EU Budget Virtual March

The DM is organising a 'virtual march' on 10 Downing Street this Saturday in advance of next week's EU summit, to protest against Tony Blair's offer to massively increase Britain's contribution to the EU budget. The government has proposed that Britain pays over £5bn extra to the EU between 2007 & 2013, to bring our total net contribution in that period to an incredible £40bn. This would be a 48% increase on the £27bn Britain will have contributed in the current budget period. Yet the government has failed to secure any reform of the EU's wasteful Common Agricultural Policy, which was previously said to be essential before changing the rebate would be considered. Blair's huge generosity with public money also comes just days after EU auditors refused to approved EU accounts for the 11th year running. The Democracy Movement is calling on Tony Blair to not only refuse any extra money to the EU during final negotiations on the EU budget next week, but to immediately halt all payments to the EU until he can at least be sure public money is safeguarded through the proper auditing of EU accounts. Blair's concession will hit us all in the pocket and will mean less money available for public services on which we all depend. This issue affects everyone directly. Please forward this message to as many people as possible and encourage them to join in the protest, or send your own message to your address book referring people to our Virtual March webpage at: http://www.democracymovement.org.uk/march Virtual March: here's what to do on Saturday 10th December 2005, anytime after 12noon: --------------- 1. Visit the 'E-mail the Prime Minister' page on the Number 10 website by clicking this link: http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/page821.asp 2. At the bottom of the page, choose 'International Affairs' in the category box and click the 'Go' button; 3. On the following page, enter your contact details and protest message to Tony Blair; 4. Then click 'Submit', and you're done! Thank you for joining in. Please let us know if you have any problems using the Number 10 website or leaving your message. If you have a problem using the link we have provided above, try clicking here (http://www.number10.gov.uk) or typing this address directly into your web browser. Then click the 'Email the Prime Minister' icon on the right of the screen and follow the instructions above. ------------------------------------- Full DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT e-Bulletin for December 2005 follows: http://www.democracymovement.org.uk + DM to hold 'virtual march' on 10 Downing Street over EU rebate sell-out + New book sets out 'Alternative Futures' to the EU + Blair challenged to resist EU criminal law power grab + EU leaders miss the 'elephant in the room' at Hampton Court + Latest These Tides magazine guns for euro-dreams + SALE! Big price cuts on our Keep the Pound merchandise CAMPAIGN NEWS ---------------------- ================================================= + DM calls 'virtual march' on 10 Downing Street over EU rebate sell-out ================================================= The DM is organising a 'virtual march' on 10 Downing Street this Saturday in advance of next week's EU summit, to protest against Tony Blair's offer to massively increase Britain's contribution to the EU budget. The government has proposed that Britain pays over £5bn extra to the EU between 2007 & 2013, to bring our total net contribution in that period to an incredible £40bn. This would be a 48% increase on the £27bn Britain will have contributed in the current budget period. Yet the government has failed to secure any reform of the EU's wasteful Common Agricultural Policy, which was previously said to be essential before changing the rebate would be considered. Blair's huge generosity with public money also comes just days after EU auditors refused to approved EU accounts for the 11th year running. The Democracy Movement is calling on Tony Blair to not only refuse any extra money to the EU during final negotiations on the EU budget next week, but to immediately halt all payments to the EU until he can at least be sure public money is safeguarded through the proper auditing of EU accounts. Blair's concession will hit us all in the pocket and will mean less money available for public services on which we all depend. This issue affects everyone directly. Please forward this message to as many people as possible and encourage them to join in the protest, or send your own message to your address book referring people to our Virtual March webpage at: http://www.democracymovement.org.uk/march Virtual March: here's what to do on Saturday 10th December 2005, anytime after 12noon: --------------- 1. Visit the 'E-mail the Prime Minister' page on the Number 10 website by clicking this link: http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/page821.asp 2. At the bottom of the page, choose 'International Affairs' in the category box and click the 'Go' button; 3. On the following page, enter your contact details and protest message to Tony Blair; 4. Then click 'Submit', and you're done! Thank you for joining in. Please let us know if you have any problems using the Number 10 website or leaving your message. If you have a problem using the link we have provided above, try clicking here (http://www.number10.gov.uk) or typing this address directly into your web browser. Then click the 'Email the Prime Minister' icon on the right of the screen and follow the instructions above. =================================== + New book sets out 'Alternative Futures' to the EU =================================== A new book has been published as a timely contribution to the growing debate in Britain and across Europe on the need for fundamental change in how European countries work together in the 21st century. 'Britain & the European Union: Alternative Futures' provides a groundbreaking analysis of the economic and democratic effect that EU membership has had on Britain. Published by the Campaign for an Independent Britain, this important new book offers not only a concise examination of the costs of EU membership, but also a well-reasoned study of alternative relationships Britain, perhaps together with other European countries, could more beneficially forge in the future. Options scrutinised include a defence of the status quo through to various renegotiations of membership and options for withdrawal. This rhetoric-free study should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in Britain's political and economic future. Britain & the European Union: Alternative Futures by Mark Baimbridge, Brian Burkitt & Philip Whyman (2005) with foreword by Frederick Forsyth Special discount for DM supporters: only £5 +p&p (RRP £7.50) To buy your copy securely online, or to order by post, click here: http://www.democracymovement.org.uk/merchandise ===================================== + Blair challenged to resist EU criminal law power grab ===================================== In response to news that the EU has gifted itself sweeping powers to demand member countries impose criminal sanctions for breaking EU rules, DM campaign director Marc Glendening has written to Tony Blair asking for an undertaking that the government will refuse to impose any criminal sanctions the EU orders, given that they opposed the EU being given this power. To read the full exchange, including the astonishing response to the DM's letter from the Foreign Office, which manages to contradict itself in one paragraph alone, click here: http://www.democracymovement.org.uk/challenge ========================================== + EU leaders miss the 'elephant in the room' at Hampton Court ========================================== Democracy campaigners staged an eye-catching stunt at the Hampton Court EU summit to highlight the failure of EU leaders to recognise and respond to the EU's fundamental flaws. A pantomime elephant-in-the-room tried in vain to get the attention of 'Tony Blair' (a protestor in a Blair mask). Today's EU is over-centralised and out of date - a product of 'big is best', top-down, elitist thinking stuck in the 1950s. Yet EU leaders plan to fiddle at the margins of the EU's problems with vastly expensive schemes like a 'globalisation fund', while overlooking the fact that the basic idea of the EU is fatally flawed. Rigid, centralised decision-making can neither suit the different needs and wants of Europe's diverse countries nor respond quickly and flexibly enough to rapid global change. Marc Glendening, DM campaign director, commented: "The elephant in the room at Hampton Court is that Europe doesn't need today's EU in order to co-operate and prosper. Europeans need a more dynamic, flexible form of co-operation to replace the EU - one that respects democracy and Europe's diversity. That's what EU leaders should be discussing." For links to pictures of the stunt, click here: http://www.democracymovement.org.uk/elephant To read more about our campaign for a constructive alternative to today's EU - Vision Europe - that will enable co-operation but will instead respect democracy and Europe's diversity, click here: http://www.democracymovement.org.uk/ve

ID Cards a letter

27.11.2005 This has gone out to other MP's, Lords and Ladies. Dear Home Secretary, The only time in living memory we have had a compulsory Identity Card was in 1939 at the start of World War II. The initial guide was the 1920 Census Act and the ID Card was free. There was however a fee for fresh identity cards in place of cards which had been lost, destroyed or defaced. There was no ‘fine’ or ‘civil penalty’ for any described above as lost, destroyed or defaced. Under the ACT certain criminal offences/criminal proceedings are recorded of which a person may be deemed guilty of an offence under the Act, and for which they may be fined, sent to prison or both. Matters with respect to which particulars were to be entered in the Register were, Names, Sex, Age, Occupation, Profession, trade or employment, Residence, Condition as to marriage, Membership of Naval, Military or Air Force Reserves or Auxiliary or Civil Defence Services or Reserves. During this time certain people of Italian, German nationality etc were gathered together (arrested) and sent to Internment Camps, even people that were married to British people were separated one from the other, one camp was on the Isle of Mann. It happened then and it could happen again now. Identification helped the Germans to separate the Jews from the rest, and that, or similar can happen again. The Act was supposed to continue “until such a date as His Majesty may order in Council declare to be the date on which the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of the act came to an end”, but as we know the ‘emergency’ had finished some years before the carrying of ID cards was finally at an end. There appears to be no end in sight for the proposed ID card and at a guess it will go on until the end of time. Unless or until another different government comes in to repeal the whole Act the fundamental constitutional changes between citizen and state will be permanent. It changes significantly the constitutional relationship between the individual and the state because for the first time, the state begins to keep considerable intrusive detailed records of each person in what had previously been private information shared voluntarily with family and friends. This eventually-should it come into being- will commence at birth and continue until death. Should the time come when the governing of this Country is transferred to the European Union and the ID Scheme and citizenship becomes an EU ‘competence’, as eventually it will either by this Government or the next, the citizens of this Country will become real citizens of the European Union, not the pretend citizens as per Maastricht. They will become true citizens of that new Country (State) of European Union and the United Kingdom will become just Regions of that new State. This is to be this present Prime Minister’s legacy. However, this country is not the Governments to give away and the Government’s Oaths of Office and Allegiance will get in the way of that ever happening, in fact the time is coming when we will have to pull out of the Union, especially as the Union has chosen to ignore the NO votes of the people of two important members of the European Union The role of the ID card itself is secondary to the Database, which will hold the personal history on a life long basis of every person on the Register, a register that can be checked without recourse to the ID Card itself. I have no doubt that the Data base will be ‘hacked’ into by those that can use any information from it to their own advantage. It is proposed that foreign nationals would ‘have to’ have an ID card after they had been in the country for three months, (the ‘have to’ would make that compulsory). To get round the European Convention on Human Rights Act and possible challenges, it appears as long as there is a commitment to eventually make the “Voluntary” ID Cards compulsory for everyone and it says so in the present proposed ID Bill, then the matter should comply with the ECHR. It is interesting to note that Mr Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, called these foreign nationals “EU Nationals”. The proposals for a “voluntary” (meaning of ‘ones own free will’, ‘not compulsory’) ID card and the inclusions of the proposals to eventually change to compulsory may give the impression that this massive constitutional change could be performed without Primary Legislation. I respectfully suggest that that ‘impression’ is totally incorrect. Primary legislation is indeed required, as I am sure any constitutional lawyer would confirm, particularly our Attorney General and Lord Chancellor. Should any form of compulsion be used when renewing a passport or driving licence when the system is supposed to be voluntary is certainly not wise when primary legislation should have been used. This makes a mockery of this Country’s once highly thought of Law making process. Who would ever have thought a Government of this Country would use such methods? It is said that one of the reasons ID Cards are introduced, are to protect our identities. It in fact hands over our identities to the State; it puts our identities at the disposal of the State. It can be cross-referenced by numbers to medical records, tax records, criminal records and any other records. Knowledge is power and we are putting that power in the hands of a government (and European Union) that lusts for power. We are told that the rest of “Europe” has some form of identity card so why shouldn’t we? Then ask yourself why this country has never before succumbed to fascism? The reason has something to do with the fact that we have had institutions and law based on a Common Law tradition which is utterly and profoundly different from the system of law that would be forced upon us by the European Union and to which this Government appears to run eagerly to accept. No other Common Law country in the world has an identity card scheme, and certainly would not have one that is backed up with such an intrusive Data base system. Is there any wonder that the people of this Country are prepared to defend their freedoms to the hilt rather than do as this Government is prepared to do, by giving our freedoms away, pandering to the terrorists that they once said ID cards were to be brought in for? I look at why ‘civil penalties’ have been chosen as opposed to ‘criminal charges’ and the reason given is Mr Blunkett’s answer in the Minutes of Evidence, Home Affairs debate 4th May 2004, when he said, “I think it is very important that we do not have martyrs”. This is absolutely no reason for using “civil penalties”. When people deliberately go against parliamentary legislation, it is a criminal offence and should be treated as such. “Civil penalties’ would be somewhat difficult to implement whilst the proposals are for a voluntary card. In fact, it would not be possible at all. This smacks of wishing to punish the people by imposing severe financial punishments without trial simply for protecting their rights to their hard won freedoms held in their Common Law Constitution. The latter is something any Government of this Country should be protecting. The proposed ID card cannot possibly be as important as the one in the last war, otherwise it would be in operation NOW not in a few years time, and most certainly not voluntarily. If compulsory, we should not have to pay for it. It is proposed that when people require a new Passport that an ID card is also provided, a kind of buy one and get the other at half price. People need to have a passport to meet the requirements of the various Countries that they want to visit with America being the Country that requires the most intrusive details. It is up to the people to decide whether to go on holiday to America or not, but they should not have a “voluntary” ID card forced upon them. They can and must say no to this enforced ID card and pay only for the passport. There should be two prices available, one for a stand alone Passport and one price for both. When what is proposed is voluntary, there should be a ‘yes’ or ‘no, I don’t want an ID card as well’. To propose both for a certain amount of money with no alternative is compulsory and the legislation does not allow for that that. Although DNA, medical or criminal records may not be included to begin with, they may be accessible and a link-up between them making a full tracking record of any individual others may have an interest in, can and probably will be made by those organisations that is in their interests to do so. Isn’t there any thought that another “Hitler” will emerge eventually? Doesn’t history have a way of repeating itself? Actually it is happening already and this will be seen more clearly as they years unfold for far more people are already using the term “A Police State”, and where this once free country that was so proud of the freedom of being able, without fear, to have ‘free speech’, it is indeed now restricted in what it says in a ‘’politically correct’ State. The ‘conditioning’ has already commenced. If the European Convention on Human Rights is to mean anything at all in this Country, the proposed ID cards and particularly “the Register” should be scrapped right now. I firmly believe that there is a strong case to be made that the proposed legislation is against more than one section of the ECHR and this should in time be challenged, Yours faithfully, Anne Palmer. As this is about our Constitution, this is an open letter.

FLYING THE FLAG

http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/the_north_east/features/HEARALLSIDES0.html 06/12/05 FLYING THE FLAG: AS one of the 84 per cent of the UK's citizens living in England, I find it regrettable that an English newspaper should publish such an anti-English article (Echo, Dec 1). We do not know whether its author, Helen Cannam, is English or Scottish. Quite simply, she has not had the integrity to tell her readers. She clearly implies opposing or criticising the EU somehow is not to be "passionately pro European" or even merely "pro European". She is also guilty of double standards. Ms Cannam writes: "The French will always be French, the Germans, German. We will always be British; just as within the United Kingdom the Scots will always be Scottish, the Welsh, Welsh" but, apparently, she cannot bring herself to say "the English will always be English". There's no question of the Scottish saltire or the Welsh dragon being set aside or taking second place to the EU flag, but Ms Cannam omits to mention this. She also implies that if the EU flag is not flown (here I paraphrase her) "our representatives will not sit round a table, however tediously, however unproductively, and try to solve our problems by talking, but will shout from the sidelines with a stockpile of weapons at their elbows". How absurd. I am surprised that The Northern Echo has seen fit to publish such low grade journalism. - A England, York. Re: Is England a country? (Echo, Dec 1). The feature was disappointing, but also revealing. The overall article was fluffy and vague, revealing a distinct lack of knowledge of the EU and its true agenda. Acting as a member of the public, with the help of Neil Herron's People's Campaign, I found that Wear Valley District Council had no planning consent to fly the EU flag, and has now spent taxpayers' money in the hope of flying the EU flag. So, my objection is not just towards the EU, but the use of taxpayers' money that will now see the English flag removed in favour of the EU flag. Perhaps Ms Cannam can explain the following comment from her article: "We will always be British; just as within the United Kingdom the Scots will always be Scottish, the Welsh, Welsh - and the people of the North-East, North-Easterners, shouting loudly for their region." We have to be proud of the region whilst every other nation is allowed to be proud of their nation. Can Ms Cannam explain why she refrained from mentioning the word England, which happens to be the country in which the North-East resides? - Jim Tague, Bishop Auckland Conservatives. It may have escaped Helen Cannam's attention, but the Scots fly the Scottish saltire over government buildings and, likewise, the Welsh fly the Welsh dragon. Maybe the English should adopt the St George's Cross instead of the Union Jack or the EU flag. I don't know whether Helen is Scottish, but she sounds like a true Scot when talking about English regions. Compare her remarks about the North-East with those made by two assuredly Scots persons. The late Robin Cook uttered on the World At One programme: "England isn't a nation, it's only a collection of regions". Charles Kennedy, to Scottish Liberals, said: "Scotland has a parliament. Wales an assembly. In England regionalism is growing as never before, calling into question the idea of England itself." No doubting then, that regionalists want to eradicate England. A more important quote comes from the English people, especially those who voted No to regions in the referendum of November 2004, and it is this: "There is only one English region - it is called England." The only way the English people will get rid of hated regional assemblies is replacing them with an English Parliament, like that the Scots enjoy. - Stephen Gash, Carlisle. AS a veteran of the Second World War, I would like to ask Helen Cannam where she thinks the freedom she enjoys today came from. I didn't give more than six years of my life, six years of my marriage and almost six of my first born's life for the Britain it has become because of the woolly thinking of people like her. - Doug Jacques, New South Wales, Australia. HELEN Cannam gave the game away in her coded advertisement for unelected regional assemblies when she said: "Scots will always be Scottish, the Welsh, Welsh - and the people of the North-East, North-Easterners, shouting loudly for their region". What happened to the English? Couple this with the struggle between England's flag and the EU flag at Wear Valley Council and an anti English tirade from Terry White (resigned) New Labour communications officer, it must be quite plain to one and all that like Charles Kennedy, New Labour and the Lib/Dems don't like the idea of England. They have changed the argument from Britain in Europe to one of England not being invited into Europe unless it's carved up. In a survey of why people voted the way they did after the North-East referendum, many people stated they did not like the idea of a divided England. Unless this Government deals fairly with England, it will be England that brings it down. If Tony Blair wishes to leave a legacy to the United Kingdom, I suggest an English Parliament situated wherever the English want it to be. - K Young, Darlington. HELEN Cannam is not neutral in her position on Europe - she is unashamedly pro Europe. What Helen failed to focus on (and why the majority of people are not proud to fly the EU flag) is that it is starting to represent all the things the previous generation feared from Europe. Having grown to such an enormous size, without proper thought of the implications, we can now see how destructive it is becoming. It has grown into a remote unaccountable administrative juggernaut that forces a "one size fits all" approach on policy making across all countries, whether or not these policies are appropriate. Despite what Helen says, it still protects the sectional interests of individual nations, the latest example over the EU rebate clearly demonstrates that countries like France will continue to make no concessions, whilst countries like Britain will continue to pay for them. Countries are attracted to the EU concept for "handouts" and vast funds to repair the damage and decay caused by failed communism. This is nothing more than a process of "redistribution of wealth" and Britain is one of the main countries paying for it. There is no democracy in the EU, voters are rarely consulted on key matters. Britain has had to give her sovereignty away to the EU, offending against all our ancient laws and rights and the people have never given their permission for this. The people of Britain have no faith in the project because it is undemocratic and unaccountable and it is for this reason we are not proud to fly its flag as it offends against our traditions of democracy. - Christine Constable, Director, English Lobby. Thanks to Dennis Cooper Perhpas this is should be the new British Flag? I am Certain many in the EU would prefer it

Blair selling UK down the river

By : Fraser Nelson - Political Notebook December 04, 2005 SAY what you like about Jacques Chirac, but he knows how to handle the European Union (EU). The President of France has a strict negotiation strategy: if it doesn’t benefit my country, forget it. I won’t sign. If the EU tells him it’s illegal to ban British beef? Tough. If Brussels imposes a fine for his non-compliance? “Let them invade: we’re not paying a cent.” If anyone suggests cutting farm subsidies? “Non, non et non.” Tony Blair, by contrast, defines success in achieving a deal through compromise. For years, he used parts of Britain’s sovereignty as bargaining chips. Now he is offering cold hard cash, in the form of the UK budget rebate. Taking such gold out of the sack certainly dazzled the eastern Europeans with whom he was negotiating – they know the rebate has been the crown jewels of Britain’s EU relationship since it was secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984. It has been a national trophy, fiscal proof that Britons will not be taken for idiots by Brussels and will pay their fair share, but no more. Now, Blair has a new definition of “fair share” and worries that the deal was a little too good for Britain and must go. In Budapest last week, Foreign Office officials explained that the 1984 rebate deal meant Britain would be “the second-smallest net contributor to the EU by 2013”. Crucially, this is now regarded as a bad thing by Blair. It’s hard to imagine Chirac losing sleep over the prospect of France making too much of a saving in its contributions to Brussels. But it bothers Blair, who sees the rebate through pan-European eyes and, above all, wants to broker a deal. The Thatcher deal saw the return of two-thirds of the difference between what Britain pays the EU and what it receives back. Even today, Britain remains the No 2 EU contributor. Naively, the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, said she wasn’t bothered about the formula used for the refund. So the EU kept charging Britain the full whack, distributed its money among member states – then asked each country to send London a refund. It was a convoluted, but ingenious refund system, designed to sow resentment by giving the entirely false impression of countries subsidising Britain. Chirac has been fulminating for years against the “cheque Britannique”. If the rebate was paid from Brussels, there would be far less angst. This accounting trick was in 1984 designed to bend the will of a more suggestible British prime minister who would follow Thatcher. The EU saw Blair coming. For years, Blair refused to negotiate on the rebate without fundamental reform of the protectionist Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). “You cannot discuss the rebate without discussing the causes for the rebate,” he rightly said. But last week, Blair caved in. The new UK position is that Britain wants to pay as much of its national wealth to the EU as France and Italy. Crucially, it has accepted that the rebate formula is inherently unfair, and needs to change. This is a major psychological shift in Britain’s relationship with the EU: Blair is embarrassed at the terms of the 1984 Fontainbleau deal and does not want the sharp increase in the rebate – due as the EU budget covers new members. So as he chairs the EU summit in Brussels later this month, he can expect to be taken to pieces by wolves like Chirac, who realise Blair has now conceded that British taxpayers should take more of the strain in future. Hence Blair has departed from the UK’s national interest. His job was to defend the rebate at all costs, until such times as serious CAP reform was on the table. It is not, so he has settled for the allure of doing a budget deal while he holds the EU presidency. All this fuss is about the EU budget for 2007-13, and Blair has given in to French demands that farm subsidy should be protected – and that the axe must fall on development money due to new member states. It’s worth remembering that the European Commission has good claim to be the largest fraud-prone organisation outside Africa – just ask its official auditors, who have refused to sign off its accounts for 11 years. And where is the urgency for a deal? Certainly not popular support: last summer, Brussels commissioned the world’s biggest opinion poll to find most Europeans agree that “political objectives do not justify an increase in the EU’s budget”. Yes, the expansion of the EU does indeed stand to vastly increase the value of the UK rebate. But rather than be embarrassed about it, Blair should realise this will give him an even stronger hand when arguing for reform of scandalous CAP. Instead, farm subsidies are protected by Chirac’s intransigence – and Blair seems to settle for a smaller goal, becoming once again mesmerisied by the allure of striking a consensus in Europe. It took Thatcher four years to negotiate the deal agreed at Fontainbleau. The angrier Europe gets about it, the greater its leverage. History will not judge Blair kindly if he plays Britain’s strongest card when the stakes are so low. Have your say: e-mail letters@thebusiness.press.net