to avoid a tyranny, namely democratic control. The Swiss model is ideal if combined with electronic voting for mass referendums on all substantial matters, as I have been arguing for years both here and on this blogs forerunner.
Financial Crisis - Read Voltaire from 1769
"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one part of the citizens to give to the other.
It is demanded, if it be possible radically to ruin a kingdom of which the soil in general is fertile. We answer that the thing is not practicable, since from the war of 1689 till the end of 1769, in which we write, everything has continually been done which could ruin France and leave it without resource, and yet it never could be brought about. It is a sound body which has had a fever of eighty years with relapses, and which has been in the hands of quacks, but which will survive."
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Conservative policy on the EU
According to the Sunday Telegraph today:
“As a “last resort”, the document says, Britain should legislate at home to “disapply EU regulation unilaterally where we think its is against our national interest”. Such a course of action would set up the biggest conflict between Britain and Brussels since the UK joined the Common Market in 1973.”
Inevitably also huge fines which surely we would be obligated to pay under the various treaties? Is it therefore envisaged that the fines would gather enough outrage that the 1972 act could be scrapped completely?
The idea would be as a final resort if we were unable to negotiate a sensible outcome to use UK Parliamentary sovereignty to define the law in areas of national concern in such a way that EU law and EU Court actions were disapplied.Well this seems to be another example of Conservative Party deliberate confusion as it is obvious that the essence of my query has been ignored. In the very unlikely event of this idea being adopted as party policy, like "in Europe, but not run by Europe"' the idea is totally impractical. The EU would cease to exist if every country were free to "disapply" pieces of the rule book it did not particularly like. I must say I am disappointed to see such a sloppy concept coming from one of that doomed party's better thinkers. The timing of his heightened activities and wrath of Polly Toynbee, however, are much more to my liking! BUT Why oh why are such distractions being thrown up by this supposed eu-sceptic and his party, when the 27 nations of Europe are staring into a non-democratic abyss, on which much more on the posting that follows!
Barth the butcher of Oradour dies. EU impact - NIL
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The lies our diplomats relay
Jim Murphy, FCO Minister on Europe said:
'The idea of a constitution has been abandoned - EU leaders were crystal clear on this in June. The Reform Treaty is different in form and substance. In justice and home affairs, we have an opt-in: we only take part in an EU home affairs measure when it's in our national interest. Having the opt-in protects our national judicial processes.
'The UK has never held a referenda on amending treaties such as Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice. The only national referendum ever held on any issue in the UK was in 1975 - and that was about membership of the EEC. It is right, however, that Parliament debates the Treaty and decides on ratification - just as it did for the Single European Act under Margaret Thatcher, The Maastricht treaty under John Major, and Nice and Amsterdam under Tony Blair.'
Sunday, August 12, 2007
John Redwood proposes 'disapplying' EU Laws
The following is from this morning's Sunday Telegraph, linked here. At first glance it has all the appearances of an electoral gimmick, for it would put the UK in breach of several separate treaty obligations and subject the country to huge fines.
The track record of the present government in meekly coughing up millions of euros fine (does anyone know the final amount and why is it being obscured?) on DEFRA for late payments of the EU farming subsidies , to meet which they neglected other important responsibilities of DEFRA, such as flood defences and possibly it now appears basic maintenance at Pirbright.
I will be putting this point about the fines to Mr Redwood on his blog and will report back here when this idea has been further explained or developed. I quote the portion of that article here:
In a section that seems certain to inflame internal Tory rows on Europe, Mr Redwood argues that Britain's opt-out from the European Social Chapter, which was removed by Labour within days of taking of office in 1997, should be restored. Britain should go further in negotiating more opt-outs, the policy group says, including large numbers of employment and social policy rules.
As a "last resort", the document says, Britain should legislate at home to "disapply EU regulation unilaterally where we think its is against our national interest". Such a course of action would set up the biggest conflict between Britain and Brussels since the UK joined the Common Market in 1973.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Trichet attacks Reform Treaty changes
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Treasures from the Threads - Number Six
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Hague's latest referendum demand
Monday, August 06, 2007
Britain's Commonwealth conflict
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Can Britain remain within the Commonwealth?
The Declaration of Commonwealth Principles, 1971
Issued at the Heads of Government Meeting in Singapore on 22 January 1971
1. The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace.
IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT BRITAIN EVEN TODAY MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT....AFTER THE EU REFORM TREATY IT MOST CERTAINLY WILL NOT.