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.