With Friends like these...

Telegraph | News | With Friends like these...: "With Friends like these... Posted at: 12:40 Still befuddled by the tail-end of flu, I wondered for a moment if the following press release was a parody. Then I read it again slowly, and realised - no, it's just another day on Planet Brussels. The press release, from the think tank 'Friends of Europe', was about a new Gallup opinion poll, that asked whether it would be 'undemocratic' to salvage key parts of the EU constitution, after it was derailed by No votes in France and Holland last summer. Not at all, the poll found: 'By a wide margin of 77%, [respondents] thought EU leaders should re-introduce its most important elements without going through referendums'. Crikey, I thought. Where did they find so many people keen to allow EU leaders to bypass the voters. Then I read the small print. The poll was of… EU leaders. Friends of Europe, a Brussels-based outfit whose board of trustees is crammed full of Euro-bigwigs and retired luminaries, actually sought out Europe's elite, to ask them if they thought it would be good plan to leave the future of the constitution in the hands of Europe's elite. In their own words, they asked Gallup to survey 'some 100 politicians, journalists, officials, NGO chiefs and top businessmen.' The results were thoroughly encouraging: 'An overwhelming majority of European policy experts surveyed by Gallup have said that it would not be undemocratic if the EU were to salvage key parts of its wrecked constitutional treaty,' notably the creation of an EU foreign minister, and EU diplomatic service, according to the group. You can read the whole thing here, if you have the time. There are some choice pull-out quotes from respondents, such as this one: Asked if it would be undemocratic to move ahead with an EU diplomatic service, Philippe de Schoutheete, former Belgian Permanent Representative [ambassador] to the EU replied: 'Of course not. Electors rejected for a variety of reasons a complex text, not its constituent elements.' I wasn't going to make the obvious gag, but it's Friday, so forgive me. With Friends like these, the European project doesn't need many more enemies."

Resurrecting the Constitution

Resurrecting the Constitution From Euobserver German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Jacques Chirac are engaged in confidential talks aimed at re-submitting the core of the EU constitution to French and Dutch voters, according to a German weekly. Spiegel Online reports in a preview of the Spiegel weekly printed edition that conservatives from Germany, France and the European Parliament are plotting a scheme for reviving the EU constitution which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in referendums last year. According to the plans, the charter should be reduced to its first two parts, setting out the EU’s competences and the charter of fundamental rights of the union. These core parts should be boosted with the addition of a political declaration and be put to a fresh poll in both France and the Netherlands. The remaining third part of the text, detailing the EU’s policies, should be ratified by the French and Dutch parliaments, completing the ratification of the entire constitution as it has been approved by 14 member states so far. The operation to resuscitate the charter would be started under the German EU presidency in the first half of 2007. Ms Merkel earlier proposed attaching a declaration on the "social dimension of Europe" to the failed EU constitution, in a bid to save the charter in its entirety. The non-binding declaration would call upon the EU institutions consider the social implications of EU internal market legislation more thoroughly and is seen as being designed to soothe French voters’ fears over the alleged neo-liberal character of the union. Is it just me or does anyone else see the duplicity of this, the French and Dutch voters rejected the Constitution in its entirety, so they will be asked to vote again, but only on parts of it, as a sweetener they will be offered a non binding declaration on the "social dimension of Europe" . Then the respective governments will ratified the remainder of the document. No wonder the talks are in secret!

Labour Movement for Europe

Last week I put a link on my blog that cunningly tells readers of other web documents referring to the blog. I was intrigued to see one such web site called the Labour Movement for Europe. Not being a member of the Labour Party, this pro-Euro organisation working within the Labour Party has passed me by. LME Labour Movement for Europe LME officers include such luminary figures as Lord Kinnock, Chris Bryant MP, Wayne David MP, Barbara Follett MP, and not totally unexpected Richard Corbett MEP. LME was relaunched as a campaigning organisation on Noveber 22 in a packed meeting in Westminster. Over 70 members, MPs and peers crowded into Committee Room 6 in the House of Commons to discuss the future organisation of LME and hear keynote speeches from Geoff Hoon and Douglas Alexander. Apparently “For too long, LME has been dormant while right-wing anti-Europeans have had their way in Britain. But the question of Britain's engagement with its European partners is far too important for the debate to be dominated by noisy xenophobes. Now is the time for LME to reawaken and rejoin the battle!” I am always surprised and disappointed that the call to promote the EU is always structured in such a partisan manner. We Eurosceptics are always portrayed as right wing xenophobes, and the Pro-EUites are the knights in shining armour riding to the rescues of the poor EU damsel in distress. I assume these are intelligent people, they must either actually belive this guff, or they hope to attract willing idiots as cannon fodder, which is what they will be if they actually try to mount any attack based on these assumptions. Over the coming months, I hope LME will be engaging in debate at every level—in Westminster, in Brussels, and most importantly on the ground in Britain. To aid the campaign a new website was also unveiled with a variety of campaign tools designed to support grassroots activists. Although some of the site is subscription only, through the Secure Campaign Centre on the front page there are links to Campaigns, Analysis of recent headlines, (sub) Myth-busting, (with links to the expected) Media centre (the list of officers) Policy briefings (Enlargement and Turkey Democracy in Europe The constitution) In the campaign section there is “The five-minute campaigner” where activists are invited to “Make your mark on the pro-European scene with our quick and easy campaign ideas.” • Write to your local newspaper • Find out about events in your area • Join in an online debate • Plan and discuss campaigns My interest is the one about joining an online debate: Online debates There are a large number of anti-European blogs (weblogs) out there, and not very many pro-European ones. Sadly, the kind of euromythology which is the speciality of our tabloids often surfaces in these blogs too. However, one important feature of blogs is that they often allow readers to append their own comments, which then become visible to everyone who visits the site. In this way, a provocative post by the blog author can quickly become an interesting debate among different readers. Since blog readership is increasing all the time, this is an effective way of stimulating discussion quickly and easily. Here's a selection of EU-related blogs you might find interesting. If something catches your eye, or you spot an omnipresent euromyth, why not leave a comment to set the record straight? Or you can highlight your find in the Secure Campaign Centre, where activists can discuss a response. Top five UK-EU debates online 1. BBC Europe diary: A regular online diary which invites comments. 2. Margot Wallström: Regular blogging in English from the European Commission. Hundreds of comments and very lively debate. 3. Europhobia: Started off as a pro-EU blog, but now deals with all kinds of UK and international politics. 4. EU Referendum: Widely-read blog maintained by two heavily Atlanticist eurosceptics. Regular and detailed posts, many comments. 5. David Rennie: New Telegraph Brussels correspondent blog. Eurosceptic and anti-Brussels, but with very active debate among commenters. EU blogs: recommended reading • EU Pundit: News and views on the EU. • EU Law: Academic blog for legal professionals. • European Democracy: Well-informed editorial. • The Periscope: World media monitoring of EU stories. • Richard Corbett MEP: UK Labour MEP with a daily blog. Eurosceptic blogs • The Brussels Journal: Regular blogging by English and Dutch eurosceptics. Professional and not too extreme. • Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Withdrawalist and generally reactionary blog. Regular, but amateurish. • EU Realist: Another fairly reactionary • EU Rota: More of the same. • Free Europe: Tub-thumping, slow-loading euroscepticism. Note! Oddly for one so intent on widening the debate Richard Corbett`s blog does not allow comments which I suppose tells us all we really need to know. The problem is going to be for the un-informed that the debate is not based on a right wing xenophobic mythology agenda. Which they will soon begin to realise when they start to comment on blogs like Eureferendum. That we need a debate about Britain’s future in or out of the EU is beyond question, that is the reason many of us started blogging in the first place, But a word to all those who do wish to take up campaigning for LME. We welcome you, please take note that unlike LME we have no need to keep things secret “The Secure Campaign Centre” If you do decide to comment on our posts, please come armed with knowledge not simply biased partisan opinions. Edit: Anoneumouse points out I think you will find that the EU pundit and the "yes campaign" have removed their comments section too. In fact, I notice the yes campaign appear to have removed all their blogs now. http://www.yes-campaign.net/index.php?id=1647 http://eupundit.blogspot.com/2006/02/comments-and-trackbacks-removed-from.html

EU law and British legislation

Times EU law and British legislation Sir, There is a stream of proposals for constitutional reform, most of which are well overdue. The latest is the Power inquiry (Political briefing, Feb 28). Peter Riddell is right in calling attention to the number of revolts by MPs as one example of the assertiveness of Parliament. However, he underestimates the power of the Government and the whips in driving through a vast increase in legislation often with little or no debate. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, reviewed by David Pannick, QC (Law, Feb 28; see also letters, March 1, etc), is a good new example of truncating the necessary parliamentary procedures for the proper consideration of legislation. He points out that legislation which emanates from the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998 confers powers on ministers to secure compliance with European-made law. However, apart from a passing reference to the European scrutiny process, the Power inquiry does not tackle the root problem. This is that the existing European treaties and European law (let alone the currently suspended European constitution) have a deeply pervasive impact on multiple spheres of our domestic legislation and on our own parliamentary system of government. These include EU regulations, which burden British business but which it is claimed cannot be amended or repealed at Westminster. Parliament must tackle this issue or become increasingly irrelevant. It must reassert the principle of parliamentary supremacy by reaffirming its right to legislate where necessary inconsistently with the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and override the Legislative and Regulatory Reform proposals which diminish proper parliamentary scrutiny. It must, at the same time, require the judiciary to support parliamentary supremacy, for this is based on the power of Parliament and on the decisions of MPs who are democratically elected by the voters in general elections. It is imperative that Kenneth Clarke’s Conservative Democracy Commission endorses this principle as it is clear that neither the Labour Party nor the Liberal Democrats have any intention of doing so. BILL CASH, MP Shadow Attorney-General 2001-03 London SW1

Apathy is a Problem for Democracy.

Neil Herron has a post about the opening of the New Welsh Assembly Building by the Queen yesterday and a link to the photographs from Caernarfon Online of the thousands of people who did not turn up in Maes. At the request of the Assembly the BBC mounted a publicity exercise by putting up a big TV screen in the centre of town. There is clearly a feeling of apathy to both the Assembly and the Royal Family in Caernarfon. Obviously for the people of Caernarfon “It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.”

Reform of the House of Lords II

Commenting on Reform of the House of Lords by Stuart Wonko`s World But it was the fact that the Lords got their position by lottery of birth that made them an effective check on the power of the Commons. British MP's will sell their grandmothers if it means they might win an election. How many times has a leadership candidate or prospective parliamentary candidate abandoned their long held beliefs and principles and toed the party line for the furtherance of their career? I can give you a few examples in the last few month off the top of my head. The Lords had no reliance on popularity with either the electorate or the party and, rather than turning them into raving dictators, it made them into effective opposition and overseers of the career politicians in the Commons who stand to lose if they lose support of their party. Since the last "reform" of the House of Lords, the Labour Stazi has appointed itself a majority in the upper house where previously it had been a Conservative majority. The proposed "reform" to make it an elected upper house is nothing to do with democracy or accountability but merely an attempt to legitimise the situation whereby the upper house is 99.99999% guaranteed to have the same party in control as the Commons. If the people vote for a Labour government in the Commons, they sure as hell aren't going to vote for a Conservative government in the Lords are they? Once the same party has absolute control of both houses there is no opposition or oversight and the Lords becomes an expensive talking shop - this is what the Commons has been reduced to over the last few years.

It’s Nice to Know they Listen

From Open Europe Giscard d’Estaing: “rejection of the Constitution was a mistake which will have to be corrected” – “if the Irish and the Danes can vote yes in the end, so the French can do it too.” At a lecture at the LSE last night former French President and chief drafter of the EU Constitution Valéry Giscard d’Estaing argued unequivocally that “The rejection of the Constitution was a mistake which will have to be corrected.” He said, “The Constitution will have to be given its second chance”, and joked, “Everyone makes mistakes.” He said people voted no out of an “error of judgement” and “ignorance.” He said, “In the end, the text will be adopted.” He mentioned the second referendums that took place in Ireland and in Denmark, and said that “if the Irish and the Danes can vote yes in the end, so the French can do it too.” Giscard also said “We want a political union,” claiming that “it is no longer a case of debating what we want to do, but determining how we do it.” He said that an “urgent task” for the EU now is to “carefully prepare a realistic timetable and binding commitments with a view to establishing the European political Union.” He said, “It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.” He also predicted that the Constitution would be a stepping stone to further integration later, arguing that “adoption of the Constitution will not be enough to complete Europe’s political union,” and that the Constitution is for this generation, but for the next generation “there will be something else.”

Reform of the House of Lords

I have just noticed that Dr John Parkinson (a politics lecturer at the University of York) has a comment in the Guardian regarding the House of Lords reform, the government is revisiting this question. Earlier I appreciated the comments about the same thing by Nosemonkey at Europhobia. Basically the argument is that it is not vital for democracy that members of the House of Lords be elected: “Given that, one of the most important roles of democratic institutions is to scrutinise the government, forcing it to defend its proposals in public, and to amend those proposals if they are found wanting. That is one of the roles that the House of Lords should be playing in British democracy, and in many ways it performs it rather well. The point to emphasise is that it does so in large part because the majority of its members are appointed for life. Appointees are not dependent on parties for their future career.” I suppose I could make the point that what we need for the House of Lords is something akin to what we had before TB started to muck about with it. But I cannot see any reason why the lottery of birth should be an automatic entry ticket into the government of the country. I think the main points should be, not how the members get there, but the power of the second chamber to control possible excesses of any government, independence from executive interference, and a return to a division of state powers. A commenter at Europhobia said “being free of political attachments has to be a pre-requisite” I would agree with that. I would add that the second chambers other job would be to see that the Government worked within the bounds of its authority. That of course presupposes that there are boundaries to the power of the executive. Dr Parkinson says according to the "majoritarian" view of democracy, parties that win elections win a mandate to implement their manifesto promises without interference. Majoritarians think that anything else would be undemocratic: it would be to frustrate the free choice of the people." But when a party writes a manifesto it might say we will bring in laws to combat terrorism, serious crime, and street crime, all things with which we would agree. It does not say we will bring in laws that enable us to bypass parliament, to lock you up without trial, and create mandatory punishments without due process of law, these may well achieve the aims of the manifesto, but they hardly translate from the manifesto. Unless we live in a dictatorship there should be limits to the power of government, even if those limits are to be found in their own pre-election manifestos. A major part of the second chambers job aught be to ensure that government power is moderated

The Job of the Police

The Job of the Police In 1993, the white paper on police reform, issued by the then Conservative government, stated, in entirely unequivocal terms, that "the main job of the police is to catch criminals". In contrast, the overarching purpose of the police service, issued by the incoming Labour government in 1997, was: "to build a safe, just and tolerant society, in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained." The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, Dimbleby lecture in November 2005, The Police and Justice Bill

A Pandora’s Box of Fixed Penalties

This is from the web site of Ashley Mote, A Pandora’s Box of Fixed Penalties Not for the first time this column is raising an issue of importance that has hardly been mentioned in the national media. In a nutshell it is this: Every fixed penalty levied on us without due process of law is illegal. Every penny extracted from us by fixed penalties by the government and its myriad of agencies should be returned. It won’t be, of course. We are talking about parking tickets, speeding tickets, late income tax returns – the lot. Let me explain. The Bill of Rights of 1689 is the law of the land to this day. Clause 12 reads: …that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void… In other words, all fixed penalties imposed by the government and their agencies are illegal – and always have been. Anyone being threatened with a fixed penalty must be convicted of an offence in a court of law first. So the government is in a real fix. It is trying desperately to keep the problem under wraps. Doubtless an amending clause in some future piece of legislation will sneakily attempt to get it off the hook. Unfortunately it will be doing far more than that. Any such legislation will be removing a right first recognised in English law over 300 years ago. It has never been tampered with since. The implications are huge – but we’ll come to the practicalities in a moment. One of the most remarkable aspects of this story is how it arose. The government shot itself in the foot. Some years ago a Sunderland market trader was prosecuted for selling a pound of bananas. Other prosecutions followed, and a test case on the use of metric and/or imperial units of measurement ended up in the High Court. The ‘criminals’ became known as the Metric Martyrs. Lord Justice Laws’ judgement included the words “A constitutional statute [in this case the European Communities Act 1972] can only be repealed…by the unambiguous words…of the later statute.” Lord Justice Laws held that the Weights and Measures Act 1985 did no such thing. Therefore, he argued, the traders were obliged to sell goods using metric weights and guilty of an offence by not doing so. One of the men involved in that legal battle was Neil Herron, also a market trader at the time. He spotted that if such a hierarchy of English law did indeed exist, and some laws were above others (a legal principle unknown in English law before the Laws judgement), then such status must apply to all other constitutional statutes – of which the Bill of Rights 1689 is plainly one. Indeed the Laws judgement included an admission that it was. So when Mr Herron later received a parking ticket he refused to pay the penalty charge, and argued the Laws judgement in his defence. He must be prosecuted, he told the local council. But parking offences were de-criminalised in the Road Traffic Act of 1991, so prosecution was not and is not possible, despite the Bill of Rights making no distinction between criminal and civil cases. Thirty parking tickets later, and with more motorists joining the fray every day, Mr Herron is still refusing to pay and successfully arguing the same defence. Hence the government’s dilemma. If it argues in a test case against Mr Herron – or anyone else for that matter - that the Laws judgement is wrong and that the Road Traffic Act does by implication repeal the Bill of Rights clause 12, it will simultaneously be arguing that retailers can sell their wares in pounds and ounces again. Big problem. read the rest of the article Here

Public Funding of Political Parties

The Power Report suggests that each voter should tick a box on their ballot paper to allocate £3 pounds of state money (our taxes) to the party of their choice. Neil Harding comments that if they don't want the state to give a party any money, they don't tick any box. This is totally up to the individual. The system which will be set up to allow public financing for politician parties has several problems, Obviously only state recognised political parties would be eligible for public monies, this must be the case because the parties will have to be listed on the ballot paper, and some form of payment structure would need to be organised. The recognition process could be used to remove certain political organisations or place certain conditions on political organisations. It is an easy step for the establishment to place conditions on political activity during the registration process, it would then be possible to not allow recognition for a particular political group which did not meet those conditions, and another small step to then only allow legally recognised parties to stand for election. What those conditions might be can only be speculated on at this stage, but some insight can be gained from looking at how other countries tackle the question. An area that I have not looked at to deeply, but it is obvious that such a system is open to manipulation by any party which might find itself in power at any given time. This could also have a very damaging affect on the abilities to stand, in one policy local groups, such as the “Independent Kidderminster Hospital & Health Concern” Where Dr. Richard Taylor unseated the sitting Labour member. It was certainly not in the interest of the government of the day to allow such a challenge. As an example only, within the EU only those parties which can command support in several states who also conform to other conditions are eligible for public funding. This has the affect of removing all nationally based organisations from the funding process. UKIP for instance would not meet the criteria on two fronts; one it is nationally based, and two it does not agree with the ethos of the EU. This has the affect of placing the power to regulate political parties in the hands of the present establishment. This is not giving power to local communities it is allowing central state control, of not only political financing, but could also be extended to general political activity. Another example: in the North West Referendum for an elected assembly, both the Yes and the No camps were eligible for state funding of £100,000. The Electorial Commission chose to donate public monies to a newly formed Tory backed London based group, ignoring an already existing and operational non affiliated local “NO” group, which had been professionally and actively campaigning on the issue for several years. The EC decision had some consequences, firstly as soon as the announcement was made it allowed the Labour backed Yes group, to begin a campaign against the London Tories on the ground that this group was Tory backed and not local, both points being thought important in a regional referendum, perhaps this was no more than a side effect of the decision, but even that is open to analysis and is questionable. The other consequence was that as soon as the EC made its announcement all other groups were sidelined, in the media, the London based group became the “official voice of the No camp”, this was taken to extremes, The original group from that point found it difficult to obtain media coverage, was not invited to many open debates, and was ejected from some, finally the original group were not even allowed entrance to the count. As an amusing aside: The original group which had been sidelined by the EC decision had such a high profile, that even the office of the Deputy Prime Minister contacted them to arrange for transfer of the funds. So any system of public funding would require state control; there would have to be legal registration of political parties, there would have to be a legal framework for funding regulations. This would have the effect of institutionalising parties. In assigning certain functions to the parties, the state then takes responsibility for seeing that they fulfill their responsibilities, thus more areas for state control of political activity. In Canada for instance the accountability requirements, are that a candidate must open a separate bank account exclusively designated for campaign expenses and, when the candidacy is declared, make a deposit, half of which is refunded when the campaign expense report is delivered. These accountability requirements enable electoral authorities to examine funding sources and compliance with campaign spending limits Failure to turn in a report in a timely fashion will land the candidate in court. Violators risk being barred from running for office in the future. So in Canada if you violate rules on state funding they can bar you from standing, do we really want such a situation to develop in this country. We would have requirements for limits on campaign funding, for annual reports of party revenues and spending, and for reports on every campaign in which a party competes. These reports would have to list funding sources and spending levels in order to demonstrate whether or not limits have been exceeded. There would have to be a control system, which could be fines or suspension of public funding, or revocation of the party's legal registration. In the USA current laws also hinder third parties because unlike the main parties “Democrats and Republicans”, which receive their public funds before an election, the minor parties get their money afterwards and only if they receive at least 5 percent of the total national vote. "The major parties are able to use the law to prevent competition, and restrict the scope of conflict," This entrenches the organized interests that support the major parties, because other groups are denied the opportunity to mobilize resources in opposition. So public funding means state control of political activity, and state control means the present incumbents set the rules. Looking at the Power Report it can be seen that it suggests, at 19. Donations from individuals to parties should be capped at £10,000, and organisational donations capped at £100 per member, subject to full democratic scrutiny within the organisation. If this was adopted it would assist the funding for the labour Party because much of its funding comes from organisations trade unions etc. but it would work against the Conservative party because much of its funding comes from private donations. Facing the arguments for vested interests, I would have thought that trade unions have traditionally had a vested interest in there being a Labour party in power. So if we have a labour party in power, it might well accept the recommendation of the Power Report, if we have a Conservative party in power it might well reject that recommendation. It is the party in power which can control who will, and who will not, receive public funding, it would be the party in power which will set the rules for political parties being allowed public funding, and could well set the rules for legal recognition of political parties. I see that this would be serious menace to democracy. Other than that, I do not see any reason why we should be forced to support, either a system of government or a political party whos philosophy and or policies we individually fundamentally disagree. How many would willingly wish to support a far right wing Nazi party for instance. Most of us might well agree, that such a party should be banned from participating in the democratic process. But once we embark along that road where does it end, perhaps we should ban the SNP, because it wants to a break up the UK, and wants independence for Scotland; I am sure we can all find our own particular bogymen and find reasons for not allowing them to participate in the political process. But to do so has the potential of literally disenfranchising sections of the community, yet at the same time forcing them to contribute to other political parties. Returning briefly to Neil Harding’s point “if they don't want the state to give a party any money, they don't tick any box. This is totally up to the individual” of course the funding will not come directly from the pocket of the individual, but from the central purse, to which we all contribute, the individual would be spending our money on their preference, the fact that we also have the power to donate state money to our choice is neither here nor there, we would all be forced to financially support political ideals with which we disagree. Perhaps the most important objection I have to the public financing of political parties is that it is the political parties who set the rules and the amounts of that funding. For them it is licence to ignore the wishes of the voters, and to literally write their own pay cheque for doing so. Public funding contributes to a separation of the political parties from the people, and would help to make them immune from any constraints on their policies. For as long as a political party must convince their supporters to reach into their pockets, we have some control on their capabilities to campaign for power.

The Invisible Elephant

Several letters to the Times argue that George Osborne should have acknowledged in a recent article that Ireland’s current prosperity is partly due to its membership of the euro and the amount of funding it receives from the EU. The Times

“Europe is dead”

No only Joking! Italy appeals to EU over merger and argues that “Europe is dead” The French merger of Suez SA and Gaz de France is said to be causing consternation in Italy. An editorial in the WSJ argues that the French “head-on challenge to the single market calls into question the raison d’etre behind the European Union far more than the constitutional crisis of last year did.” Commission Vice-President Franco Frattini “What has happened in Paris risks dealing a blow to the European spirit of the single market.” However In France they have a different perspective: It was an act of “economic patriotism” (Dominique de Villepin) Economic patriotism is not the same thing as protectionism (Clara Gaymard from Invest in France) “everything which strengthens French industry strengthens the whole of Europe.” (French foreign ministry) Good one that, I wonder if it would work should our Tone be tempted to try it?

The Power Report

The Power Report I have read not all of this report, but must say in general I feel that the recommendations are those which are to be expected - chaired by Labour Peer Helena Kennedy and funded by the Liberal leaning Joseph Rowntree Trust - many of its conclusions are predictable. As Richard North says; “taking the view that the current disengagement (with party politics) is not a "little local difficulty" but rather the result of a profound contempt for formal politics. There is a popular view that our political institutions and politicians are failing, untrustworthy and disconnected from the people they are supposed to represent. Interestingly, the(power) Commission spent £800,000 on finding that out. If they had asked us, we could have told them that for free.” And, while none of the media go even into that depth, none mention that on which the Inquiry does devote some space, our favourite topic, the European Union. On page 62, it says: Supranational bodies and processes of international negotiation such as the European Union have gained extra powers and influence at the expense of nationally and locally elected representatives. The direction and sometimes the detail of wide areas of policy are now heavily influenced by, or determined by, decisions taken by appointed officials working in supranational organisations or by politicians and civil servants in negotiations with their overseas counterparts. The result of these shifts has been to make political decision-making more opaque, hidden and complex. It means that the people who take key decisions are more likely to be geographically, socially and politically distant from the people who are affected by their de-cisions. It also means that decision-makers are less directly account-able to those who are affected by their decisions and rarely engaged in dialogue with them. The Power Commissioners saw at first-hand how a lack of real influence over decision-makers has become a primary cause of alienation from formal democracy, and recognise that those processes which have produced greater distance between governed and governors are a source of deep concern.” The Power Commissions report does not suggest returning power to the National institutions to meet these concerns, but proposes instead a decentralisation of powers that still remain in Westminster, so its back to EU sponsored regionalisation. Which those in the loop will keep promoting, even though it was rejected 78% to 22% in the only electoral test it has ever received. Other recommendations “A responsive electoral system for the House of Commons, House of Lords and local councils to replace the first-past-the-post system”. This is PR which is something that will place even more power in the hands of the political parties. Coupled with “State funding for local activity by political parties”. And “Local government should be able to raise taxes and administer its own finances” This seems to be a charta for the parties, not only will they get more power, but we will be forced to pay for it. Why should parties that can't raise the sums necessary to campaign locally be kept afloat by the taxpayer, who will decide that the BNP will not receive funds?" “The Electoral Commission to encourage women, ethnic minorities, people on lower incomes, young people and independents to stand” This is no more than promoting a liberal adgenda. “The voting and candidacy age should be reduced to 16” Get them whilst they are still in school where they are influenced by the liberal adgenda, this will go hand in hand with the EU propaganda being promoted in our education facilities. “70 per cent of the House of Lords should be elected by a 'responsive electoral system' for three parliamentary terms”. More PR, it is not how the lords are elected or selected that matters, it is the power the second house has to control government and its responsibilities to maintaining a constitutional settlement. “All public bodies to involve the public in their policy- making processes” another EU related idea consultation which can be ignored, instead of real democratic power. “Citizens to initiate legislative processes, public inquiries and hearings into public bodies”. A charter for pressure-group politics, and a stipulation that tells you everything about the people who wrote the Power Report: judges can strike down any initiative, at any stage, that they deem to be in conflict with the Human Rights Act. Many of us belive the Human rights act removes power from the voters. A letter today in the Telegraph today makes the point “The Power Commission (News, February 27) concludes that the source of electoral apathy is people believing they don't have any power and are not listened to. This is a myth. The problem is that they are listened to far too much. The result, via market research, is that the average (centrist) opinion is in the policy bag of every major party. Politicians used to represent the interests of their supporters and intentionally upset large swaths of their opponents. Nowadays they all try to represent the average voter, who does not exist, but is merely a statistical construct. The Average Party is now in power, or trying to be, all the time. Boring! Even worse, it represents nobody.”

The EUSSR

From The Brussels Journal, an interesting comparison between the structures and ideologies of the EU and the former Soviet Union. Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state. A snip from his speech “It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time. Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?” An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this? Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening. PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses? VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot. PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily. VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage. PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it? VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized. PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people. VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.

I don't destroy liberties, I protect them II

Yesterday I posted some of my initial thoughts on Tony Blair’s “defence” to Blair`s own interpretation of the charges, that both he and Nu-Labour are authoritarian, are intent on savaging British liberties, locking up those who dissent and that they abhor parliamentary or other accountability. Two newspapers have commented on Blair’s original article in the Observer: Notebook By Sam Leith The Prime Minister yesterday wrote an article seeking to defend his record on civil liberties. "On ID cards," he wrote, "there is a host of arguments, irrespective of security, why their time has come". Wouldn't you be a bit more reassured if he made those arguments, rather than simply alluding to them? William Rees-Mogg Times Online Who is David Laverick? He is the chairman of the Adjudication Panel for England of the Standards Board for England. “There’s glory for you, boyo,” as the Welsh windbag himself might say. In other words Mr Laverick is the chairman of the sub-committee of a quango appointed by the Member of Parliament for Hull East, Mr John Prescott. It is all utter foolishness. The people of London elected Ken Livingstone on two occasions to be their mayor. They may have been mistaken to do so; he has never had my vote. But that was their democratic decision. Mr Laverick, and his two colleagues on the panel, decided that Mr Livingstone should not be mayor for four weeks of his second term. No one ever elected them to their high office. They are not a court. Their closest connection with democracy is that they were appointed by the Member for Hull East. May Heaven forgive the voters of Hull East. The panel was established by law — one of the many foolish laws passed by the Blair administration — but they were not enforcing the law, they were enforcing their own subjective discretion. I would not call Mr Laverick a war criminal, a concentration camp guard or a scumbag, because I do not think he is any of these things. I would only call him a pompous donkey, who has no understanding of his limited importance in the scheme of things, or of the respect he owes to the democratic choice of the people of London. No doubt, if I were a local councillor, he would find that my criticisms were “unnecessarily offensive and insensitive” — as indeed I hope they are. Fortunately the press still enjoys free speech, even if the Mayor of London does not. The issue is more than a matter of a show-off mayor or a silly sub-committee of an unelected quango abusing its inappropriate powers. It concerns the ancient issue of “due process of law” that underlies Magna Carta, the English common law and the Constitution of the United States. Without due process, there is no law. A merely subjective judgment, lacking judicial safeguards, by an unelected tribunal, does not constitute due process. It is no better than the process by which Robespierre sent aristos to the guillotine, though one must admit that Ken makes a comic aristo and a four-week suspension is a milder penalty.. The Prime Minister knows what the issue is. He is against due process as such. He has written a most extraordinary attack on the whole concept in yesterday’s Observer. The article is so incautious that he must have written it himself. “In theory,” Tony Blair writes, “traditional court processes and attitudes to civil liberties could work. But the modern world is different from the world for which these court processes were designed.” This view that due process is obsolete explains the Prime Minister’s conduct; it explains the connection between extradition without safeguards, detention without trial, Asbos without criminal offences, subjective and discretionary judgments, police powers to arrest, and increasing ministerial powers. They are all characteristic of Blair legislation; they all avoid due process of law. I wish I could think of an appropriately “offensive and insensitive” epithet to describe Tony Blair. Perhaps “antinomian” would do. Yesterday I alluded to the fact that Blair`s defence had nothing to do with the traditional view of us in Britian that our government was obliged to be the protector of inexorable rights, and that in his view government had become the provider of rights, which is a Roman Law concept. This is also the view of the EU as can be seen in its Carta of Fundamental Rights. Statewatch maintains a number of "Observatories" on civil liberties and justice and home affairs and on secrecy and freedom of information in the EU: Here are the links to two of them; Statewatch Observatory in defence of freedom and democracy - new laws and practices affecting civil liberties and rights in the EU, UK and US after 11 September on ASBOS Statewatch says: Tthe key point remains that, as in all cases, they are civil orders. This means that in the application process, for an ASBO, there is no jury and hearsay evidence is admissible. If breached, the individual has committed a criminal offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Click here for further links.

Telegraph | News | Lessons on Europe proposed by French

Telegraph | News | Lessons on Europe proposed by French: "Lessons on Europe proposed by French By David Rennie in Paris (Filed: 27/02/2006) Lessons on the European Union to give secondary school pupils in all 25 member states an 'apprenticeship' as Europeans, are being proposed by France. The lessons would be based on a standardised 'teaching module' covering EU values and history, a senior French official said. EU Many European children already study the EU's history, learn to draw its flag, celebrate 'Europe Day' on May 9 or sing its official hymn, the Ode to Joy. The proposal is one of more than a dozen drawn up by President Jacques Chirac's government to create new 'momentum' with a 'Europe of projects'. French officials hope that some could be brought to fruition in the coming months using existing EU treaties. They believe that they would restore public confidence in Europe after the draft EU constitution was derailed by No votes in Holland and France last summer. Several of the French ideas are recycled from the constitution's ruins. British officials stressed last night that moves to impose harmonised EU lessons were a 'non-starter'." We Wait to see!

Tongue in Cheek

Thanks to Dennis Cooper for these two funny letters. This refers to an article by Bill Jamieson last week: "UK policy chasm: official numbers and the real world": Link "Few now believe that the CPI inflation measure bears much relation to the cost of living. Indeed, how could it when the CPI does not include housing or mortgage costs, taxes, national insurance, or council tax?" Link 26 February 2006 Sir – I want to share a formula I have for beating the winter blues. It is one the provenance of which bears the hallmark of intellectual and financial integrity of the highest order. Put simply, I choose to believe the conclusions of those august members of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) who assert that the economy is picking up and everything in the garden is rosy. How comforting it is to know that irritating little outgoings such as mortgage payments, income tax, national insurance contributions and council tax do not form part of their thinking. I reason that if not part of theirs then why should they be part of mine? I stopped worrying, went on a celebratory spending spree and got some terrific bargains at a number of High Street closing down sales. My bank manager, although at first seeming a little put out, not so much agreed as actually insisted that all my direct debits should be immediately stopped. It just goes to show what clever gentlemen those MPC members are. Pauline Roberts, Cardiff - Link What inflation? 26 February 2006 Sir – With reference to your articles on the difference between the “cost of living” and the UK Consumer Price Index (CPI), I remember my times studying monetary economics at the London School of Economics in the mid 1980s. One of my teachers used to say that if he was ever in control of monetary policy, the best policy would be to keep interest rates as low as possible whilst always denying the existence of any inflation. I wonder if his instincts have changed now that he is in control of monetary policy. William Butler -

I don't destroy liberties, I protect them

Tony Blair answers his critics on his anti-libertarian policies in an article in the Observer, His first line of defence is that these charges are “crafted by parts of the right wing and now taken up by parts of the left that New Labour is authoritarian, in particular, that I am. We are intent on savaging British liberties, locking up those who dissent and we abhor parliamentary or other accountability.” By attributing these charges to the fringes of the political spectrum, the obvious conclusion we are directed to reach is that the charges are baseless because of their origin. But then is he factually correct do these charges emanate from the fringes, if that were that case he would simply dismiss them out of hand. Blair then goes on to give the reasons “The reason right wingers are keen on this is clear. New Labour has eschewed traditional forms of leftist statism. So the type of claim they used to make about the Attlee or Wilson governments they can't plausibly make about us.” As the definition of stateism is the doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy. I would suggest that Blair’s government has not eschewed stateism, the traditional form of, perhaps, but this government is very keen on central control, much more than either the Attlee or Wilson governments would have deared to be. It is simply they are bringing central control into different areas. Have we become indifferent to liberty? At one level, the charge is easy to debunk. But on another level, there is a serious debate about the nature of liberty in the modern world. I accept the good faith of our critics. I just believe them to be profoundly mistaken. Later in the article Blair puts “a new case about liberty in the modern world. I am from the generation that I would characterise, crudely, as hard on behaviour, but soft on lifestyle, i.e. I support tough measures on crime but am totally pro gay rights. I believe in live and let live, except where your behaviour harms the freedom of others. A society with rules but without prejudices is how I might sum it up.” That of course is from the leader of a party which banned Hunting, is about to ban smoking in pubs, etc. It would appear that Blair wishes to define what is and what is not liberty, and to allow only that liberty he wants. Blair is accepting that these laws do transgress basic liberties, but that does not matter because we are going to make a “new case about liberty”. The point is about our rights to control our government and our rights. Blair does not fair so well on the liberty front, about Parliament Blair says “As for parliament, I have spent proportionately more time answering questions than any predecessor; given more statements; am the only PM ever to agree to appear before the select committee chairs; the only one to give monthly press conferences. And I gave a vote specifically on whether to go to war.” Other than allowing parliament a vote on the war which was forced on him, the other evidence is all about things which do not impact on governments powers, he can spend all day answering question before he rushes of to a press conference, but that will not alter the fact that with his enabling acts and other Bills like the regulatory reform act, he is eroding the power of parliament to control his government. Blair argues that for him “this is not an issue of liberty but of modernity” and “The question is not one of individual liberty vs the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people.” Blair seem quite sanguine about the removal of our liberties, and seems to belive that he has the moral right to do so for the greater good. He cites as his excuse for removing liberties; “Antisocial behaviour isn't susceptible to normal court process. Modern organised crime is really ugly. That IRA terrorism is different in nature and scale from the new global Islamic terrorism.” But does not mention that it is the Human Rights Act, for which he claims, “for the first time, a citizen can challenge the power of the state solely on the basis of an infringement of human rights” that prevents the government from taking action against international terrorists and criminals because the act forces the government to offer the same rights to foreigners as it if they were nationals. Finally Blair has a dig at the Conservatives and LibDem`s Their attitude to liberty does indicate, though, a refusal to understand the modern world. If the nature of the threat changes, so should our policies. That is not destroying our liberties, but protecting them. So his argument boils down to the single idea that to protect our liberties v the state, you have to destroy them so that the state can take action against a lawless minority. This really means that we are all being deprived of our liberties because of the actions of a few. The whole argument of course is also based not on English Common Law, but on Roman Law concepts, instead of the state being the protector of inexorable rights, it has become the provider of rights. It is clearly evident in everything Blair says, that he believes he has the authority to dispense with our traditional protections against the state, and replace them with rights he himself has defined. Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other --- or at least no more accurate --- definition of a despotism than this. Spooner

Rules make Mockery of Democracy

This is an interesting local story from Booker, one that I have not heard about until now, perhaps I should read the local paper more often! But it is the twist in the tail which makes it interesting nationally. Christoper Booker`s Notebook 'Prejudicial interest' rules make mockery of democracy Thanks to a diktat from John Prescott, thousands of elected councillors have been shocked to be instructed by council officials that they are no longer permitted to represent the views of the communities which elected them. The bizarre consequences of this extraordinary bid to undermine local democracy are highlighted by four recent examples from just one county, Shropshire. When Aggie Caesar-Homden was last September elected to Oswestry borough council, to represent the residents of the village of West Felton, she found herself at the centre of a local planning row. The parish council was up in arms over a 50-foot-high Orange mobile phone mast which had suddenly appeared on the edge of the village, blocking the view to the Berwyn mountains. The villagers' objection was not to the mast in principle, but that its erection was in clear breach of planning rules. Of 10 procedures required by the rules for phone masts, nine had not been complied with. The mast was illegal. But when Councillor Caesar-Homden raised this on behalf of the parish council she was told by senior council officials that it was not her role to speak for her electors. Since she was now an Oswestry councillor, she must support her council. There was no one angrier about this than the local MP, Owen Paterson, who had recently been involved in a similar row over a highly unpopular plan by North Shropshire district council to close down municipal swimming pools in Ellesmere and Wem. Councillors from the two towns had been told by North Shropshire officials that they could not participate in debates on the issue, because the fact that they represented the views of their communities gave them a "prejudicial interest". Only when Mr Paterson intervened was this ruling reversed. In Telford, the council came up with a contentious plan to build on part of the local park. A councillor billed to chair a meeting on the issue was forced to pull out when officials told her that her participation would exclude her from attending any council debate on the issue. A letter on behalf of the council's head of "Legal and Democratic Services" explained that a "councillor's overriding duty is to the whole community, not just to the people in their ward or area". Decision-making must be "undertaken impartially", and councillors must not appear to be "improperly favouring any group or locality". In South Shropshire, council officials went even further. Following an incident when a protestor shouted abuse at a planning meeting, they produced new guidelines stating that members of the public are not permitted to speak to councillors, before, during or after meetings. Council leader Heather Kidd explained that, because members of the public had shown "disrespect to councillors", the rules had been introduced to "protect the security of councillors". But one councillor, Claude Bodenham, urged electors to ignore the rules. He said "I am always out and about in Craven Arms or Ludlow, and I expect people to come up to me." Last week I reported how Bob Mills, a Powys county councillor, was told by officials that, because he had criticised wind turbines in a letter to the local paper, he would not be permitted to attend any debates on this issue. His letter showed that he had a "pre-determined" view. It was fine for the council and the Welsh Assembly to have a "pre-determined view" in support of turbines, but because he opposes them he must leave the chamber whenever they are discussed. Similar instances are sprouting up all over the country, thanks to zealous interpretation by council "monitoring officers" of Mr Prescott's Local Authorities (Code of Conduct) Order 2001. By excluding from council business any councillor who can be considered to have a "prejudicial interest", the code is now being widely used to silence councillors who wish to speak on behalf of the communities they represent. And, like the bulk of the laws which now rule our lives, this astonishing revolution in local government was imposed by means of a statutory instrument - a ministerial edict which Parliament had no chance to discuss.

England for sale

They say you can find just about anything on Ebay This is fom Tommy English EBAYEngland.jpg (JPEG Image, 1004x1717 pixels): Many thanks Tommy very good

Police Regionalisation Plans Rejected

Police bodies reject Welsh merger Published: 2006/02/23 15:56:56 GMT All four police authorities in Wales have now rejected plans to merge with the three other forces. Gwent Police Authority became the latest on Thursday when after a special meeting it said it did not have the information to make a decision. Home Secretary Charles Clarke has given them all until Friday to accept the plans or he will press ahead. Chairman Geraint Price-Thomas has said there are still concerns about finance and pace of reform. In a statement released after the meeting, Gwent Police Authority said members had found "insufficient evidence" to support a merger. It added: "Members conveyed their disappointment that questions around finance, governance, human resources and public consultation remain unanswered. "Should any further information come to light over the coming months, this will be brought back to the police authority for consideration." Members asked the Home Office for more information on the plan for a single Welsh force after the authority last met on 10 February. Under current legislation, if there is no support for a voluntary merger from the police authorities, Mr Clarke can seek a merger himself. Mr Clarke has told the authorities that he plans to start that process on 1 March. There will then follow a four-month period of consultation, to give the public, local authorities and the Welsh Assembly Government the chance to make their concerns known. Mr Price-Thomas added: "Mr Clarke is talking about a full merger by 2007 and the legislation could be agreed in time for the summer recess in July. "There are issues in terms of geography and culture in Wales and we are making progress in that area - every local authority will have representation on the new authority - but I am concerned about the pace of the reforms." Higher taxes A leaked Welsh Assembly Government estimate has said that the cost to council taxpayers in the South Wales Police area could increase by 17% under a single force. Earlier this week the all-party House of Commons Welsh affairs committee accused the Westminster Government of "rushing". The committee also said it was not convinced that one force was the right way forward for Wales. However, Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said that while there needed to be safeguards in respect of local policing, that a merged force was the "only serious option" to meet modern demands. He said that the total package would ensure Welsh policing would be in a position to deal with terrorism, drugs and organised crime, as well as having the ability to react to major investigations, which stretched the resources of smaller forces. 23 / 2 / 06 Police refusal to conform to reform AS WEST Mercia Police continue to reject the proposed merger plans despite today’s (Friday’s) Home Office-forced deadline, the MPs for Bromsgrove and Droitwich have thrown their weight behind the force’s fight. By now, West Mercia should have agreed to Home Secretary Charles Clarke’s plan to merge it voluntarily with forces in West Midlands, Staffordshire and Warwickshire. But the force and Police Authority have rejected the proposals and look set to force the Home Secretary into a further four months of consultation on the plan. Bromsgrove MP Julie Kirkbride said the decision to defy the Home Secretary and do what they think was right was a brave one. “The Government simply have not explained to the people of Bromsgrove why they would get a better police service by becoming one big regional force. “ Droitwich MP Peter Luff called for a referendum to be held in the affected counties on the plans to create a large birmingham-based regional force. Mr Luff said the Government had ignored the high ratings West Mercia had won from independent assessors and the proposals by the force to spend £2.9million from their own funds to enhance the service. “This is a simple matter of trust – trusting the people of West Mercia to decide how they want to be policed and trust in the Government. “A referendum would resolve both and it’s the commonsense way to proceed,” he added. DYFED Powys Police has refused to a voluntary merger with the other Welsh forces. The four Welsh forces were given until February 24th to approve a voluntary merger by the Home Secretary, but both the Dyfed Powys Authority and Force have refused to go along with the plans. From the outset, the Authority has expressed concern over a number of issues including set up and ongoing costs, council tax equalisation, the possible reduction of service in rural areas and the very tight timescale for implementation. The Authority has said that or it to agree to voluntary merger by the deadline it would need much fuller information very quickly. “Although a little further information has been provided, it was not sufficient for the Authority to give full and proper consideration to this issue and it has decided that it could not agree to a voluntary merger,” said a spokesman “The Authority has made it clear in discussions with Home Office officials that more information is required as a matter of urgency in order that the Authority and the people of Dyfed Powys can be fully informed. “Having undertaken a further round of consultation meetings, the Authority fully appreciates the frustration and concern that the residents of Dyfed Powys have expressed about the lack of concrete information available and the feedback from the consultation undertaken was fully considered at the Police Authority meeting on the 20th February. The Authority has expressed concern that it is being marginalised between the more urban forces of Gwent, North Wales and South Wales. Members are said to be concerned that centralised budgets and resources will lead to reductions in service in more rural regions, namely the areas currently policed by the of which Dyfed-Powys force. “Members of the Authority are worried that the concerns that Dyfed Powys is expressing are being marginalised as the debate centres on North/South issues,” said the spokesman. “As the Force covers approximately half of Wales and its area is predominantly rural in nature, the Authority emphasises that the concern that it would lose resources to more densely populated areas is real and acute.” The spokesman urged the Home Office to delay implementation saying the discussions needed to “continue unhindered by deadlines which could be construed as strengthening the impression that the Home Office is not appreciative of the genuine and reasonable concerns which are being voiced”. DYFED Powys Police has refused to a voluntary merger with the other Welsh forces. Both Dyfed Powys Police Force and Authority have ruled out a voluntary merger without further discussion. The four Welsh forces were given until February 24th to approve a voluntary merger by the Home Secretary, but both the Dyfed Powys Authority and Force have refused to go along with the plans. From the outset, the Authority has expressed concern over a number of issues including set up and ongoing costs, council tax equalisation, the possible reduction of service in rural areas and the very tight timescale for implementation. The Authority has said that or it to agree to voluntary merger by the deadline it would need much fuller information very quickly. “Although a little further information has been provided, it was not sufficient for the Authority to give full and proper consideration to this issue and it has decided that it could not agree to a voluntary merger,” said a spokesman “The Authority has made it clear in discussions with Home Office officials that more information is required as a matter of urgency in order that the Authority and the people of Dyfed Powys can be fully informed. “Having undertaken a further round of consultation meetings, the Authority fully appreciates the frustration and concern that the residents of Dyfed Powys have expressed about the lack of concrete information available and the feedback from the consultation undertaken was fully considered at the Police Authority meeting on the 20th February. The Authority has expressed concern that it is being marginalised between the more urban forces of Gwent, North Wales and South Wales. Members are said to be concerned that centralised budgets and resources will lead to reductions in service in more rural regions, namely the areas currently policed by the of which Dyfed-Powys force. “Members of the Authority are worried that the concerns that Dyfed Powys is expressing are being marginalised as the debate centres on North/South issues,” said the spokesman. “As the Force covers approximately half of Wales and its area is predominantly rural in nature, the Authority emphasises that the concern that it would lose resources to more densely populated areas is real and acute.” The spokesman urged the Home Office to delay implementation saying the discussions needed to “continue unhindered by deadlines which could be construed as strengthening the impression that the Home Office is not appreciative of the genuine and reasonable concerns which are being voiced”. www.epolitix.com/EN/Institutions/Wales/region.htm The government's plans to create a single Welsh police force have been strongly criticised by a committee of MPs. A report from the Welsh affairs committee accused the government of having adopted a "one-size-fits-all" policy without sufficient evidence to justify its position. Wales secretary Peter Hain also came under fire for giving his backing to the merger plan and creating the impression that amalgamation was a "done deal". And the "hasty" announcement has been "unsatisfactory", add the MPs. Tuesday's study comes as the government battles to win support for its controversial policies. Welsh police authorities and politicians across all parties have expressed concern about the plans to merge the four existing forces into one organisation. "We are concerned that the government has adopted a one-size-fits-all approach to the restructuring of the constabulary across England and Wales, without taking into account the unique political, geographic and cultural characteristics of Wales," said the report. "Furthermore, a lack of understanding of the concerns voiced by the police forces and authorities in Wales has undermined the claim that a proper consultation was undertaken. "We urge the government to give further consideration to a more flexible approach to the criteria for reform in the remaining stages of its restructuring of the police forces." The MPs also said they were "unimpressed with the very short timetable" set by the government for the proposals, saying this "removed the possibility of full consultation with the public". "While we acknowledge the desire of the government to get the job done, this should not be at the expense of doing it properly," the committee said. "We conclude that the appearance of a 'done deal' has only added to the existing tensions and frustrations, which hindered genuine analysis of the issues and meaningful consultation with the public. "This was not assisted by the announcements by the secretary of state for Wales that he favoured the all-Wales option without having all the evidence before him." Concluding, the MPs said they "regret the government's hasty announcement to amalgamate the four forces in Wales". "The timing of this announcement was unsatisfactory given that there are many outstanding issues yet to be adequately addressed," they said. "Furthermore, we are wholly opposed to the premature forced amalgamation of the Welsh authorities and forces. "We maintain that in securing a high quality police service for Wales, the Welsh public would be better served by the urgent pursuit of a genuine and detailed consultation to seek both a public and professional consensus on this issue." Committee chairman Dr Hywel Francis said the short timetable had "impeded consultation with the police forces and authorities". "We are left feeling that amalgamation of the four police forces in Wales has been foisted on us," he warned. "It would appear the government is determined to use Wales as a guinea pig on this issue without taking into account the country's unique political, geographic and cultural characteristics."

Letters to the Times

Letters to the Editor The Times February 23, 2006 Legislative reform Bill grants powers too great for government Sir, Francis Bennion is right to draw attention in his letter to the failure — of successive governments — to bring forward legislation to implement sensible law reforms recommended by the Law Commission. What needs to be recognised, however, is that the “difficulty in obtaining a place in the legislative programme for its reform Bills” is largely due to to the preference of governments (especially the present one) to introduce “popular” measures, frequently under the mantra of “modernisation” but which do little to effect real change. It is not only the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Comment, Feb 21; letters, Feb 16 and 20) that demonstrates an arrogance on the part of government to bypass or railroad Parliament. Tony Blair sought to justify, in Prime Minister’s Questions last week, restoring an offence of “glorifying terrorism” to the Terrorism Bill on the basis that “if we remove any reference to glorification from the Bill, people outside will infer that we have decided to dilute our law at the very moment when we should strengthen it” and that “by weakening our law on terrorism at this time from what was proposed, we would send the wrong signal to the whole of the outside world”. Does this mean that if the Government proposes a new law, however ill-judged or authoritarian, it is the moral duty of Parliament to support it for fear of the “wrong signal” it would send to do otherwise? Thankfully, the proposed 90-day detention law was struck down, but there is a continuing need for our MPs to remember that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. DAVID J. LAMMING Groton, Suffolk Sir, The Government has assured us that the very wide powers to be given to ministers by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill to legislate by means of statutory instrument will not be used for controversial matters. It is worth remembering that when the European Communities Act was passed, the then Solicitor-General told Parliament on July 13, 1972, that the similar powers in section 2(2) of that Act would be used for “consequential amendments of a small, minor and insignificant kind”. However, those powers are used to make fundamental changes in our law, involving important policy choices, without recourse to an Act of Parliament. A recent example is the intended implementation by regulation of the EC directive on age discrimination. Despite that this directive leaves a wide discretion to member states, the exercise of which will affect society at large and millions of people personally, the directive is being implemented by regulation. What the use of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act shows is that any government, faced with the difficulty of finding enough Parliamentary time to get its legislation through, will inevitably choose other quicker routes when they are available. As Lord Justice Jacob said in the recent case of Oakley v Animal, no one can seriously suggest that the scrutiny Parliament gives to statutory instruments is as profound as that given to an Act of Parliament. Whatever the Government’s good intentions, therefore, it is difficult to have much confidence that the powers the Government now wants to take will not be used to make fundamental changes that should be properly debated in Parliament. SIR JEREMY LEVER, QC GEORGE PERETZ London WC1

Rule by Consent or by the New Aristocracy

Even the BBC and the Guardian have at last picked up on the Reform bill story, which is gradually making its way into the MSM, under the somewhat conciliatory headline Reform bill could 'sweep away parliamentary debate' Matthew Tempest and agencies? Suggest that Conservatives and senior legal experts “fear” the bill “will give ministers sweeping powers to amend or even introduce new laws without sufficient scrutiny from MPs”. Tempest continues: “The seemingly arcane legislative and regulatory reform bill - which is currently going through parliament - was billed by the government as aiding business by cutting red tape from existing legislation.” Thus; putting the governments excuse for the bill, but ignoring the concerns of Lord Holme, the chairman of the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords, about the nature of the powers contained in the Bill: As expressed in a letter to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs: “… we are concerned by the potential of the Bill’s proposals, if enacted, markedly to alter the respective and long-established roles of Ministers and Parliament in the legislative process. This is because Part 1 of the Bill seeks to confer unprecedentedly wide powers on Ministers to make Orders to amend, repeal and replace any legislation (and to grant powers in respect of rules of the common law in relation to Law Commission recommendations), with only a very restricted role for Parliament in the process. The reforms thus have the potential to be so far reaching that especial consideration will need to be given by the Committee to the risk of inadvertent and ill considered constitutional change.” The Regulatory Reform Committee published a report on the Bill on 6 February 2006.Considered that the Bill “has the potential to be the most constitutionally significant Bill that has been brought before Parliament for some years” However Tempest does mention that “a group of Cambridge University lawyers, led by professor John Spencer QC, has warned that the bill could potentially allow ministers to rewrite virtually any act of parliament, permitting them, for example, to abolish jury trial, put people under house arrest, rewrite immigration law or sack judges.” "But Jim Murphy, the parliamentary secretary at the Cabinet Office, which is responsible for the bill, insisted today there were a series of safeguards in place.” These however appear to be little more than a promise not to use these powers in an uncontroversial way. This of course begs the question who will decide what is, and what is not controversial. Of course the other point is that the ministers who are making these promises will not be around in a few years time. Rob Knight at the Liberal Review puts this into perspective in a piece posted last Sunday “ID cards. Laws against insulting or offending religious viewpoints. Detention for 28 days without trial. Orders which can make legal acts into criminal offences. Abolition of various long-standing elements of the constitution, with no real replacements and no increase in democratic accountability.” Terrible, isn't it? And yet, all of these things pale into insignificance next to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. “This bill gives ministers the power to introduce or amend legislation without parliamentary approval. Yes, that's right. This includes the introduction of new criminal offences and modification of the definitions of existing criminal offences. We would be left electing 659 MPs so they can sit powerless whilst the government passes whatever laws it likes. Worse still, ministers are directly appointed by the Prime Minister and could well be Lords rather than MPs. And, due to Labour's botch-job of constitutional reform, the Lords are appointed. So we are faced with the prospect of a PM being able to appoint entirely unelected people to a position where they can pass new laws, without any possibility of democratic veto. These are not the characteristics of a liberal democracy. These powers have more in common with autocratic and despotic systems of government. The idea that unelected officials can change the very laws of the land is anathema to liberalism, democracy and, if history is any guide, basic common sense.” Knight then make the point I have made several times, which boils down to; this lot may be fine upstanding people, but they are preparing the ground for a later generation of people who may well have other ideas. “So what am I trying to say here? That the Tory "demon eyes" poster was right, and that Blair is a modern-day Hitler? No, I am not. It's hard enough arguing for civil liberties without personal comparisons to Hitler being brought into play. But, as a case study in the decline of a broadly liberal democracy, the period immediately before Hitler's rise to power can be instructive. The real parallel is not with Hitler, but with his predecessor, German President Paul von Hindenburg (under Hitler, the roles of President and Chancellor were combined into the role of Führer). Von Hindenburg was President from 1925 until his death in 1934. Under his presidency, various laws were enacted, strengthening the role of the President. Amongst these new powers was the power to create new emergency laws without the consent of the Reichstag (article 48), the power to dissolve the Reichstag (article 25), making the limitation on the former power useless, and power over the appointment of the Chancellor (article 53).” It was not von Hindenburg who annexed Austria, invaded Poland or instituted the "Final Solution". But without von Hindenburg's massive extension of executive power, it is doubtful whether Hitler would have been able to assume absolute power in the manner in which he did. von Hindenburg was not an evil man, but the tools he created were of immense use to a man who was evil. By establishing the supremacy of the executive over the legislature, von Hindenburg laid the foundations for Hitler's later appropriations of further powers. I don't believe that Blair appreciates this lesson from history. It is impossible to examine his recent record - just go back to the top of this post to remind yourself - without realising that, in the wrong hands, the powers he is creating could be extremely dangerous.” I do not think Blair is actually too stupid or too lacking in history lessons not to understand exactly what he is doing, I belive he hopes that his manoeuvring over these bills will mask the real intention and that must be, to bring our legal system in line with the European countries norm, as adapted by the EU. More and more parliamentary bills have within them this philosophy of a civil system, where the law is the law simply because the government says it is. Thus they have to remove our built in protections from the state. The ethics of a civil system can be seen when the government belive that it can do anything it wishes, we now see that the objective of some policy or other being thought more important than any defence we the citizen may have against the state. The logic of the particular argument is quite sound; animals may be ill treated by some people in their own home, we have got to do something about that, so we will give local council officers the right of entry. The government argues that rocketing property prices mean people living in certain houses, where renovation and/or alteration has taken place, might have to pay more Council Tax therefore inspectors are to be given to power to actually enter people's houses and conduct an assessment to see whether or not the property is eligible for a revaluation into a higher tax band bracket. And if we refuse to let them in we will be breaking the law and can be £500. If a policeman or a local council official thinks that an offence under the licensing act (2000) is about to be, is being, or has been committed they may enter and search, any premises, at any time, and they may use force to do so. These things have one thing in common and that is each one overturns a couple of basic concepts of English Common Law. We are innocent until proven guilty, therefore being innocent we do not have to prove we are, by allowing access to the police or the local council, on fishing expeditions. Also the separation of powers; if a policeman has some suspicion of an illegal activity he should be able to convince a magistrate of his need to enter a property. By continually allowing the reasonable argument for one case to override our basic rights in another area, the government could not more clearly demonstrate its antipathy towards the very concept of the rights of a free people to live without interference from the state, they are therefore putting the state before and above the people, no longer do they work for us, they now rule us. This is not an argument for cruelty to animals, not paying council tax or breaking the licensing laws, each one of these cases could easily have been met whilst still holding to the concepts of English Common Law freedoms, the fact that Blair and Co. decided not to do so is indicative of their continual attack on the British Constitution. The overturning of the British constitution is being undertaken piecemeal, not in one single law, but in several different new laws which create new offences and then create the means for government to monitor those offences and punish “wrongdoers” often without the recourse to the courts, or by reversing the burden of proof. So that the person who is punished must prove that they were innocent of the crime. Now with The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill the political elites are eroding even further the principle of rule by consent.

Parking Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act

This from Neil Herron Burnley Council ... formal letter incorporating the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act As we now begin to introduce the Human Rights perspective NPAS and DPE is looking very vulnerable indeed. Legal Department Burnley Borough Council Town Hall Burnley BB11 1JA Dear Sir/Madam I am writing with regard concerning a Final Demand from Drakes Bailiffs, dated 14/2/06 (copy enclosed) for 2 unpaid parking penalty notices dated 1/2/05 and 19/5/05. The penalty notices are: BE******** and BE********. I can confirm that I wrote to Parkwise on the 11th July last year and contested the validity of these tickets as no individual company has the right to demand money from me for an alleged offence which has not been proven in a Court of Law. As stated in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689: That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. As stated by Parkwise they do not issue fines but Penalty Charge Notices. However according to Burnley Borough Councils official website (Burnley.gov.uk), they do issue fines and is quite clearly listed in the A-Z of Council Services (copy enclosed). Therefore, it would appear that Burnley Borough Council and its agents (Parkwise) have no lawful authority to demand money for an alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a Court of Law. Of the Bill of Rights, I feel I must point out that the text of the Bill of Rights states clearly enough that no fines or forfeitures may be imposed before the process of judgment and conviction, and this text clearly indicates that a Court of Law is required to resolve disputes of any kind, either Civil or Criminal. Because judgments are involved in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, as well as convictions. It is quite clear that only HM Courts have the legal authority to impose lawful judgments &/or convictions. Furthermore with the precise words of the Bill of Rights very much in mind, I must record with you that the provisions of the Bill of Rights cannot be satisfied by any process of appeal to anywhere other than HM Courts of Law!. In a word The Declaration of Rights provides that if Burnley Borough Council wishes to proceed against me, they will have to refer this matter to Her Majesty's Courts Service where the issues must be resolved in a lawful manner. Otherwise, the forfeit demanded of me is illegal and void. In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and in support of my own assertion that this process is not constituted in accordance with our laws, I must ask you to recognise the Great Charter of Our Liberties that is now incorporated into Statute Law under the name of the Magna Carta. I draw your particular attention to the provisions made at Articles 39 & 40 of the Statute, which states as follows:- 39. No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. 40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice. There can be no doubt that I am a free man and that Articles 39 & 40 apply to me. It is clear & very well recorded that the entire purpose of Magna Carta was to reduce the power of the king and not to increase this power and in consequence of the very obvious, it is clear that the option of trial by the judgment of my peers OR by the law of the land is an option that is secured to me in all circumstances such as this, and not an option that may be exercised by or at the behest of the Crown, or by any authority that claims to hold an authority under the Crown. E.g. the Local Authority with which I find myself in dispute. In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta. I would like to draw your attention to the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular to Article 6 (Right To A Fair Trail), and the provisions made in paragraph 1:- 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. I have not as yet appealed to the National Parking Adjudication Service. The Independent Tribunal that receives 60p from every Penalty Notice issued, and is funded by the local authority collecting the PCN. The evidence of the now-recorded and public admissions of the National Parking and Adjudication Service now serves to reveal that the process of this tribunal system is being funded in part from the resources of my opponent, and this admission leads to the inevitable conclusion that any such hearing is not established in a manner that is independent from the interests of my opponent. I am therefore requesting that Burnley Borough Council suspend the warrant from Drakes Bailiffs, as I intend to file a Late Statutory Declaration with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. It is my intention to defend my case through the law courts of HM the Queen, as The Declaration of Rights 1689, the Magna Carta 1215, and the Human Rights Act 1998 provides I have an inalienable right to require that all and any legal actions undertaken against me, whether Civil or Criminal be heard and resolved by a Court of Law that operates in the name and for the purposes of the Queen. That is why the Royal Coat of Arms is displayed in every Courtroom. I look forward to hearing from you in this matter. Yours Faithfully. Neil Corless.