EUREALIST

With Friends like these...

2006-03-06T16:01:00.000Z

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

2006-03-06T09:30:00.000Z

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

2006-03-05T20:58:00.000Z

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

2006-03-03T14:01:00.000Z

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.

2006-03-02T10:15:00.000Z

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

2006-03-02T08:56:00.000Z

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

2006-03-02T02:49:00.000Z

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

2006-03-02T01:51:00.000Z

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

2006-03-02T00:07:00.000Z

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

2006-03-01T17:56:00.000Z

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

2006-03-01T11:34:00.000Z

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

2006-02-28T13:33:00.000Z

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”

2006-02-28T13:28:00.000Z

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

2006-02-28T09:44:00.000Z

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

2006-02-28T07:45:00.000Z

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

2006-02-27T17:51:00.000Z

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

2006-02-27T03:19:00.000Z

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

2006-02-27T01:41:00.000Z

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

2006-02-26T17:09:00.000Z

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

2006-02-26T10:05:00.000Z

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

2006-02-25T15:47:00.000Z

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

2006-02-24T17:51:00.000Z

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

2006-02-23T01:50:00.000Z

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

2006-02-23T00:37:00.000Z

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

2006-02-21T12:36:00.000Z

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.

Abolition of Parliament Bill

2006-02-21T11:12:00.000Z

Who wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill? David Howarth Hardly anyone has noticed, but British democracy is sleepwalking into a sinister world of ministerial power. LAST WEEK all eyes were on the House of Commons as it debated identity cards, smoking and terrorism. The media reported both what MPs said and how they voted. For one week at least, the Commons mattered. All the more peculiar then that the previous Thursday, in an almost deserted chamber, the Government proposed an extraordinary Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws, a Bill some constitutional experts are already calling “the Abolition of Parliament Bill”. A couple of journalists noticed, including Daniel Finkelstein of The Times, and a couple more pricked up their ears last week when I highlighted some biting academic criticism of the Bill on the letters page of this paper. But beyond those rarefied circles, that we are sleepwalking into a new and sinister world of ministerial power seems barely to have registered. The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voilà, the law is changed. For ministers the advantages are obvious: no more tedious debates in which they have to answer awkward questions. Instead of a full day’s debate on the principle of the proposal, detailed line-by-line examination in committee, a second chance at specific amendment in the Commons and a final debate and vote, ministers will have to face at most a short debate in a committee and a one-and-a-half hour debate on the floor. Frequently the Government will face less than that. No amendments will be allowed. The legislative process will be reduced to a game of take-it-or-leave-it. The Bill replaces an existing law that allows ministers to relieve regulatory burdens. Business was enthusiastic about that principle and the Government seems to have convinced the business lobby that the latest Bill is just a new, improved version. What makes the new law different, however, is not only that it allows the Government to create extra regulation, including new crimes, but also that it allows ministers to change the structure of government itself. There might be business people so attached to the notion of efficiency and so ignorant or scornful of the principles of democracy that they find such a proposition attractive. Ordinary citizens should find it alarming. Any body created by statute, including local authorities, the courts and even companies, might find themselves reorganised or even abolished. Since the powers of the House of Lords are defined in Acts of Parliament, even they are subject to the Bill. Looking back at last week’s business in the Commons, the Bill makes a mockery of the decisions MPs took. Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one’s own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment. Nor will the Human Rights Act save us since the Bill makes no exception for it. The Bill, bizarrely, even applies to itself, so that ministers could propose orders to remove the limitations about two-year sentences and taxation. It also includes a few desultory questions (along the lines of “am I satisfied that I am doing the right thing?”) that ministers have to ask themselves before proceeding, all drafted subjectively so that court challenges will fail, no matter how preposterous the minister’s answer. Even these questions can be removed using the Bill’s own procedure. Indeed, at its most extreme, in a manoeuvre akin to a legislative Indian rope trick, ministers could use it to transfer all legislative power permanently to themselves. The Bill raises fundamental questions about the role of Parliament. Ministers, egged on, some suspect, by the Civil Service, treat Parliament as a voting machine. Its job, in their view, is merely to give legal cover to whatever ministers want to do. They treat debate and deliberation as mere chatter before the all-important vote. They see no great difference between full parliamentary procedure and a truncated procedure for statutory instruments because, for them, the result either way is the same, that ministers receive legal authority for their plans. Just as a perfect criminal statute for ministers appears to be one in which everything is illegal so that prosecutors have discretion to put anyone in front of a court, a perfect authorising statute is one that makes lawful any ministerial act or policy. Some of us have a different view. We think that deliberation and debate matter, that they are part of what makes parliamentary democracy work and make the new laws we pass legitimate. Deliberation improves legislation but more importantly, it forces governments to give reasons for their proposals that go beyond their narrow self-interest. In private meetings of the governing party, or in the Cabinet, or above all in telephone calls between ministers and special advisers, purely partisan reasons can hold sway. But in public, especially where there is real debate, ministers have to offer reasons that might persuade others. If they cannot think of any such reasons, their embarrassment constrains them. As the political scientist Jon Elster says, even hypocrisy can have a civilising effect. The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about. The powers in the Bill, it says, will not be used for “controversial” matters. But there is nothing in the Bill that restricts its use to “uncontroversial” issues. The minister is asking us to trust him, and, worse, to trust all his colleagues and all their successors. No one should be trusted with such power. As James Madison gave warning in The Federalist Papers, we should remember when handing out political power that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm”. This Bill should make one doubt whether they are at the helm now. David Howarth is Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge and Reader in Law at Cambridge University

Blog Repair and a British Constitution

2006-02-21T01:02:00.000Z

On Saturday I checked into Eurealist and found that the blog had become corrupted, no problem I hear you both cry, just reload your back up copy of the template and you will up and running in no time, A wat! Oh yes, I did back up the template some months ago whoops! So I have been mucking about with the template, eventually I have got it sort of sorted, I hope. I took the opportunity to re-assess my blog listings, some no longer worked, others had ceased to be updated, also there were a few new ones, I have added. Not Little England full name Great Britain not Little England is one such, I do not know why I have not put a link in before, well I do actually, it is the same reason that prevented me creating a backup of the template, my wife calls it laziness Hu! I really do not know what she’s on about, I mean I was working on the template in my nice warm office with a glass of wine beside me yesterday evening, whist she was enjoying herself, scrambling about under the Mahonia? bush in the freezing cold rodding the drains (the Ladies lo had become clogged again). Anyway MatGB at not Little England has recently started a Blog movement, to oust this government, a coalition of the willing to remove our dangerously authoritarian government. I am happy to support this laudable endeavour, but would caution that removeing this government will not in itself cause a reversal of the authoritarian policies of the TB GB mob. No we need to be very specific that we the people of Great Britian have had just about enough authoritarianism to last for quite a while, we need to make that very clear to those who would stand in Blair’s shoes and we must not allow ourselves to be fobbed off with sweet words from honed tongues. Another one of the blog list additions is Gav`s Politics, Gav`s take on the Coalition of the willing is worth copying because he put into words some of that which has been rolling around in my head for the past few weeks, that I do not seem to be able to get a handle on: “MatGB seems to have set a Indiana Jones-type ball rolling… First I agreed, tentatively, to support a coalition of the willing to remove our dangerously authoritarian government, and now we have a British Constitution effort. My response is this: An important aspect that must not be forgotten if we’re to look at this at a UK level is the inequity caused by devolution and especially the Scottish Raj. As Bishop Hill said (though not in these words) yesterday we must be very careful about creating a Constitution that enshrines a partisan political view. The EU Constitution, IMHO, made that mistake.”

Independence in Higher Education and Research

2006-02-16T16:09:00.000Z

Quite often we are offered academic reports and studies from diverse academic organisations, which carry with them the assurance that these are nothing more than impartial academic discourse. This must be the case because they were prepared and presented by independent academics, whos only thoughts are to report honestly and fairly on their particular subject. Of course because these are no more than truly independent academics, they have no particular political view point and they only offer an honest non-partisan assessment of the case in question. This inevitable makes it difficult to question the findings of these “independent” reports, what gives these reports power is their academic origin,thus implying or openly stating independence and objectivity. Yet the EU spends millions each and every year on educational and research projects in the UK, these funds are distributed to organisations within the academic education establishment on the condition that they must deal with the issue of European integration". Further research funding comes from our own government. If for instance we take the UCL which includes The Constitution Unit run by Robert Hazell. The Constitution Unit claims on its web page that it is the UK's foremost “independent” research body on constitutional change. The Constitution Unit specialises in constitutional reform and comparative constitutional studies. It is “independent and non-partisan”, and the centre of a wide network of national and international experts. The UCL web site states that; The Constitution unit has had a major influence on the Government’s constitutional reform programme, publishing a series of major reports and briefings on devolution in Scotland and Wales, regional government in England, parliamentary reform, reform of the House of Lords, incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of information, referendums and electoral reform. The unit is a major resource for government and for a wide range of other interests. It will continue to act as a source of independent and expert information and advice. The UCL website claims it has a growing influence on policymaking at local, national and international levels, through diverse bodies such as the Constitution Unit, the Centre for Transport Studies, the School of Public Policy, the Centre for South East European Studies, the Environmental Change Research Centre and the International Centre for Health & Society. Looking at the funding however gives a slightly different slant on the independence picture, we find that apart form general funding from HEFCE to the tune of £10251000 in 2004 and £10686000 in 2005. The UCL also received research grants from the British government totalling £1385000, and another £281000 from the EU in the same two year period. Future plans for UCL Funding from 2005 to 2008, UCl have sought funding for research of £210k from the ESRC, UK government and devolved governments. The ESRC Research Resources Board has offered £105k and the Scottish Executive £30k. The UK government (DCA, Scotland Office and Wales Office) are still considering whether to offer the remaining £75k. It is not for me to question the independence of the academics, but when so much of their funding is derived from central government, devolved government and the EU, it does leave them open to questions of probity. But if they are not financially independent, then perhaps their papers and publications show a degree of independence. The EU has several funding lines open to universities one of which is the The Jean Monnet Program cosponsored by the European Commission to promote teaching about European integration. Sponsors working papers, research projects. This from the Bruges Group on the Jean Monnet organisation; The Bruges Group is an “independent” all-party think tank. Our independence is our strength allowing us to be free to follow our own policy agenda and put the national interest above party political considerations. Nowhere, in the torrent of papers emanating from Jean Monnet courses, on the conference agendas, in the publications that pour from the word processors of Jean Monnet professors, will you find any reasoned (or any) arguments as to why the UK should leave the EU, why the euro should not replace the pound, why Euroscepticism is a legitimate and honourable political activity. You will not find Eurosceptics - prominent or otherwise - invited as guest lecturers on Jean Monnet courses, you will not find Eurosceptic tracts used as core teaching material (except for the purposes of rebuttal) and you will not find UK Independence Party MEPs addressing Jean Monnet conferences. The "debate" is totally one-sided. It is, therefore, not a debate. It is propaganda, paid for by the British taxpayer, delivered by academics who - as was seen from the examples of their work in the British media - purport to be objective and impartial, but who are not. Politically, the significance of this is profound. In the absence of a steady stream nationally-orientated policy ideas, contrasted with the flow of ideas on "European" themes, the EU is seen as the "only game in town". This reinforces the myth that the future lies with "Europe" and lends credence to propaganda that there is no alternative to membership of the EU. As ordinary people become steadily more disillusioned by the policy vacuum, "Europe" wins the game by default. To those of us who have studied the ways of the EU, all of this has a weary familiarity. The insistence of the EU on cross-border collaboration between universities - making funding conditional on such arrangements - exactly parallels its regional policy, where funds are made conditional on cross-border co-operation. What is happening in academia is a variation on the theme of "perforated sovereignty", whereby sub-national organisations are encouraged to build contacts with like organisations in other member states, by-passing their national governments and thus diminishing their authority. The Bruges Group also has some details of other (now out of date) involvement of the EU in UK Academic institutions; The Leeds Metropolitan University website, for example, promotes its Business School and one of its departments, the Policy Research Institute, proudly boasting of "prestigious clients", including the European Commission. It cites DGV as its "client", the Directorate responsible for the European Social Fund. Manchester University's website parades a dedicated "European Policy Research Unit", under its School of Government, heavily supported by EU funds. Simon Bulmer, one of the university academics, contributes to the EU's ARENA programme, the programme of Advanced Research on the Europeanisation of the Nation State. In 1997, he delivered a paper on the "New Institutionalism", analysing the Single Market and EU Governance. Hull University proudly advertises its EU-funded "Euro Information Centre Humberside", one of twenty similar centres in the UK, which claims to be a "first-stop-shop for information on European policies, programmes and legislation". But the pride of place in Hull goes to the Centre for European Union Studies (CEUS), founded in 1990 under the directorship of Professor Juliet Lodge and now under the direction of Dr Mike Burgess. It obtains finances from a variety of EU programmes and the university also directed the UK-wide Jean Monnet Group of Experts on the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. York University hosts a Centre for Defence Economics, which boasts of having undertaken research for the European Commission. It also has a Centre for Experimental Economics which claims to have been financed from a number of sources, "most notably the Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom and the European Commission". Lancaster University's Management School has received funding from a variety of EU programmes. It received €300,000 over a two-year period from the European Commission's Human Capital and Mobility (HCM) programme, and funding from the Training and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) and NECTAR programmes. The University of Sheffield, which supports a "European Research Office" and hosts the web-site "Focus on Europe On-line". In a foreword to this publication, the University's Vice Chancellor, Sir Gareth Roberts FRS, proudly proclaims that the issue in which he writes "…continues to show the University of Sheffield's commitment to achieving excellence in research by integrating the European Dimension in all areas of activity". Aston University's Business School in Birmingham, which claims to be "one of the largest and most successful business schools in Europe", also boasts of funding from the European Union. The London School of Economics hosts the "European Institute" and is a member of the "Community of European Management Schools", all handsomely provided with EU funds. Reading University runs the Graduate School of European and International Studies, with a director who occupies the Jean Monnet chair, using EU funding for projects on the likes of "European Citizenship and Constitutionalism". Its Centre for International Business History is undertaking an EU funded project called CEMP (Creation of European Management Practice), which aims to judge "to what extent education, research and consulting contribute to the homogenisation of management knowledge from Europe". With EU funding, Cranfield University in Bedfordshire is coordinating a survey into "Human Resource Management" and is undertaking research on the "Euro Human Resource Manager" in collaboration with establishments in Germany, Spain and Slovakia. It is seeking to profile the education and training needs of personnel managers and to determine perceptions of future developments in the personnel role. Its Institute for Advanced Marketing counts as its leading sponsor the European Commission. Surrey University's Centre for Environmental Strategy, on the other hand, advertises its participation in a project called "Clean Development Mechanism" researching greenhouse gas emissions. This was funded by DGXII of the European Commission and involved six institutions across Europe. Even the traditional universities are not immune from EU blandishments, with the prestigious Biosciences High Level Group (BHLG) launched by the Commission, boasting three Cambridge scientists amongst its 11 members: Professor Sir Tom Blundell; Prof. Derek Burke; and Prof. Anne McLaren. The message should be clear to all of us, when an academic paper is presented as being from a Non-partisan and independent unit, then we perhaps ought to take that with a very large pinch of salt. The EU has created a network of funding possibilities for both teaching and for research which is conditional on there being an EU dimension to the work. If this were not the case then where are all those academic papers suggesting why the UK should leave the EU, why the euro should not replace the pound, why Euroscepticism is a legitimate and honourable political activity, what are the benefits of an English parliament in a devolved Britain.

Devolution and EU Regionalisation

2006-02-15T16:19:00.000Z

A Comment on my deconstruction of Professor Hazels report on “The English Question” suggests that there is no linkage between the devolution and EU Regionalisation. I must agree that this is a much argued contention by those who “oddly” are recipients of EU largess, who “incidentally” also support and promote the devolution process, including the break up of England into 9 separate political regions. Basically “The English Question” is to address the problems left by Tony Blair’s unfinished destruction of Britain as a political unit. From Hazell`s point of view there is only one answer to “The English Question”, and that is to destroy England, that without doubt would be one way of addressing the problems but as Hazell makes clear; "Regionalism Is Not a Complete Answer Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have powers to make laws in their devolved assemblies and substantial executive powers over major public services such as health, education, and local government. English regional assemblies would have had no lawmaking power and no executive powers to speak of." However back to the suggestion that the EU is not relevant to the devolution process, we do not have to search far to find overwhelming evidence in official and academic reports, that give the lie to this suggestion. Regions in the European Union By Michael Keating * "European integration has been a powerful stimulus to territorial mobilisation in Western Europe, but at the same time it has provided new mechanisms to manage the consequences. The erosion of state sovereignty and the sharing of power that it imposes allow a more flexible constitutional order in which questions of jurisdiction do not become absolutes but can be negotiated. In multinational states like Spain, Belgium and the United Kingdom, this has permitted a programme of decentralisation and a degree of recognition of the special needs of particular areas, within the overall framework of Europe." Martin Burch, Ricardo Gomez, Simon Bulmer (University of Manchester), Patricia Hogwood (University of Glasgow), Caitriona Carter and Andrew Scott (University of Edinburgh) The English Regions and the European Union Paper No. 2 Devolution and European Union Policy Making Series May 14, 2003 "Sub-national involvement in EU policies and politics is an established feature of the European integration process. Over the course of several decades, interaction between different levels of government within and beyond the nation state has become a defining characteristic of the EU." But in what way has the EU influenced and driven the policy of devolution? Firstly we must define "the EU effect". That is change that would not have happened or would not have happened in the way it has, if it were not for the existence of the EU or arrangements and interaction resulting from the creation and growth of the EU. How has the EU exerted its influence on these developments; for an official answer to that question we need only turn to the Final Report to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) December 2003 “The Structural Funds are the primary instrument for implementing EU regional policy across the Member States. They were initially designed and have subsequently evolved to reflect key EU policy priorities, The Structural Funds have a specific remit to complement Member State regional development policies but there are differences in emphasis and some scope for European monies to influence national spending priorities: The European Commission’s role as a partner in the implementation of the Structural Funds means that its perspective on the barriers to development in a particular programme area, and the necessary solutions, can influence the nature of strategies that are adopted.” So the answer to the question is money or the availability of funding directly from the EU (of course this is our money in the first place, which the EU then returns to us with strings attached in order to facilitate EU objectives,) This is not quite the end of the matter however as the report continues; “The requirement to use domestic funding sources to match-fund or co-finance Structural Fund programmes, and the desire on the part of regional and other actors to maximise the ‘draw-down’ from the Structural Funds, has the potential to influence how domestic funding streams are deployed.” So not only does EU funding influence regional policy it influence our own government spending. Michael Keating “The European Commission considers that the ability of the Structural Funds to influence policy development in Member States to reflect EU policy goals and to act as stimulus for increased integration of policy across the EU is one of the principal areas where community added value can be identified.” Back to the The English Regions and the European Union, paper and a question of relative meanings: The Emergence of "New English Regionalism": 1991-97 “Prior to 1997, regional involvement in European Union policy making was very much a ‘bottom up’ development. In some regions key actors began to organise themselves to respond to the challenges of economic regeneration and in particular to the opportunities presented by European funding programmes.” The writers are claiming here that there was a bottom up movement for devolution, but say that it was driven "in particular by the European funding programmes". Which they seem to have missed was a top down movement and therefore the driver for the later bottom up movement. Back to Keating, who says: “The whole policy was to be guided by the principle of subsidiarity, with the greatest possible involvement of regional and local interests and the social partners in the world of business, labour and voluntary groups. The Commission, in line with contemporary thinking on development policy, also sought to move from infrastructure to human capital, productive investment and endogenous development, giving opportunities for a more active and participatory role for regional actors of various sorts. This should have encouraged greater regional involvement in policy making and stronger direct links between the Commission and regional interests, and to some extent this has happened. States without regional structures have had to create them, or a least some substitute for them, in order to be eligible for funds—for example in Greece, Ireland and Sweden. The new funds have stimulated a great deal of political mobilisation (Hooghe 1996) even in places like England, without a developed regionalism (Burch and Holliday 1993). There has been an explosion of regional lobbying and offices in Brussels. Regional actors have been brought into contact with Commission officials and its thinking on development policy has been diffused through the mechanism of partnership” So we can see it was the EU decision to only offer funding to regions and not to nation states, which drove the devolution process from the very beginning, in order for the regions to receive funding there had to be a political mechanism in place, first to apply for and then to distribute funding. This fact is confirmed in the paper The English Regions and the European Union, “It is important to acknowledge the significance of the structural funds in encouraging the emergence of sub-national governance in England.” “Two principles introduced in the 1988 and 1993 reforms to the European Regional Development Fund – partnership and programming – highlight this point. The partnership concept, incorporated in the 1988 Framework Regulation, codified a Commission commitment to the inclusion of sub-national actors that had existed since the foundation of EU regional policy in the 1970s. It required tripartite consultation between the Commission, Member States and designated sub-national authorities in the formulation of development plans, the implementation of programmes and the monitoring and evaluation process. Power to designate and to take key decisions about the programmes rested with central governments. But the partnership principle clearly encouraged sub-national participation and assisted the creation of new, regionally focused, policy communities (Bache 1998: 103). The programming concept complemented partnership by setting out a procedural map for the negotiation of multi-annual plans and there were, in particular, two aspects of this which encouraged the emergence of regional players and structures. Firstly, implementing authorities had to be consulted by the Commission and member governments during this complex and lengthy process. Secondly, the 5-year time frame of the plans ensured continuity and stability for the participants in the funding process. The series of reforms to the ERDF between 1988 and 1993 thus provided one of the significant drivers for regional engagement, albeit with varying outcomes across the English regions partly depending on the scale of the funds allocated.” Elsewhere in the report; “Regional differences in receipts of Structural Funds have clearly been a factor in accounting for the way organisational structures have developed.” And Conclusion There was considerable variation in the way that English regions became engaged on the European issue in the pre-1997 ‘phase’. This variation in part reflected differences in the pattern of regional emergence across the nine. A pragmatic 'new English regionalism'emerged in some areas. This emphasised economic concerns, was confined to core elites and reflected the specific characteristics of each region. It developed in tandem with the creation of integrated Government Offices in the regions. However, the timing, scope and impact of change in English regional governance was significantly driven by the Structural Funds and thus by the European Union. Much of the substantive change over the period originated at the regulative level with the new obligations imposed on central government and regional authorities by the Structural Funds regulations of 1988 and 1993. Important changes in processes and organisations within the regions were a direct result of ERDF decision-making requirements. The programming concept helped to both develop and consolidate the regional tier by creating a clear focus for the activities of regional players. Formal requirements to operate on the basis of partnership also exerted a powerful regionalising effect by forcing those actors involved in delivering Structural Funds programmes to devise new ways of working with sub-national interests. This I think and hope puts an end to the suggestion that the EU has nothing to do with the devolution process or the break up of England into 9 separate political regions, it is patently was and still is an EU driven movement towards an EU of the regions. Which in its most radical understanding, implies the dissolution of the nation-state as most of the central government functions are started to be carried out by the EU and regional and local authorities.

Blair`s Nightmare Government

2006-02-15T14:09:00.000Z

How I woke up to a nightmare plot to steal centuries of law and liberty From the Times By Daniel Finkelstein THE POINT IS, I don’t want to seem like a nutter. It’s a very common human emotion, that — not wanting to stand out for thinking something hardly anyone else thinks. Best keep your head down and say nothing. In 1978, in Jonestown, Guyana, more than 900 people voluntarily drank strawberry-coloured poison and died, each one following his neighbour, eager not to refuse the drink and have his neighbour think that he was a nutter. Perhaps the worst part of the tragedy is that the rest of us look back at them and think — what a bunch of nutters. So I’m nervous about admitting that I’ve been having a paranoid nightmare, one that very few other people seem to share. But I have been, so you may as well know about it. In my nightmare, Tony Blair finally decides that he is fed-up with putting Bills before Parliament. He has so much to do and so little time. Don’t you realise how busy he is? He’s had enough of close shaves and of having to cut short trips abroad. He decides to put a Bill to End All Bills before the Commons, one that gives him and his ministers power to introduce and amend any legislation in future without going through all those boring stages in Parliament. That’s not the end of my feverish fantasy. The new law is proposed and hardly anyone notices. John Redwood complains, of course, and a couple of Liberal Democrats, but by and large it is ignored. The Labour rebels are nowhere to be seen. The business lobby announces that it is about time all those politicians streamlined things, cutting out time-wasting debates. In a half empty Commons chamber, a junior minister puts down any objections with a few partisan wisecracks. Then the Bill to End All Bills is nodded through the Houses of Parliament, taking with it a few hundred years of Parliamentary democracy. I wake up, sweating. Only one thing persuades me that I’m not cracking up. When I have my nightmares about the Bill to End All Bills, I am not dreaming about dastardly legislation that I fear a cartoon Tony Blair, with an evil cackle, will introduce in some terrible future. I am tossing and turning about a government Bill that was given its second reading in the House of Commons last week and is heading into committee. Now I know what I am about to tell you is difficult to believe (Why isn’t this on the front pages? Where’s the big political row?) but I promise you that it is true. The extraordinary Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before the House, gives ministers power to amend, repeal or replace any legislation simply by making an order and without having to bring a Bill before Parliament. The House of Lords Constitution Committee says the Bill is “of first-class constitutional significance” and fears that it could “markedly alter the respective and long standing roles of minister and Parliament in the legislative process”. There are a few restrictions — orders can’t be used to introduce new taxes, for instance — but most of the limitations on their use are fuzzy and subjective. One of the “safeguards” in the Bill is that an order can impose a burden only “proportionate to the benefit expected to be gained”. And who gets to judge whether it is proportionate? Why, the minister of course. The early signs are not good. Having undertaken initially not to use orders for controversial laws, the Government has already started talking about abstaining from their use when the matter at hand is “highly” controversial. Now, I am not an extreme libertarian. I don’t spend my weekends in conferences discussing the abolition of traffic lights and the privatisation of MI5. But I have to admit that the legislation being debated in the Commons this week — the new ID cards, the smoking ban, the measure on the glorification of terror — has tempted me to take up smoking and start attending lectures about Hayek organised by earnest men with pamphlets in carrier bags. Yet the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has made me realise that I may be missing the point — the biggest danger to civil liberties posed by these new laws is not the nature of them, but merely their quantity. Let me explain my thinking. The Government claims that it has no malign intention in introducing the reform to parliamentary procedures. It is just that it has such ambitious plans for deregulation — or “better regulation” as it rather suspiciously calls it — that Parliament won’t be able to cope. The previous Regulatory Reform Act, passed in 2001, was so hedged around with conditions and safeguards that it took longer to produce a regulatory reform order than it did to produce a Bill. So this time, the Government wants more sweeping powers. During future detailed Commons consideration of the Bill, restrictions on the terms of the new orders will be resisted using the argument that business wants deregulation and government has to get on with it. What does this argument, used often by the minister during last week’s debate, amount to? An admission that we are now passing so many new laws, so quickly, and so many of them are sloppy, that we don’t have time to debate them properly or reform them when they go wrong. Parliament is drowning in a sea of legislation. Instead of calling a halt to this, the Government is seeking a way of moving ever faster, adding yet more laws, this time with even less debate. The problem with ID cards, smoking bans and new terror laws is not just the standard liberal one. It isn’t even that they are entirely unecessary, since you can fashion an argument for each measure. It is that we should be reforming and enforcing the laws we have, rather than adding new complicated, poorly thought through laws to the stack that already exists. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill isn’t just a dangerous proposal. It is a flashing red light. Our legislative activism is endangering our parliamentary democracy and we must stop before it’s too late. Or am I a nutter? And from the house of Commons. David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD)Col 1094) I confine my remarks to the constitutional aspects of the Bill. This seems to me to be extraordinary legislation. It proposes changes to the legislative process that in any other country in Europe, and perhaps in the world, would require a constitutional amendment. That is one of the reasons that part 1 has to be taken on the Floor of the House. One aspect of the Bill that seems quite disturbing is that it allows not just the addition of new crimes, with up to two years imprisonment or a level 5 fine, but it allows the Government to use the procedure to undertake structural change. Often, legislation does not regulate or add crimes, but sets up bodies and gives them powers. Among those bodies are, of course, local authorities. It strikes me that under the Bill as presently drafted, structural and functional reform of local government could be achieved without proper legislative scrutiny. Therefore, simply through using that mechanism, the balance of the constitution itself between local and central Government could be changed. The Government will say, "Would that not be controversial?" That comes back to the point about the weakness of that test. Even the structure of the courts could be changed because they are no longer a matter of common law; they are a matter of statute. Any creature of statute, which technically includes any company, could be changed by these provisions………. ………The Minister has dealt with questions about changes to the Terrorism Bill, bringing back the 90 days detention without trial and the rights of defendants being changed. He says that, obviously, those are highly controversial, and they are, but the questions remain not just about fundamental rights, but about the structure of the constitution itself, which the Bill appears to allow to be changed. Mr. Douglas Carswell (Harwich) (Con): (Col 1097) Part 1 enables Ministers to reform legislation or implement recommendations of the Law Commission by order. Law would, in effect, be made without reference to democratically elected parliamentarians. There would be a further extension of the power of a remote Executive and unaccountable national regulators. Merging regulators does not lead to less regulation. It was Max Weber who said as early as the 19th century that bureaucracy has an inherent tendency to expand. Bureaucracy tries to assume new powers, and to aggrandise itself. A merging of regulators could simply create new super-regulators, hungry for yet more power and more prone to regulate. I am concerned that part 1 will be a further step away from proper parliamentary scrutiny. It appears to empower the Executive, but in reality it will empower senior civil servants and those bureaucrats and regulators already beyond meaningful parliamentary accountability. In the past 30 years, we have seen a steady erosion of representative parliamentary government. Behind the fac"ade of a functioning parliamentary democracy is an increasingly post-representative system of government. In almost every sphere—financial service regulation, food standards, environmental protection—it is remote quangos, not parliamentarians, that increasingly call the shots. Remote elites make the decisions; local people take the rap; no one is accountable; no one gets sacked: this is how we are governed today. I fear that this Bill is not so much anti-regulation as anti-democratic. Speaking as someone who could be characterised as slightly sceptical about the European project, part 3 of the Bill leaves me somewhat suspicious. Not for the first time, measures are being introduced in the name of streamlining, but I fear that they may turn out to be a power-grab. European law is currently introduced into this country through regulation. This Bill could enable Brussels diktats to be brought in through schemes and rules. What does that mean? Yesterday in this House, one Member spoke about the European Union achieving the so-called Lisbon agenda. Remember that? It was about deregulating in order to make Europe competitive. Reference was made at the time to making Europe the most competitive economy in the world. That may seem absurd now. Easing EU institutions' ability to make our laws for us will only exacerbate the Euro-sclerosis afflicting that tired old continent. Easing such ability will only tie us closer to those worn-out EU economies; it will only place us more firmly in Europe's economic sarcophagus. I welcome the Regulatory Reform Committee's acknowledgement that, far from being about deregulation and tidying up, this Bill "has the potential to be the most constitutionally significant Bill that has been brought before Parliament for some years." I welcome the recognition that the driving force behind it is the Cabinet Office and, perhaps, senior civil servants. It could become a bureaucrats' charter: it could allow them to avoid the messy and unpredictable business of having their measures scrutinised by the people's elected representatives. Yes, Minister, this Bill could be Sir Humphrey's dream come true. The Minister would be able to amend, repeal and replace primary and secondary legislation without reference to this House. It was Walter Bagehot who said in the 19th century that the Crown had ceased to be part of what he called the efficient part of the constitution and had become the dignified part. By that, he meant that it had the trappings of power, but not the reality. My fear is that although this democratically elected Parliament has the trappings of power here in our ornate Chamber, real power is increasingly moving elsewhere. This Bill will only exacerbate that process. Mr Djanolgy: (Col 1100). The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that part 1 is unacceptable as it stands, and we agree. Part 3 of the Bill relates to legislation emanating from the EU. We have said that we support the idea of making it easier for UK institutions to deal with EU legislation, but—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich asked—how will that actually work? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked, what are the rules and schemes for EU law referred to in the Bill? We need to know. The Bill has a striking resemblance to parts of other Bills before this House and the other place. Those need to be looked at in context to highlight the growing constitutional trend away from primary legislation. The Company Law Reform Bill and the Government of Wales Bill both include a similar means of introducing orders through forms of delegated legislation

ID Cards

2006-02-15T12:12:00.000Z

From the letters page in the Times some voices of concern. This ID card infringes fundamental freedoms Sir, Most unusually, you have allowed yourself to be misled by the Government’s spin and misrepresentations concerning the ID Card Bill — principally by swallowing its contention that the privacy concerns of many people in the UK are “in contemporary, card-carrying Britain, entirely irrelevant”. (leading article, Feb 13, and letter, Feb 14). Those concerns are not in relation to the simple carrying of a card, which is merely the physical expression of the system the Government proposes to impose upon us. My deep anxiety, shared by many others, is the national identity register (NIR) — the database behind the cards — which has been too little debated and which appears to be widely misunderstood. Leave aside for the moment the questions of overall cost, of the level of charge to be paid by the citizen, of the reliability of the biometric technology to be used, of the burden placed on those whose iris or facial scans do not readily “fit” (such as people with some disabilities and from certain ethnic groups) or of the Government’s abysmal record in implementing any project involving computer technology on time and within budget. My principal objection is that the Government cannot make up its mind what the ID card and NIR are supposed to accomplish and cannot produce convincing evidence that any of its aims will be achieved by the scheme as outlined in the Bill. We have been told at various times that ID cards and the NIR will help to reduce benefit fraud, cut illegal immigration, combat identity theft, become a vital tool in the war on terror or be a major aid to the police in fighting crime. Yet each of these supposed benefits has been challenged, often by those best able to judge. I remain deeply sceptical that ID cards and the NIR will achieve any of their stated aims. Against this, I balance the fundamental shift in the relationship between individual and State, the scope for error and maladministration, the horrendous costs of setting up and running the scheme and have come to the inescapable conclusion that the whole concept is flawed and must be resisted by every legal means. JON MILES Newton Abbot, Devon Sir, I feel that I am sensible enough to look after my own identity and take necessary measures to that effect, which is my responsibility. Now I am being forced to put my identity, along with various measurements of parts of my body, on to a national database where I have little control over the access, use or security of my identity. MATTHEW HALL Newcastle upon Tyne Sir, The decision taken by members of parliament shows them to be as unworthy as representatives of the people as were their predecessors whom Cromwell was compelled to remove in the 17th century. Is it not obvious that the growing certainty of compulsory ID cards and its associated database, together with the surveillance state represented by more CCTV cameras than are used by Communist China, has placed us well down the road to the nightmare world of 1984? Who can doubt that the distortion of language embodied in political correctness is a precursor to the imposition of a form of Newspeak. It beggars belief that the British people, at the behest of the lobby fodder within the Commons, are to be forced to submit their fingerprints and iris patterns for inclusion in a state-run archive and to become accountable to those who for so many centuries have been accountable to us. What foreign dictators have failed to do we are now doing to ourselves. COLIN BULLEN Tonbridge, Kent Sir, It was William Pitt the Younger who said: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” What Britons never, never shall be, they have become. A fundamental freedom was lost when compulsory ID cards were voted for. DÓNAL THOMPSON Madrid Slaves we are certainly becoming, this Statewatch report shows that at an EU level this is being driven by the British government, directly from Tony Blair`s sofa cabinet. Even the EUites are concerned about “the legal bases for such action" According to Statewatch “At the end of January the Commission published its 128-page work programme for 200 6: European Commission work programme for 2006: Justice and home affairs issues. Hidden in the detail is the following: "Adoption par la Commission d'une décision établissant des normes pour les éléments de sécurité à intégrer dans les cartes d'identité (Comité Article 6)" That is to adopt a Commission Decision to establish standards for security in ID cards. The "Brief description" attached is more explicit: "Brief Description: According to The Hague Action Plan, travel documents both for third country nationals and EU citizens should be better secured in particular via the integration of biometric identifiers. Also Identity Cards have been explicitly mentioned even if there are doubts about the legal bases for such an action. This proposal responds to this request and will harmonise the security features for ID cards issued by Member States" (emphasis added) There is, of course, a big difference between simply "harmonising" security features in national ID cards and "the integration of biometric identifiers" (see, below for objections to this approach). Two other aspects are extraordinary about this proposal. First, the open admission that there are doubts about: "the legal bases for such action". Not surprising as Article 18.3 TEC (Nice) expressly excludes provisions on national ID cards. Second, because the Commission does not appear to be intending to draft a proposal for consideration by the Council and European Parliament but rather to take this momentous decision in secret committee - the Article 6 Committee, referred to as a "Technical Committee". The Commission's intention is all the more surprising as exactly this issue was the subject of heated discussion in the Council prior to the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 1 December 2005. “The story starts back in July when the UK Presidency presented a Note on "Minimum common standards for national identity cards" to SCIFA (Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum) (EU doc no: 11092/05). The Note called on SCIFA to ask the Article 6 Committee to draft standards including the "use of biometrics". This "Article 6 Committee" is a technical committee set up by the Commission to work out the implementation of the uniform visa format in 1995 - but what powers are there to extend the Committee's remit first to residence permits for third country nationals, then to EU passports and now to EU ID cards? As the original purpose of the Committee was to deal with the uniform visa format, on the the European Parliament was only "consulted", it appears the parliament has no right to see what is happening on all the other issues too. See: EU: Biometrics - from visas to passports to ID cards. The proposal surfaced again in November 2005 when the UK Presidency sent another Note to SCIFA on 11 November (EU doc no: 14351/05). The Article 6 Committee had "considered" physical security features and produced "interim conclusions" and in parallel "an ad-hoc group of experts from Member States" produced its "conclusions". SCIFA was "invited" to agree "Conclusions" with a view to their adoption "in the margins" (as an A Point - adopted without discussion) at the Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA Council) on 1 December 2005. The opening Recitals in the Conclusions plainly show the lack of a legal basis. No legally binding standards or timetables could be "imposed" on member states - "Conclusions" are anyway "soft", non-binding law which have to be agreed unanimously. This is followed by "without prejudging the issue of the possible legal basis" to "harmonise" security standards for national identity cards - in plain language this means that there is no legal basis but if common standards including biometrics are adopted by member states one-by-one (independently as it were) then "harmonisation" can follow later (a common tactic for controversial measures). The Conclusions contained two elements, first, standards related to the "issuing process" (eg: applicants should appear in person, security of data and storage). Second, the introduction of biometrics identifiers ("face and two fingerprints") incorporated into a radio frequency chip (RFID) which should follow the specifications for passports "without modification" - this proved to be controversial. Also by the back-door the Conclusions set standards for checking applicants data "against existing databases" for example, "civil registers, passport and identity cards databases or driving licence registers". A week later (18 November) a Note (EU doc no: 14622/05) from the UK Presidency to COREPER (the permanent committee based in Brussels of high-level officials from the 25 governments) said SCIFA "had reached agreement on most of the issues" and it was invited to: "examine the only outstanding issue, which concerns a reservation by Belgium" The final version, dated 25 November 2005 (EU doc no: 15000/05), had highly significant changes concerning biometrics. Member states could choose whether they wanted to have biometrics on national ID cards and the passport biometric standards were now only a "reference point" or "starting point". All references to fingerprints and RFID chips were deleted. "Belgium and the Czech Republic consider that the introduction of biometric data into national identity cards cannot be examined only from the technical angle. The question requires a wide-ranging debate, which includes the protection of the private life [privacy], budgetary and organisational aspects" It is interesting to note that while the Conclusions were published in the official press release of the JHA Council on 1 December the statement by Belgium and the Czech Republic was not JHA press release, 1 December 2005. Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments: "This is no way to try to bring in such a far-reaching policy, one which will affect millions of people. It is particularly objectionable that the Commission appears to be proposing that the introduction of biometrics on national ID cards should be considered as a "technical" issue by a committee whose actions cannot be scrutinised. By-passing national and European parliamentary scrutiny, let alone civil society, has no place in a democracy" In our own parliament the real culprits for the decimation of our constitution, have been debating ID Cards again before the vote later this week. First, on the so called voluntary introduction of the system; is seems that the government proposes to initially allow a “voluntary” take up of the cards, at some point to be determined later, it is proposed to bring in compulsion. The idea being that if enough of the people prove to be open to the system by taking out the cards on a voluntary basis then the government would make it compulsory. In fact in the Labour manifesto states "We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports." The problem is that the government want to make it a condition that you must take the ID Card when you apply for a new or to renew your passport. This clause was removed by the House of Lords but has been put back into the bill by the government. Lord Phillips of Sudbury put the matter nicely when he moved the amendment in the Lords. He stated: "We seek to replace compulsion by voluntarism. Citizens should not be forced to have ID cards. Compulsion is far too often resorted to by the modern state. That comes from an intensely managerial culture in which regulation rules. That sits uneasily with fundamental rights such as privacy and voluntarism. This Bill is an authentic clash between such rights and managerial efficiency."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 2006; Vol. 677, c. 957.] Baroness Scotland, speaking on behalf of the Government, tried to claim that passports are voluntary. Well they are but by the government linking the card scheme to passports means that to avoid being compelled to take an ID card you become a prisoner in this country with no opportunity to travel on business or for pleasure. Also as over 80% of us do carry a passport the governments chosen trigger for compulsion would soon be reached. David Davis made points about the national register; There are many good reasons for not wanting to be on the national identity register, which involves a large number of pieces of data about each individual being put on a single Government database, many of them the access keys for other Government databases. That is the important point: it is a central database with access keys effectively to all the other Government databases. It is disingenuous of the Home Secretary to say, "We've already got all those." One of the transitions that has taken place over the past several years under the Government, and to a small extent under the previous Government too, is the removal of barriers to the transfer of information around Government. Those barriers were a protection of the liberties of the individual, and now they have gone. Many have gone for good reason—to make the Child Support Agency work, to stop terrorism, and so on—and the Bill will accelerate that process. Finally, there is the most important question about the whole issue—the insecurity of the system. The Government have made, in a way properly, much of the issue of identity theft, particularly with regard to terrorism. Yet their proposal—a point I referred to earlier—is to gather the access keys to virtually every Government database in the national identity register, put them on one large computer and then create many thousands of direct access points to that computer. They will have created the most attractive possible target for every fraudster, terrorist, confidence trickster and hacker on the planet. Those people will be able to lift data out and put viruses and false data in. If the Pentagon and Microsoft cannot keep hackers from penetrating their mainframes, what chance the Home Office? Speaking about the scheme, Microsoft's national technology officer has said that a central identity database could worsen the very problems that it was intended to prevent, such as terrorism and identity theft. He said that "ministers should not be building systems that allow hackers to mine information so easily." So, far from protecting the public, the Government will put the individual citizen at risk by creating a culture of complacency that is based on an ill-designed and ill-thought-out scheme. Incidentally, this is yet another area where the Government mounted a mendacious attack on the independent LSE report. I will deal with that in detail because it is rather important. The section of the report that highlights the very serious security flaws in the proposed system was written not by an antagonist of the identity card system, but by somebody who favours identity cards, Dr. Brian Gladman, the ex-technical director of NATO, who had an eminent career in the British military ensuring the security of our military computer systems. He himself has said: "the UK ID cards programme as now envisaged will create safety and security risks for those whose details are entered into the system."— that from an avowed supporter of ID cards.

The English Question

2006-02-13T15:36:00.000Z

The English Question Thanks to the Blog Great Britian not Little England for the link to this report from Publius: The Journal of Federalism by Robert Hazell. Devolution to Scotland and Wales throws up related questions about the government of England. Does England need to find its own separate political voice? Does England too need devolution? There is little demand for an English parliament. ‘‘English votes on English laws’’ commands more support but would be impossible to implement in practice. Despite the setback of the Northeast referendum defeat, the future will see further development of regionalism in England. Regional government is the only institutional solution that could help to give England a louder voice and also help to decentralize the government of England. But it is not inevitable. There is no logic in the process of devolution that requires the English to have devolution too. England is the gaping hole in the devolution settlement. Some argue that devolution will not be complete, and the settlement will not stabilize, until the English Question has been solved. Others believe that England can be left out indefinitely and devolution confined to the Celtic fringe. This article aims to explain the different formulations of the question and to analyse one by one the range of different answers. The English Question can be divided into the following groups of subquestions: 1. Strengthening England’s place in the Union: _ Does England need to find its own separate political voice, to rebalance the louder 10 political voice accorded to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland? _ Could this be supplied by an English parliament, ‘‘English votes on English laws,’’ independence for England? 2. Decentralizing the government of England: _ Does England too need devolution, to break from the excessive domination of the 15 central government in London? _ Can this best be supplied by elected regional assemblies, administrative regionalism, city regions, stronger local government, elected mayors? 3. Continuation of the status quo: _ Or do the English want none of the above, with no separate representation or 20 political voice, and no share in devolution either? These questions have come onto the political agenda as a result of devolution to Scotland and Wales. They are big issues, issues that will determine the future shape and nature of the United Kingdom as much as the future government of England. Devolution has already profoundly changed the United Kingdom’s system of government, but it extends to only 15 percent of the population. England, with 85 percent of the population, for the moment is left out. If the English ever choose to opt in, the choice they make will have huge consequences not only for the government of England but for the whole future of the Union. As devolution was a top down exercise imposed and assisted by central government, it is wrong to now look for a grass roots movement calling for the English to opt in, the English preferred the status quo that was as part of one union, this union has now been partially dismantled. This erroneous argument is followed through into the rest of the report; Hazell, it seems is quite happy to accept the results of the governments top down forcing of the issue in Scotland and Wales, but now asks the English people to start a grass roots movement in order for the English people to exhibit a desire for devolution. Different Versions of the English Question Improving the Government of England or Strengthening England’s Place in the Union? The ‘‘purely English’’ version of the English Question asks: How can we improve the government of England? Interest in regionalism as a possible solution goes back to Fawcett (1919) and Cole (1947) (Tomaney, forthcoming). It springs from long- standing concerns about the poor performance of many of England’s regions,especially in the North, and the difficulties faced by central government in finding effective policy instruments and institutions to drive up regional economic performance. Successive governments, Labour in the 1970s and Conservative in the1980s, had given up on local government as providing the solution because of its lack of political will and lack of effective capacity. More and more functions were transferred from local government to centrally controlled public bodies, many operating on a larger scale at regional rather than local level. In 1994 the Conservative government led by John Major took regionalism a step further by bringing together the regional outposts of four central government departments into new government offices for the regions, with common boundaries based on the Treasury’s eight standard regions of the Northeast, Northwest, Yorkshire and Humberside, West Midlands, East Midlands, East Anglia, Southeast, and Southwest. English masses show little concern about devolution in Scotland and Wales and no demand for devolution for themselves (Curtice 2001, 2006, forthcoming). In November 2004 that was dramatically confirmed by the ‘‘No’’ vote in the Northeast regional referendum, when the voters in the Northeast region rejected the government’s proposals for an elected regional assembly by four to one, despite strong campaigning by the deputy prime minister in this solidly Labour region. The rejection of the government’s proposals is not evidence that that there is little concern about the devolution process, rather it is evidence that the governments proposals for regionalisation were unacceptable. Prof. Hazell offers us some alternative roads forward and looks at the support both in elite circles and in the general public and the likelihood that any of them may be adopted. An English Parliament which has low support and an English parliament would risk being as overburdened as Westminster and equally remote. More on this later English votes on English laws which has good support 60% in England and 50% in Scotland which might be because it was Conservative party policy English independence which has negligible support. Hard to envisage England unilaterally declaring independence from rest of the United Kingdom Decentralize government of England regional assemblies Hazell claims this has a 25% support with the public, considering the only area that was allowed a referendum; the NE rejected the proposals by a 4/1 margin I cannot see how this figure can be supported, opinion polling perhaps, but that ignores the NE result which showed the polling to be totally out of touch with the real answer at the referendum. And a point Hazell makes later on the issue of Local mayors. Administrative regionalism This is regionalisation by the back door ie. Regional chambers exist, and powers and functions slowly growing and of course is Labour party policy with little public knowledge. City regions this has minimal support and apparently need not cover whole of England Revive local government Politicians all pay lip service; no party has strong proposals Public seem to share some of national politicians’ mistrust of local government competence Elected mayors Low. Very little support among local councillors High in opinion polls, less when tested in local referenda Might also be linked to city regions. Having posed his questions the professor now attempts to answer them; An English Parliament An English parliament would appear to be a neat solution to the fundamental asymmetry in the devolution arrangements. It would create a federation of the four historic nations of the United Kingdom, each with its parliament enjoying significant devolved powers. But it is one thing to create such a federation, quite another to make it work. The fundamental difficulty is the sheer size of England by comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. England, with four-fifths of the population, would be hugely dominant. On most domestic matters the English parliament would be more important than the Westminster parliament. No federation has operated successfully where one of the units is so dominant. I find these arguments to be less than compelling, of course the English parliament would be more important on domestic issues than Westminster, that is the idea behind devolution in the first place. Is the Scottish parliament not more important than Westminster on domestic issues. If the size issue is important and means the new federation would not work then how are we to understand the EU were Germany with 82.5 million and France with 59.9 million massively outnumber Malta with 398,534 or Cyprus with 780,133. So how is it that an English parliament would unbalance a proposed UK federation when this does not seem to matter at the EU level. Professor Hazell does make one good point about an English Parliament here that he seems to dismiss on other points and that is; “Perhaps because of this lack of elite support, mass support for the idea of an English parliament remains low and shows no sign of increasing.” Not only is there no elite political support, but this follows through into the main stream media, there is also no coverage for an English parliament, in fact the only real coverage is for regionalisation regional assemblies. English Votes on English Laws: Westminster as a Proxy for an English Parliament In contrast, English votes on English laws is a proposition that does command some elite support and considerable mass support. Polling data consistently show that between 50 and 60 percent of people in England agree that Scottish MPs should no longer be allowed to vote on English laws now that Scotland has its own parliament It seems only logical and fair, since English MPs can no longer vote on matters devolved to Scotland. Even a majority of Scots support restricting the voting rights of Scottish MPs in this way (Curtice 2001, 234). But the difficulties of implementing such a policy seem insuperable, at both a technical and a political level. Proffor Hazell says; The technical difficulty is identifying those English laws on which only English MPs would be allowed to vote Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an English law, in the sense of a Westminster statute that applies only to England. That is a point, however it would be quite feasible to note which particular laws did not apply to Scotland because that power had been devolved to the Scotish parliament. On the political front Hazell sees even more problems; “Proponents of English votes on English laws tend to underestimate just what a huge change would be involved. It would create two classes of MP, ending the traditional reciprocity whereby all members can vote on all matters. It would effectively create a parliament within a parliament” Well yes of course it would be a huge change, but then the problem has been brought about by the devolution process itself a huge change, which has created a problem in that Scottish MPs can vote on proposals which have no affect on their own constituents. So we already have two classes of MP`s those that are accountable and those that are not. The U.K. government might not be able to command a majority for its English business, leading to great political instability. I do not see this as a great problem if not enough English MP`s are prepared to vote for a policy that only affects England then that policy fails. English votes on English laws would suddenly become a critical issue if (as may happen) after a future election Labour formed a government with a narrow majority and depended on Scottish and Welsh MPs to get its legislation through. Well this is exactly the point is it not, if the Labour party has to rely on Scots and Welsh MP`s voting for something that does not affect them then that is also wrong. Hazlle says that : The Conservatives have fought two elections on a platform of English votes on English laws (in 2001 and 2005) and have tried to arouse the English. The English have failed to respond. Although opinion polls show majority support for English votes on English laws, it is not a high-salience issue. It would become salient only if the government used the votes of Scottish and Welsh MPs to force controversial or unpopular measures upon the English. Its salience would depend on how the media reported parliamentary votes upon the issue. This issue was not at the forefront of either of the two elections mentioned, also the labour party is in power at Westminster only because of Scottish and Welsh votes. Two Other Possible Answers to Votes on English Laws Reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs to reflect their reduced role at Westminster after devolution and more proportional voting system. Neither of these options offer an answer to the west Lothian question, they only reduce the affects. Independence for England English independence is the third and most extreme institutional solution that would ensure the English have a louder political voice. If it is impossible to give the English a political voice within the Union, the argument goes, they need to break free from the Union and establish their own English state. This idea is dismissed out of hand because it has no elite support. However if the idea is to dismantle the UK as a political unit then perhaps support for this option might well be something that will grow in the future, especially if support were to grow for Scottish independence. If the English Are Denied a Louder Political Voice, Does English Nationalism Need Some Other Outlet? Identity and institutions mirror each other. Englishness is commingled with Britishness in the English people’s sense of identity and in their political institutions. To combine Englishness with Britishness is not necessarily a sign of confusion. It is a reflection of reality. We cannot readily disentangle Englishness from Britishness in our history or in our institutions. It is better to accept them for what they are, deeply intertwined, and to allow the English to celebrate being English and British. Their political allegiance is to Westminster. There is a lot in this particular observation, the English as a rule do consider themselves British, the problem is that Britian itself is changing, and it is those forced changes which will put the English in a position of having to choose, would they prove willing to tolerate these political anomalies and suffer rough justice in their parliament, at the hands of the Scots and Welsh MP`s who do not have to face the consequences of their votes in their own constituencies. The fact that the English consider Westminster as their parliament is very much dependant on that parliament being the “one parliament” for the whole of Britain, that is no longer the case, if the concept is Britishness is to be devalued, as this becomes ever more evident, then the English may well not be relied upon to accept the situation. Elected Regional Assemblies At the elite level, elected regional assemblies have been supported by Labour and the Liberal Democrats but opposed by the Conservatives and by the business community. Mass support has always been much harder to gauge, with some opinion surveys suggesting quite high levels of support. Then in November 2004 came the referendum result in the Northeast. The region had been chosen by the government as the most likely to vote ‘‘Yes’’ to a regional assembly because of its strong sense of regional identity, proximity to Scotland, remoteness from London, and long history as a Labour heartland. Yet the government’s proposals for an elected regional assembly were decisively rejected by four to one, on a surprisingly high turnout of 48 percent. This of course the Governments preferred option and the one that has already been set in motion by the establishments of a system of administrative regionalism. The people of the North East put a spoke in those plans to roll out elected assemblies. But of course this will not stop them passing ever more powers to the regional quangos in the hope that they can point to them in future referendum as being the de facto local government so we will be offered a choice of having elected representation at this level. We are already seeing more moves in this direction with the “restructuring” of police forces and fire Brigades. Administrative regionalism describes the growing array of unelected government bodies that operate at the regional level. A dense network of policy actors has gradually grown up in each region around the three main pillars of the government office, regional development agency, and regional chamber. The government offices for the regions have become the main regional outposts of central government, with representatives from nine government departments. The regional development agencies have seen big increases in their budgets for economic development since their creation in 1999. City Regions and Elected Mayors City regions, sometimes linked to elected mayors, have never quite made it on to the political agenda….. Finally, some of the arguments advanced against city regions are similar to those advanced against regional assemblies: that they are essentially technocratic, of interest to elites not ordinary people, and at best a patchwork solution. Neither do they answer the major problems caused by devolution. Strengthening Local Government The main alternative to regionalism as a policy solution for excessive centralization is to restore powers and functions to local government. Local government has become increasingly the creature of central government. The English structure of local government, with large county councils and smaller districts in rural areas and unitary 30 local authorities in most towns and cities, has been subjected to successive reorganizations since the 1970s that have left it battered and demoralized. Quite, in its surge toward regional government or the break up of England if you prefer, central government has done everything it can to make life difficult for local government instead of supporting local government it has been steadily denuded of its powers which. There is very little likelihood of this trend changing because to do so would be to offer an alternative to the governments desire to break up England into regions. Regionalism Remains the Best Answer to the English Question Regional government in England is the only solution that offers an answer to both versions of the English Question. It could help to give England a louder voice within the Union, and it would help to decentralize the government of England. But it could achieve the first aim, of giving England a louder voice, only if there were elected assemblies with strong powers and functions. The stronger the better. The stronger the powers, the louder would be England’s voice within the Union, because they would be a closer match for the much greater (although varying) powers given to the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Well there is a surprise! I just did not see this coming. But Regionalism Is Not a Complete Answer Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have powers to make laws in their devolved assemblies and substantial executive powers over major public services such as health, education, and local government. English regional assemblies would have had no lawmaking power and no executive powers to speak of. The difference can be seen in terms of their budgets. The budget of the Northeast assembly would have been thirty times smaller than those of the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. The tiny budget reflects its strategic role, shorn of responsibility for any major public service. It would require a revolution in thinking about regional government for it to be granted responsibility for a major public service with a big budget such as health or education. Such devolved responsibilities are not uncommon in the regions of Europe, but they are currently beyond the imagination of politicians in England. Arrr.. the EU at last gets a mention, so far this report has not even touched on the EU involment with regionalisation, or the EU policy for regionalisation or the destruction of the nation state in favour of an EU of the regions. How Might Regionalism Develop in Future? Professor Hazell suggests there are three things which could influence the regionalisation development, “The first, top-0 down accelerator would be if the government decided to throw its weight more strongly behind regionalism” I do not know how much stronger the professor thinks the government could be! it has ignored the referendum in the NE and is continuing its policy of creating more regional quangos as fast as it can. The second, bottom-up set of forces would be a slower-burning fuse. It would depend upon the constitutional conventions that sprang up in five of the English regions to make plans for elected regional assemblies not giving up following the defeat in the Northeast but redoubling their efforts. Following the precedent of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, they might decide to come forward with their own proposals for a stronger set of powers and functions. They would need to be prepared for a seriously long march. In Scotland it took eighteen years. And although the Scots may not have appreciated it at the time, the eighteen years of Conservative rule at Westminster helped to fan the flames of devolution in Scotland. Another prolonged period of Conservative rule could similarly help to rekindle the cause of devolution in the northern regions of England. The last point is taken care of by the third development which could have an effect on the regionalisation policy and possible stop it dead “Election of a Conservative government would stop the process,” This would seem to be a call to arm for all of us who stand against break up of England as a political unit. To be honest although I find that Professor Hazell makes some interesting points, I feel that he dismisses the likely outfall, as the problems caused by devolution become more evident to the English people. This present government is perhaps storing up problems for its chances of re-election by pretending to ignore those problem, when Tony Blair says of the West Lothian question, “it has gone away” perhaps he is speaking more in hope than anything else. Certainly the problems are being kept below the general horizon, even as the moves are being made to enhance the regional assemblies, but there are ever more of us who although we would prefer a British parliament for Britian, are willing to think about the alternatives if the Scots and the Welsh do wish to divorce from the union, and we are not thinking regional assemblies offer any sort answer for the voice of England. Regional Assemblies only make sense in an EU of the regions, when the Westminster parliament no longer has power and is only a talking shop. I say that Professor Hazell has ignored the Elephant in the room the EU, that is the case in this particular report but elsewhere he said; In practice many devolved competences have an EU dimension, including regional economic development, environment, agriculture and rural affairs, fisheries, and, in Scotland, justice and home affairs. Then of course the whole idea of an independent Scotland was dependant on the EU, because the Scots were not calling for independence, but for independence within the EU. This is a totally different kettle of fish, take the EU out of the equation and Scotland would not be calling for independence in the first place. So it can be suggested that the existence of EU is the basic cause of the moves for devolution, and certainly for the break up of England. We can debate the devolution process but not in isolation to the EU plans for a United States of Europe, or a Europe EU of the regions, which is separate and distinct from a Europe of nation states. Everything that has happened so far in the devolution process has been in line with the regionalisation of Britian and England as agreed at an EU level. An English Parliament, English Votes on English Laws: Westminster as a Proxy for an English Parliament, Reviving local government, is just not part of those plans. In fact the only agreed plans are for the break up of England into regions this is something that this government is continuing to do by the back door.

A defence of Trial by Jury

2006-02-12T17:24:00.000Z

Simon Jenkins is again having a go at Trial by jury in the Times today he says; “Jury trial has outlived its usefulness. To pretend that it delivers justice is absurd. This archaic theme park democracy is expensive, a waste of time and adds nothing to fair trial. Abolish it.” He cites as evidence for this call to abolish Trial by Jury two recent cases which have not gone the way he thinks proper; Of the Abu Hamza trial he says; “In the first the trial of a man now known to have been a serious public menace was delayed for four years because the Crown Prosecution Service felt that the evidence of the police and MI5 was insufficient to get a jury conviction.” And the Sion Jenkins case, here Simon Jenkins (no relation I assume) says “After nine years, three trials, 700 witness statements and £10m in costs, the judicial system still cannot decide whether Jenkins killed his foster daughter, Billie-Jo.” Jenkins assumes that was why the CPS did not prosecute Abu Hamza, but it could equally have been because this Labour Government relies on a great many Muslim votes to keep them in office, and did not want to unset the apple cart. Even if we accept Jenkins superstition, which is difficult even in his own terms, because he say “now known to have been a serious public menace” in other words that accusation has been tested in court, before then it was only an assumption. In any event what is the alternative? That people be convicted without evidence or with a lower standard of evidence. And whos fault is it in the Jenkins case, if the prosecution cannot find the evidence to convince a jury, then obviously the evidence is lacking, here again Jenkins seems to be calling for conviction on a lower standard of evidence. He then goes on to say; “No sooner was the Jenkins jury released and the accused formally acquitted than Thursday’s newspapers were filled with evidence that the jury had not been allowed to hear although it had been heard previously by Court of Appeal judges. This evidence, of violent rages suffered at Jenkins’ hands by his former wife, had been banned from disclosure at the trial as “prejudicial” (a word seemingly synonymous with relevant). The impact was to make the jury appear a bunch of dupes” This is not a condemnation of trial by jury but of the legal professions own rules, which deny the jury the full information, originally up until the 17th century the jury would have made their own investigations and would not have been mere pawns in the professional game, to be spoon fed only the information decided by the judge. However even on that point; the reports that Jenkins suffered “violent rages” is not proof in itself that he murdered his foster daughter. The fact the Charles Clarke is going to present arguments for the government to have the power to lock up people without trial “since courts are slow and jurors may not convict” is not an argument against trial by jury, it is in fact the very reason we need trial by jury. “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. Jenkins claims in a case last year, where he was a juror, that the Judge suggested that the jury must acquit someone he believed to have been guilty “the drift of the judge’s summing up was to the effect that the jury could only acquit.” But this is not possible the judge cannot instruct a jury to find either way, Such was the case in the 1670 political trial of William Penn, who was charged with preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly. Four of the twelve jurors voted to acquit – and continued to acquit even after being imprisoned and starved for four days. Under such duress, most jurors paid the fines. However, one juror, Edward Bushell, refused to pay and brought his case before the Court of Common Pleas. As a result, Chief Justice Vaughan issued an historically-important ruling: that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Bushell's Case (1670) was one of the most important developments in the common-law history of the jury. Of course this concept like all our defences against the state is now under attack from a government who would like to be the deciders of their own powers. Jenkins then is either a fool, or useful idiot working in the cause of those who would like establish authoritarianism in our courts. Jenkins now goes on to offer more evidence for abolishing jury trial “Juries try less than 2% of criminal cases. They are a judicial sideshow. Given the professed sanctity of the institution to lawyers it is a wonder that they accept the fairness of the remaining 98%.” Well there is that point, why should any of us accept the fairness of a system which decided on the evidence alone, that is one of the major benefits of the jury system it make the ordinary man or woman in the street the final arbiters of our law; “For more than six hundred years --- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 --- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws. Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” --- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government --- they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.” Spooner I think. Thomas Jefferson stated: "I consider trial by jury as the only action ever yet conceived by man by which a government can be held accountable to the to the principles of the constitution." Jenkins; “Research suggests that 90% of those electing to go for jury trial are guilty and are merely seeking delay or putting their faith in the ever-rising jury acquittal rate. The jury is presented, usually by those who have never sat on one, as a citizen’s last line of defence against an over-zealous state. It is mostly a villain’s last throw against conviction.” They are not guilty unless they are fund to be by the jury, and it is up to the prosecution to prove that guilt. To dismiss one of our greatest freedoms from tyranny as a villain’s last throw against conviction is nonsense; Removal from the jurors of their judgement on justice issues transforms Trial by Jury into the unlawful, one-sided, unfair mistrial-by-government-judges, the corrupt method by which tyrannies thrive. This system enables and obliges judges to enforce every persecution, stealth-tax, oppression, money-motivated subterfuge and injustice government introduces, and which judges then lawlessly claim is "the law." Democratic government generally attempts to enact legislation that is approved of by or is acceptable to the majority of the population. However, majority assent of itself does not invest legislation with legitimacy or virtue, regardless of its support, e.g. NAZI Race Laws. If Trial by Jury had been operating in the Third Reich, the NAZI tyranny would have been curtailed, perhaps then the Holocaust and the Second World War would have been averted. Jenkins could not have been be more wrong if he tried when he says “Juries date from the days of trial by ordeal”, he is inverting historical facts, in order perhaps to use an oft (left wing) utilised method of argument; that is damming by association. In 1219 Henry III, directed that this method of trial be abandoned in England after Pope Benedict III had condemned trial by ordeal in 1214. The jury trial was a replacement of the trial by ordeal and not a leftover from those days. The fact is that for whatever reason Simon Jenkins does not like jury trials, and thinks them and archaic imposition on the power of the state. That they are an impediment to the power of the state, is a commendation for them and is the very reason we need to retain our rights to judge ourselves and to decide for ourselves, on the fairness of those laws our lords and masters in Whitehall, and increasingly in Brussels, wish to impose on us, because for as long as we have trial by jury we have the freedom to live by our own laws. In his book Trial by Jury, published in 1956, Sir Patrick Devlin said: For more than seven out of the eight centuries during which the judges of the common law have administered justice in this country, trial by jury ensured that Englishmen got the justice they liked and not the sort of justice that the government or the lawyers or any body of experts thought was good for them. Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is the parliamentary sense. I cannot the see the one dying and the other surviving. The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives. It is a lamp that Charles Clarke, Tony Blair and Simon Jenkins wish to put out, it will be our great loss as a freedom loving nation if we let them get their way. Edit I just have recived this from Dennid Cooper; Having read this through twice, I can't find a single good argument leading to his conclusion that jury trial should be abolished, so I'm left wondering whether he has some ulterior motive. Eg, MI5 didn't want Abu Hamza prosecuted for other reasons, not because the evidence wouldn't convince a jury. Clarke argues for locking people away without due process because that's what he wants to do, not because juries won't convict. It wasn't the jury who decided that they couldn't hear some evidence presented in the Sion Jenkins appeal. So on, all the way through, and often he contradicts his own arguments. It's letters@sunday-times.co.uk .

Oath of Allegiance

2006-02-09T10:48:00.000Z

David Lidington, the Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman, has suggested that The Oath of Allegiance to the Queen sworn by MPs should be reviewed to encourage Sinn Fein to take up their seats in the House of Commons. This might encourage them to do so but it is doubtful because they do not want Westminster as the seat of government for Northern Island but Dublin. All MPs and peers are required to "swear by Almighty God to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth" or make a solemn affirmation of loyalty to the Crown. This is not just an oath but a legally binding undertaking not to work against the crown of Britian, not to undermine the state, thus it is part of the security of the state and part of the protection against the destruction of our constitution, any member who breaks that oath is committing treason. Not that this has concerned our so called leaders, who have been doing just that for years, they must understand this because several have been reported for committing treason under the 1795 act of treason. Which is perhaps why one of the first things Tony Blair did when he gained office was to remove the offending act of treason from the sauté books. This from Hansard Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government: Why they have been unable to inform members of the public who have inquired the reason for the repeal of the Treason Act 1795 during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, neither the records of the relevant debates in Hansard during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill nor Bill papers held in the Home Office explain fully why the 1795 Act was repealed in its entirety. It is, however, evident from the Hansard records that the repeal was considered to be a necessary consequence of the decision to repeal the death penalty for treason. Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose that this could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that European Union Commissioners affirm an oath of allegiance to the European Union. If they do so, they swear allegiance to somebody other than Her Majesty the Queen, which I understand would in itself be treasonable. The fact that treason has been committed by our leaders was confirmed this week when Blair made his speech in Oxford he said; The British problem with our membership of the EU may derive from the curious and tortured circumstances of its birth. But long since, it has taken on a unique life of its own. The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe. It's sort of: isolation or treason. One is also tempted to wonder if the Conservatives, although they are making noises about the constitution needing reform and have set up their “Democracy Task Force” whether they in fact mean to really look at the problem of the British constitution, or if this is just window dressing. As the task force is to be fronted by the Tories arch Euphile Kenneth Clarke, I suspect the latter is the case. If David Lidington suggestion is anything to go by then it would seem clear that neither the public, or our elected representatives have a clear and comprehensive understanding of what the terms of our constitution actually are. This is becoming increasingly apparent as almost every week we find that our elected representatives have agreed amongst themselves to change the status of the citizen in relation to the state. I mean who has even heard of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, Under the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the Government can propose regulatory reform orders, which allow statute law to be amended by delegated rather than primary legislation. The Government has acknowledged that the Act was “constitutionally ground breaking”. In a letter to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Holme, the chairman of the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords, expressed his Committee’s concern about the nature of the powers contained in the Bill: … 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 British Bobby

2006-02-05T14:29:00.000Z

I wish to make my objection about the the double standards the police are operating. Thanks EURFERENDUM The Police attack the Hunting Demo The Police attack the Hunting Demo But this man told them to go softly writh this demo The only people to be arrested at this demo were two men found carrying cartoons of Mohammed. Police said they had been detained "to prevent a breach of the peace". A man dressed as a suicide bomber, however, was left unhindered, while the police sought to prevent photographers taking pictures. But then...... Anti-capitalist demonstrators have a different view of the police as they protest ahead of the G8 summit in Edinburgh. And in Sheffield Even at the Labour Party Conference. The Police managed to prevent an obviously dangerous protest, this time using the Anti-terrorist laws.

Isolation or Treason

2006-02-03T10:28:00.000Z

Quote! The British problem with our membership of the EU may derive from the curious and tortured circumstances of its birth. But long since, it has taken on a unique life of its own. The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe. It's sort of: isolation or treason. Tony Blair 02/02/06 OXFORD http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9003.asp

Blair Spins on the EU

2006-02-02T21:59:00.000Z

This from Open Europe Blair: “the argument in favour of an open Europe is winning" Tony Blair will give a speech in Oxford this evening which will attempt to defend his EU policies as Prime Minister. It is reported that he will insist that he has achieved his ambition of enhancing Britain's clout in the EU through his policy of "positive engagement". He will argue that Britain is now in "a much better place" on Europe than when Labour took office, saying it is a "pivotal country" at the heart of a new consensus over the need to adopt economic reforms. The Independent reports that he will say: "Europe has emerged from its darkened room. It has a new generation of leaders. A new consensus is forming. Yes, there is still a debate to be had, but the argument in favour of an open Europe is winning… there's never been a better time to be optimistic in Europe or enthusiastic about Britain's part in it." He will also signal that there is a "new generation" of European leaders, such as Angela Merkel, who are united around the need to pursue economic reform. The FT reports that Downing Street is confident that the two principal competitors for the French presidency in 2007 - Nicolas Sarkozy and Dominique De Villepin - are increasingly focused on the economic reform agenda. The Times reports that Blair will claim today that Europe is now a “more comfortable place for Britain”, and that there is agreement on the new priorities of jobs, security, energy supply and migration. Blair will, however, acknowledge that he has not secured the "big bang" change in Britain's relationship with Europe that he aimed for but will blame this on Britain's “Eurosceptic-dominated” newspapers. Comment: It is pretty difficult to see how the current state of play in Europe can be spun into a success for Tony Blair or the Foreign Office: world trade talks in crisis because of EU protectionism; a budget deal under which Britain will pay £10.5 billion a year into a totally unreformed EU budget; an increase in the EU regulatory burden (on the Govt’s own figures) of at least £30 billion since mid-1998 alone; a disastrous drift to a single EU defence which has wasted more than £20 billion duplicating NATO assets and lost Britain access to US technology; and above all - no halt whatsoever in the EU drive towards deeper integration. The only argument in France and Germany about the EU Constitution is now when and how to bring it back – not if. Blair’s suggestion that Sarkozy and Villepin are going to be “reform allies” in Europe calls to mind all the other people the FCO claimed were going to be our new partners: Angela Merkel, Romano Prodi, “The Blair-Berlusconi-Aznar axis” – even Jacques Chirac at first. Hopefully the team of Brown, Straw and Ed Balls are not under the comforting illusion that we are currently “winning the argument” in Europe… The next big crunch in Europe is in 18 months’ time: the confluence of the French elections, the German Presidency of the EU, and a number of difficult decisions about enlargement. Hopefully Britain will have a new approach by then. Times FT Telegraph Scotsman Sarkozy on Europe Villepin on Europe

That Exit Clause Again

2006-02-02T15:00:00.000Z

The Europhile spin put on the EU Constitution Exit Clause, would have us all belive that we can not leave the EU at the moment because there is no EU recognised legal apparatus for doing so. The implication being; if we wish to leave the EU then first we must ratify the EU Constitution, which contains an exit clause that will enable us to do so. This argument, to be blunt, is arrant nonsense, this fact however does not stop this misunderstanding being pressed for all its worth. Link to the earlier letters in this particular debate in the Scotsman, but Dr Cooper makes the correct case when he says; “We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU. Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU” This is the point which is missed; at present the EU derives its power form the member states, through their treaties, if (god forbid) the Constitution is ever ratified, then it will derive its power from that constitution. Lord Justice Laws explains the difference between a treaty and a constitution “There is a categorical difference between a treaty and a constitution. A treaty is an exercise of power by sovereign States. A constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power. This brings me, then, to the meaning of constitution. In what does a constitution consist? Stripped to the bone, I think that a constitution’s minimum characteristics are twofold. (1) The constitution consists in the laws which define who shall be the ruler of the State, and what are the legal relationships between ruler and ruled; and (2) there are no laws superior to those which the constitution contains.” http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=140882006 Progressive erosion Dr DR Cooper (Letters, 23 January) tells us the European Court of Justice exceeded its authority in 1962 in describing the loss of sovereignty of European Union members as permanent and that its view has been rejected by national courts where the question has been posed. He also quotes our joining the then Common Market as authorising its parliament to "contract out" in a succession of treaties practically all its own legislative powers. However, at that time, the Foreign Office certainly believed the EEC to be "a single permanent coalition". Hence, presumably, the inclusion in the now resurrected European constitution of a new clause providing for voluntary withdrawal by a member state. MARY ROLLS, Westerkirk, Langholm, Dumfriesshire Sir Mrs Mary Rolls raised an important point about the "exit clause", Article I-60, in the proposed EU Constitution. (Letter, January 28th) Clearly the Wilson government was undeterred by the lack of any such provision in the Treaty of Rome, as it held a referendum to decide whether the UK would withdraw from the EEC. Interestingly, 1975 Cabinet Office papers entitled "EEC Referendum: 'No' contingency planning; implications of withdrawal" have just been opened by National Archives. The government leaflet for the referendum emphasised that even if we decided to stay in Parliament retained the right to take us out in the future, simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. That position has been re-stated by ministers in recent years, and was confirmed by Lord Justice Laws in the "Metric Martyrs" case. We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU. Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU - which by its crucial primacy claim, Article I-6, purports to become the supreme source of legal authority for our country. Yours faithfully Dr D R Cooper

EU Can Not Do Propaganda

2006-02-02T14:20:00.000Z

Margot Wallstrom the EU propaganda commissioner says that the major goal of the communication activities by the commission is to try to "sell our message." But then goes on to say "we can not do propaganda.. we shouldn't be accused of it," This is obviously a new EU definition of “Propaganda” they shouldn’t be accused of. In the old definition of the word (The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause) this is exactly what they do!

A Police State

2006-01-30T13:08:00.000Z

I noticed this report about the new Animal Welfare Bill, which apparently has cross party support and is expected to return to the floor of the Commons in March in the Times. It is to be agreed that every domesticated animal will have a code of conduct tailored to their species, each of which is expected to run into dozens of pages. This will form part of the Animal Welfare Bill, expected to clear Parliament in the next few months. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will inform the owners of Britain’s ten million cats, eight million dogs and one million rabbits of their new obligations in a series of pamphlets distributed to vets, pet shops, kennels and over the internet. Although any breach of these codes is not an offence in itself, failure to observe elements of the code will count against defendants in court. But there is nothing to worry about because: Ben Bradshaw, the Animal Welfare Minister, said: “The vast majority of pet owners have nothing to fear from this legislation. As a nation of pet owners and animal lovers there is nothing really that will be generally unacceptable about having a set of guidelines which enforce the welfare of these pets, but the problem is; that as usual with this government, these guidelines also slip in aspects of increasing the states powers in relationship to the citizen. Firstly like many recent bills this is an “enabling” Bill, which allows further rules to be drawn up under secondary legislation. The Bill also increases the time in which a prosecutor can bring a case from six months to three years. The law will also endow local council officers with the power to enter property and seize animals. This then is a significant shift from the present situation, where prosecutors have to prove a domestic animal is being mistreated. It could well be argued that if an animal is suffering then immediate action must taken to relive that suffering, and that these powers are necessary to achieve that intention, however I belive that this could be achieved by the local authority officer reporting the matter to the police, who would use their already existing powers to investigate the matter. Giving the local authority police powers is a further erosion of our rights. It used to be said that an Englishman’s home was his castle, but that was in the days when we believed that the state was there to serve the people rather than the arbitrary enforcer of its own powers. There used to be a division of the powers that the state could bring to bear on the citizen, the police could enter a property in an emergency, but if they wished to do so for investigative purposes, they either needed a search warrant from a magistrate, or had to be invited in by the home owner. If the police went before a magistrate they had to present some evidence to show that had good cause to enter the home, this idea has now been superseded, and the police may enter and search any property at any time. This little bit of legislation which eroded our basic rights and changed our relationship to the state was slipped onto the statue books in another totally unrelated (to police powers) government Bill, (the 2003 licensing Act), This Bill gives an ordinary Police officer the power to enter and search any property where they think a licensable activity is being or is about to be undertaken. All in all, over the past few years there has been a general assault on our very basic rights against the state, and this government has increased its powers against the citizen in an alarming number of ways which totally reverse our previously held perceptions of freedom. The 2003 Licensing act also attacks another basic thousand year old conception of freedom, that we all must obey the same laws, because, although the Act it makes it illegal to attempt to buy alcohol or to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 18, it allows what is laughingly called test purchases to be made-this is where the police can send under age persons onto a premises to buy alcohol- thus giving both the police office, and the youngster concerned immunity from the law. But to charge this government alone with incursions into our freedoms is to miss the greater point that was shown in Animal Welfare Bill, which has “cross party” support, this raises the question, do none of our elected representatives recognise that to give a local authority police powers, to give police themselves arbitrary powers to enter and search at will, to reverse the burden of proof, to remove the rights of jury trial, to remove the right for a jury to find against the evidence, to remove the rights of Habeus corpus etc. Greatly diminishes our basic rights as citizens of this country and increase the states powers against us, or do we now have to accept that we live in what is fast becoming police state Britain.

The West Lothian Question

2006-01-27T16:35:00.000Z

Jeremy Black has a good post about the West Lothian Question on the Social affairs Unit Blog The West Lothian Question - the fact that, post-devolution, Scottish Westminster MPs can still vote on legislation, on for example health and education, where Westminster legislation does not affect Scotland - could become the key issue at the next general election, argues Prof. Jeremy Black. The West Lothian Question is in part a dummy run for the next election. The very real possibility that Labour may only hold onto power because of Scottish votes is one that has not yet received sufficiently public attention. Labour produced what was, at least for its ends, a brilliant constitutional solution in 1997: pushing through a Scottish Assembly in order to assuage nationalist pressure in Scotland, while leaving Scotland able to play a key role to ensure its future political position and legislative programme in Westminster. Rather like the terms of our relationship with the European Union, it is far from clear that this situation can be redressed, which means that some commentators will at least think of the option of severance. Professor Black suggests that there is an urgent need for the Conservatives - as the alternative party of government - to address these issues as a matter of party policy. (always assuming they are going to become anything like a sensible political party again) The Conservative Party - if they wish to make headway on this issue - should not hesitate to use the language of fairness. This does not mean ending the Union or aping a crude English nationalism, but, instead, arguing that a Union that is demonstrably unfair is devoid of the positive qualities and consequences that encourage respect and support. Gareth Young from the News Blog comments; Of course there is no reason why Scottish and Welsh MPs should vote on English legislation without English MPs being able to vote on the concommitant legislation of the devolved administrations. In terms of the General Election there is another related question, one that could well play a huge part: Why should a Gordon Brown executive exercise its authority over England when Gordon Brown is democratically unaccountable to the people of England over huge swathes of Government policy? Indeed, Labour do not even have the plurailty of the vote in England, so they lack the moral authority to legislate for England on all matters that they have devolved to Scotland. At the moment, thanks to a gerrymandered constitution, they have the greatest number of seats, but should that change, leaving them relying on Scottish and Welsh MPs to govern England then the UK will rapidly disintergrate. Peter Hain has recently asserted that to bar Scottish and Welsh MPs from voting on English matters would be “dangerous and wrong”, and that such a measure would risk “fanning the flames of English nationalism”. He goes further than that by stating that “To prevent Welsh MPs from voting on certain classes of parliamentary business...would disenfranchise Welsh voters”. It would not disenfranchise Welsh voters anymore than English voters were disenfranchised by Welsh devolution, and it would not be anymore “dangerous and wrong” than Labour's devolution to Scotland and Wales. And, quite frankly, it is Labour themselves that have fanned the flames of English nationalism by shattering the concept of a unitary state and abusing English goodwill by imposing an asymmetrical constitution that so obviously discriminates against England. I hope to hear more from the Social Affairs Unit on this matter, it is a most pressing concern; one that threatens Parliamentary democracy as we know it.

EU: Subsidiarity and all that

2006-01-27T16:02:00.000Z

Lord Vinson asked Her Majesty's Government: How many times since its inclusion in the Maastricht Treaty the subsidiarity principle has been used successfully to ensure that powers remain with the United Kingdom and are not transferred to the institutions of the European Union. [HL3469] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): Article 5 of the treaty establishing European Community (TEC) states: "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community." Subsidiarity should be seen in the wider context as a general principle which underpins the operation of the European institutions. The institutions take account of subsidiarity when acting under the TEC, and in this respect subsidiarity has positively influenced the EU's overall direction. The Government believe that further progress can be made, particularly in strengthening the role of national parliaments in EU decision-making. So obviously the proper answer is none otherwise the government would be able to tell us how many times. At the Convention which drafted the Constitution David Heathcoat-Amory said : In section A-9 of the draft Constitution, it states that "National Parliaments shall ensure compliance with the subsidiarity principle". This implies a power to do so. But the Protocol only grants a request. A draft law would then have to be reviewed, but if the Commission wishes it can then proceed. So we must bring the Protocol into line with A-9 if we are to be consistent.

A Certain Somthing in the Air

2006-01-25T13:59:00.000Z

There seems to be a certain theme running through the “middle ground” of political debate in this country, something to do with making us all appreciate being British, or something that something is needed to bring us all together, or as Davis Cameron says "something we all did together" what with Gordon Brown’s flag waving episode last week and Tony Blair’s attempts to create “respect for the state” -or was it Parliament, or government or perhaps “himself” - ideas. All this seems to boil down to the political classes trying to do something towards strengthening a British demos, which considering the anti-nationalistic moves and the forced devolution of the past few decades would be very funny, if it were not so well….funny! Last year we had the report of the “Russell Commission” set up by Gordon Brown, who not only donated £150 million out of the public pocket to the scheme, but said that the Heritage Lottery Fund, Sports England and the Government were joining together to create Britain's first national community service for young people. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said: "When young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, get actively involved in their communities, the benefits - to the young person, to the local groups they support and to the wider community - are clear for all to see. "By nurturing and developing the leaders of tomorrow the whole of society will benefit." Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, the executive director of Community Service Volunteers, the UK's largest volunteering charity, said: "We look to a time when our public services, like those in the United States, ensure that 10 per cent of their person power comes from committed citizens." So is young David jumping on a NuLabour “Bandwagon”, when yesterday he said in a speech to voluntary group leaders that; “School leavers should be forced to do three or four months of community service”, although he was kind enough to say he “did not want to bring back National Service, but wanted young people to have the same feeling of achieving” “something we all did together”.” If it [community service] isn't compulsory or if it isn't universal it could tend to be something else that well-off families do because it's good for their kids. "But it would not reach some of the most marginalized families and excluded children who actually would really benefit." I don’t know if this is Fascism or Communism, but it not democratism and certainly it is not Conservatism! As Tim Worstall says on his Blog: “Now this is voluntary work remember. No pay. (If it was for pay it would be just as bad in one way and worse in another. Why pay 18 year olds to do something when we could have experienced people doing it? Bang goes productivity.) He is seriously suggesting that all people should work, unpaid, for the State. This is Fascism folks, foul and vile idea that the interests of the State trump those of the individual. That our labour is something at the disposal of said State, that we are mere helots to be told what to do as the Lords and Masters desire. There are disgusting overtones of the Lord’s Days on a medieval manor, those days when labour was owed to the feudal master rather than the individual.” It might be a good plan if those who are now trying to force the citizen to commit to the state in various ways, would make their collective minds up for once and for all. If we are to be EU Citizens and the Nations state is dead, as the intergrationalist would have us all believe, then what is the point in committing to an empty vessel that the British state has become.

Gay Marrage Abortion and Euthanasia in the EU

2006-01-24T16:47:00.000Z

The EU parliament is continuing to push its secular “religion” and for the destruction of the right to object because of religious conviction. Last weeks report in The Christian Post says that clergymen across the United Kingdom have been left highly concerned by a European Union report which has recommended that clergy not be allowed a right of conscientious objection to conducting gay weddings if the Parliament (EU) decides to enact legislation permitting same sex marriages. The EU ruling states that the rights of access to abortion, euthanasia, birth control and marriage trump the right of conscience to opt out of conducting gay weddings, The highly controversial report by the EU’s Network of Independent Experts on Human Rights said that where “euthanasia or assisted suicide are partially decriminalized, the right to religious conscientious objection, while it should be recognized to the medical doctors asked to perform euthanasia or to assist a person in committing suicide, should not be exercised in a way which leads to depriving any person from the possibility of exercising effectively his or her rights as guaranteed under the applicable legislation.” The report also stated that the “right of access” should take precedence over the right for clergy or registrars to object to solemnizing gay weddings, where the law permitted them. The Panel that made the ruling argued: “The right to religious conscientious objection may be invoked by an officer refusing to celebrate a marriage between two persons of the same sex or where one of the prospective spouses is a transsexual.” It added, however, that “it would be unacceptable to allow this to result in marriage being unavailable to the couple concerned: any form of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (as would result from the refusal to celebrate a marriage between two persons of the same sex where this institution is recognized), and any violation of the right to marry of transsexuals, should not be tolerated, and the public authorities should ensure in such circumstances that other officers will be available and willing to celebrate those unions.” In the United Kingdom, doctors and nurses currently have the right under law to refuse to participate in abortions, while the Education Reform Act of 1988 gives parents the right to withdraw their children from worship at state-supported schools. Clergy of the Church of England also have the right under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to refuse to solemnize a wedding “if it is reasonably believed that the person’s gender has become the acquired gender under the Act.” If Parliament decides to legalize same-sex weddings, clergy will, under the recommendations of the EU report, be forced to place the right of access to marriage of gay couples above their own moral convictions on the sanctity of the marriage. My personal feelings are that homosexual couples who have committed to each other, should have the protection of rights as a couple from the state, similar to that granted to heterosexuals who are married. That a person should have the right to end their life if they wish, that a woman should have the right to abort. However I reconise that these are my personal belifs and they are not shared by everyone. The EU rulling is about creating a new state secular religion, which says its rules trump those of other religions. We have learned to get along with peoples of other religions in the main, because we have not challenged their religious convictions, we thus have created a system which allows each of us to go their own way we do not force a Catholic to choose between the state and their religion (well not any more) because we have learned that to do so in the end leads to bloodshed. Those in the EU Parliament should remember this and look to their histories to understand that forcing people to do something against their strongly held convictions has no future, and no place in a democratic state.

And on the Third Day

2006-01-14T11:26:00.000Z

EU constitution is dead, says Dutch minister, Federalist hopes of reviving the draft European Union constitution were snuffed out yesterday when the Dutch foreign minister, Bernard Bot, said the treaty was "dead". He swept away months of euphemisms and half-truths, as European leaders struggled to avoid being the first to declare an end to the constitutional project, after its rejection in referendums by French and Dutch voters. Austria, which holds the EU's rotating presidency for the next six months, has pledged to work on reviving the constitution. Vienna said it would take soundings from the other 24 EU nations on how to "choreograph" its revival, in preparation for a June summit ending a year-long "pause for reflection". However, when Ursula Plassnik, the Austrian foreign minister, flew to The Hague to sound out the Dutch, Mr Bot poured cold water on the initiative. Mr Bot, standing beside Mrs Plassnik, said: "We have discussed the constitution, which for the Netherlands is dead." Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: "Since the best that can be said about the draft constitutional treaty is that is in limbo, which is somewhere between Heaven and Hell, it is difficult to argue that it is not dead." One unnamed EU diplomat said: "It is hard to see any incoming French or Dutch government, in 2007, choosing to swallow the poison pill that is another referendum on the constitution, which they could easily lose." This is the headline news on Thursday but by Saturday we have a totally different story and one moreover which contains the answer to the federalists problems of getting each country to ratify the Constitution individually. MEPs will next week debate a report that is aimed at salvaging the EU constitution, and forming a clear decision byt the end of 2007 on how its core parts should be ratified despite last year's "no" votes in France and the Netherlands. The two co-rapporteurs of the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee, the UK liberal Andrew Duff and the Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber, on Friday (13 January) joined the choir of EU leaders expressing their opinion over the fate of the text since the beginning of this year. The MEPs described the interventions so far as "simplistic" and presented instead a report setting out a specific roadmap for the resuscitation of the constitution in a revised form. The Duff-Voggenhuber report, on which the parliament will vote on Thursday, proposes to intensify the so-called period of reflection on the constitution, agreed by EU leaders after French and Dutch voters rejected the text in referendums last year. According to the plan, the European Parliament will this year and next year together with national parliaments promote a series of parliamentary forums, which the MEPs hope will be echoed by a series of national debates. The reflection period should then be "brought to an end in the second half of 2007 with a clear decision how to proceed with the constitution". And the kicker is……………. After negotiations on improvements in 2008, a revised text should be put to European citizens in an EU-wide consultative referendum on the same day as the European elections in 2009. There we have the EU`s answer to the democratic choice of the people, an EU wide Referendum will make it impossible for an individual state to veto the constitution. Thus at a stroke undermining and reversing the French and Dutch votes and also violating the agreements made in all the previous treaties that each state would have a clear veto on any changes to the treaties. I would suggest that as the EU Parliament wish to now unilaterally remove the power of the individual state to oppose treaty change, and as this is such an unequivocal contravention of the agreement undertaken by each state in agreeing to the original treaties, that those treaties have been broken. The importance of this move by the EU Parliament cannot be overstated. The Constitution sets the EU up as an independent actor, until then it is the creature of the States, it acts for the states, thus each state is still sovereign and has the right to decide or not whether it wishes to change its treaties, if it does not then no other agency can force it to do so. It was under this agreement that the EU gained power in the first place, it was this understanding that allowed each and every government to sell each treaty to their respective parliaments and or citizens. In exactly this way we were told in 1975 that “all nine (then) member countries also agree that any changes or additions to the “Market Treaties” must be acceptable to their own governments and parliaments. It was because we have a national veto on treaty change that our various Prime Minsters have been able to get the various acts that give the EU its powers through parliament. Would Major have sold Maastricht to the British parliament if there was ever any doubt in the minds of the MPs that they would not have the power to oppose any changes to that treaty. Now the EU which is still, just, under the control of the states, wants to remove the sovereignty of those states to agree to changes to their own treaties. It becomes clear exactly what Monnet meant when he said “We are not making a coalition of States, but are uniting people.” Perhaps he could have put it a little more succinctly “We are Obliterating Nation States.”

Freedom of Speech under Threat

2006-01-13T03:01:00.000Z

Police are targeting Sir Iqbal for his religious beliefs Sir - I wholeheartedly disagree with Sir Iqbal Sacranie's views on homosexuality (News, January 12), but I wholeheartedly support his right to express these views on Radio 4 - in a manner that was certainly not "threatening, abusing or insulting". Surely the police pursuing him under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are targeting a religious group for their beliefs, which the same Act prohibits. I can't help wondering if there isn't something better the officer concerned could be doing with his time. Peter Strong, London SW3 Sir - As an atheist I have little sympathy for most things a religious leader has to say, but if Sir Iqbal's views as reported in your paper cannot be freely expressed, then this is nothing less than censorship. He is entitled to his views and should be all owed to express them. Mark Slim, London EC2 Sir - Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" as a result. Sir Iqbal has been investigated under that Act. Leaving aside the outrageous use of this piece of legislation to curb freedom of speech, it seems that if Sir Iqbal had made his observations in print, rather than on the radio, he would have escaped investigation, as his remarks would not have been "within the hearing" of someone who might be insulted. It is a crass piece of legislation. Sandy Pratt, Bromley, Kent Sir - Police interest in the remarks of Sir Iqbal Sacranie following his comments on the BBC gives us a stark preview of the situation that will pertain if the ill-thought-out "religious hatred" legislation passes into law. The expression of seriously held religious beliefs will be a criminal offence "if made in the hearing of someone who may be offended". If I make the comment that "there is only one God and Jesus Christ is his only son", am I in future to be investigated by the police for anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish remarks? Ken Orme, Liverpool Sir - Sir Iqbal Sacranie deserves the support of all fair-minded persons, not just Muslims, Christians and Jews. Sir Iqbal, and the Christians you refer to in your article, were not attacking individuals. It is to be hoped that the Opposition will not only continue to oppose this Government's proposed new laws on "discrimination" but will, when it gets into office, repeal existing ones that give rise to these unsavoury intrusions into our rights of free speech. B. W. Cooper, Bradley, Wrexham Quite right, I agree with all these sentiments, however I did not see an outpouring of concern when this law was passed, neither when it was used by the police to question a Christian lady who made similar comments on the radio, or the Christian couple who were similarly questioned because they wanted to put Christian literature on the same market stand as gay literature. When will the people of this country wake up to the dreadful incursions this government are making into our basic rights and civil liberties and simply get rid of them and all their appalling faction. If the do not do so very soon, we will have not basic rights left to us. Link

Uniting the People

2006-01-11T20:40:00.000Z

“We are not making a coalition of States, but are uniting people.” [ Jean Monnet, 30 April 1952 ]

What Part of No Do You Not Understand?

2006-01-11T14:04:00.000Z

From the Open Europe Press summary Chirac and Merkel at odds over strategy for bringing back EU Constitution In a speech to French Ambassadors yesterday Jacques Chirac called for parts of the EU Constitution to be cherry-picked and implemented separately. He suggested this could be done on areas such as “internal security and justice, external action and better involvement of national parliaments in the European decision-making process.” However, Angela Merkel has reiterated her opposition to this telling Der Spiegel, “To put single parts of this Constitution into force, and leave others aside, without knowing where you want to go, that does not work". In an interview with La Croix German Home Affairs Minister (CDU) Peter Altmaier said “I am still convinced that the European Constitution is good. And this position on the contents of the treaty is shared by a large majority of states. Therefore heads of state must do everything possible to preserve this text.” Chirac also ignored warnings from Jose Barroso and Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel not to back the idea of a “core Europe”. Chirac said that he wanted to bolster "the visibility and the weight of the euro zone… It is natural for euro-area member countries to deepen their political, economic, fiscal and social integration… States wishing to act together should be enabled to do so as a complement to common policies" across the whole EU. AP reports that EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has said “the period of reflection on the EU Constitution should be extended beyond June 2006, since we have seen little debate up to now. Some have done a lot and others very little.” Dutch MP Lousewies van der Laan, who led the Dutch yes campaign, is quoted saying, “I want to be very clear on this subject. We will not ratify the text, and I sincerely ask Mrs Wallstrom - what part of no do you not understand?” http://euobserver.com/?aid=20656&rk=1 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/10/news/eu.php

Towards a Political Union

2006-01-11T03:18:00.000Z

Arguing for the return of the EU Constitution has become the objective of the past week or so, ever since the presidency past from Britian to Austria in fact. Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel told a news conference in Vienna Monday "The constitution is not dead," "The constitution is in the middle of a ratification process." Well if that is the case then let us have our referendum. Angela Merkel, the new German chancellor has said she believes the constitution could be signed off during Berlin's presidency of the Union in the latter half of 2007. And Nicolas Sarkozy, has also said the treaty contains "important advances which improve the functioning of Europe, and would move towards a political Union." The story is; There is increasing frustration in Brussels and other European capitals that an organization with 25 states simply cannot function smoothly with rules drawn up for just six countries almost half a century ago. Ah! so we have to have a “Constitution” I repeat a Constitution just so that we can change the rules; because the EU is at present working under the Treaty of Rome “with rules drawn up for just six countries” But of course it is not, this is just stupid spin, the EU treaty of Rome has been amended several times; The Single European Act the Maastricht Treaty, the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Treaty of Nice The EU had already made major preparations for enlargement, prior to its occurrence, without recourse to the draft Constitution: The Treaty of Nice provided for the institutional changes necessary for enlargement. So the treaty of Nice was supposed to sort out the rules to enable the EU to function with enlargement. The constitution is not therefore needed for this reason, if we look at what it does we can see clearly what the Constitution is for, in fact there is no need to do even that, Nicolas Sarkozy has already told us the treaty contains "important advances which improve the functioning of Europe, and would move towards a political Union." So the Constitution is a move towards political union, we should all remember that, lest anyone is stupid enough to tell us differently.

The Exit Clause and British Sovereignty

2006-01-10T19:52:00.000Z

This from appeared in the Scotsman this morning and was sent by e-mail from Dr Cooper with a note above the letter. Mrs Rolls writes very anti-EU good letters, but I have to disagree with her on this. The editor has deleted "Irrespective of the pretensions of the European Court of Justice" which I had put before "UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired", but as somebody writing to the Scotsman from England I'm always grateful that they print my letters at all. The Scotsman Mrs DA Rolls (Letters, 6 January) doubts whether the Westminster parliament can terminate its contract with the European Union simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. However, that is precisely the basis on which the British people voted to remain in the then Common Market, in the 1975 referendum. The government leaflet, distributed to every household, said: "Fact No 3: The British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on 1 January, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament." That remains the case. Indeed, in September 2004, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, told the Commons: "Because we are a sovereign nation, parliament itself will have the final right to decide, at any stage, whether it wishes us to remain a member of this treaty-based organisation." UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired. We only have to insist that our MPs do all the work we pay them for, rather than sub-contracting much of it to Brussels. (DR) DR COOPER To a certain extent I do agree with Dr Cooper, however I think the point at issues lies in the words “a treaty based organisation” he is most certainly right that the British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market, which in turn means that final sovereignty lies with our parliament. However until or unless they do repeal the act then we must abide by EU rules and EU laws, that is the case at present. But what about when they introduce or rather re-introduce the EU Constitution, which is still a treaty, but as its title makes clear; it is “a Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”, so in that event it would not be a treaty based organisation but an organisation based on its own constitution. The point is made clear in the Constitution itself; quite simply because it contains the exit clause, a Treaty between independent nation states does not require such a clause because as Dr Cooper points out in his letter and note "Irrespective of the pretensions of the European Court of Justice" UK sovereignty remains intact and unimpaired. The UK is thus the final arbiter of its own destiny without reference to any other organisation, this is why none of the other EU Treaties have needed or have indeed had such a clause. The exit clause at present is quite simple requiring the state which wishes to leave to make its decision known and to wait two years; however just like all other clauses this can be changed and the rules tightened, the constitution allows for such a change, by a simple agreement in the council, without having to reefer the matter back to the British parliament or the people. The important breach in our own parliament’s sovereign ability would have already been made by the constitution setting conditions on any decisions to withdraw, and once that has happened, it becomes a much simpler matter to change those conditions, until eventually that power is removed completely from parliament. It is also worth remembering that along the road to a European state the promoters are quite willing to make temporary arrangements, and allow temporary vetoes ect. The important word is temporary the plan is that eventually it will not be possible for a state legally to leave the union. As was made clear in the FCO paper 1971 SOVEREIGNTY AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES FCO 30/1048 - 1971 In that event the development of a prestigious and effective directly elected Community Parliament would clearly mean the consequential weakening of the British Parliament as well as the erosion of "parliamentary sovereignty". The process outlined is an exceedingly long-term one, and depends upon the continuing progressive development of the Community. For a very long time - almost certainly until the end of the century - the major member states would retain the practical "last resort" political possibility of succession (albeit in probable breach of international obligations and with increasingly damaging economic consequences for the defector). So long as the member state's participation is subject to national scrutiny and can in practice be withdrawn, it may be said that the nation's status as an equal and independent state in the international community will be unaffected. Parliament's power will likewise survive; if Britain can in practice renounce the Treaty then the Community laws which are applied automatically within the member states are seen to depend upon the continuing (and pre-eminent) acquiescence of Parliament which may in the last resort be withdrawn. 22. Even with the most dramatic development of the Community the major member states can hardly lose the "last resort" ability to withdraw in much less than three decades. The Community's development could produce before then a period in which the political practicability of withdrawal was doubtful. If the point should ever be reached at which inability to renounce the Treaty (and with it the degeneration of the national institutions which could opt for such a policy) was clear, then sovereignty, external, parliamentary and practical would indeed be diminished. Eurealist Files

Wake up America !

2006-01-08T12:42:00.000Z

Thanks to Dr Cooper who sent this to me by email and said; Many people in Washington still haven't woken up, apparently. Like Mr Pantucci, with his letter in the Independent yesterday. Business Platform Washington still blind to true nature of the EU By : John Blundell January 08, 2006 HISTORY is little but an inventory of errors. Even the best and most erudite can suffer delusions. Whenever I am in Washington DC I find many of those I most enjoy encountering come from the US State Department, a sort of graduate school that specialises in fallacies. The rest of the planet regards the State Department as on the side of the angels but gaspingly naive. A defining folly that resides in the State Department is an almost uncritical perception that the European Union (EU), the commission and all its works are “a good thing”. The argument is a stale remnant of the Cold War. We are talking bulwarks here. The US government regarded a prosperous Western Europe as the best assurance against a Red Army assault. What happier idea than the reconciliation of a crushed Germany with its ancient enemy France, victorious but depleted? In 1946 I readily accept this was all relatively wholesome and benevolent. Yet what made sense 60 years ago is more than threadbare now. It is false. The Soviet threat has evaporated. If we did have a device to deter any imperial ambitions of Moscow the deterring agent was Nato – not the common agricultural policy. I think it is possible to detect a few stirring from their slumbers in Washington. The endless jostlings with Peter Mandelson, the European trade commissioner, are plainly not the acts of a liberal or free trading entity. The EU has been busy banning genetically modified seeds for farmers. It has been harassing US corporations such as Microsoft with legal challenges that are, to put it charitably, contrived. US pharmaceuticals find the commission happy to draft retrospective laws and to disregard property rights. The EU is not a democracy. Some in the State Department express some alarm that the EU powerhouse is unconstrained by any elective forces. Others speak in hushed awe at such a smooth bureaucracy unencumbered by troublesome politicians. Few Americans have really bothered to understand the nature of the commission. I believe it to be the most aggressive and ambitious force in the western world. While China is opening itself up, the Europe of the Union is cocooning itself in ever more detailed rules, taxes, regulations and levies. India abandons is antique love affair with bureaucracy and chooses liberalisation. The “Belgian Empire”, as Margaret Thatcher calls it, is going in the opposite direction. If this were the result of electoral choice it would have a legitimacy. In fact it is an unconstrained autocracy. For those of us in Britain who regard ourselves as Atlanticists with bonds of affection and respect for the US, the incomprehension of even elite Americans to the true nature of the EU is distressing. By the assessment of its own auditors the EU’s budget is closely allied to organised crime: 40% of its funds go to rigging farming and food markets. No other single policy accounts for wider poverty. Yet Washington averts its eyes, still thinking “bulwarks”. It is recognised that the endorsement of brutal and repressive regimes, if they were at least “anti-communist”, was a policy that nourished many evil tyrannies. It would be too colourful to describe the EU in these terms but it cannot be denied it is a mercantilist opponent of the liberalisation of trade in goods and services as much as foodstuffs. Note how the EU, born as a “Common Market” has decayed into a “Common Bureaucracy”. At the World Trade Organisation, the EU is effectively an opponent of the US. A favourite debating trick of the late Sir Edward Heath, when negotiating the UK entry into the then Common Market, was to protest the talk of a vast Euro-bureaucracy was illusory. “The commission employs fewer than the Scottish Office,” he would tease. It was a clever trick. He simply ignored all those working for the commission’s subsidiary bodies and for all the national civil servants executing commission policy or directives. There is no bigger bureaucracy on the planet. A recent parliamentary answer in the Federal Parliament in Berlin admitted 80% of German legislation is merely compliance with commands from the superior body in Brussels. Westminster nods through what John Biffin terms “a steady drizzle of rules and regulations”. To most Americans the British have their monarch on her throne and her judges in their wigs. How can fellows like me say this is increasingly hollow? The Queen’s speech is mostly drafted by the commission. The Queen’s courts conform their law-giving as obedient to the true fount of lawmaking – in Brussels. The British parliament debates on ever constricted grounds. It is only healthcare and education that remain untouched by the commission. There is no hyperbole in claiming the UK has no trade policy whatsoever. The DTI is merely the provincial office for the commission’s commands. Admirable Washington policy teams such as those at the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are trying to open the closed minds of Washington. I fear it will take a few thousand more seminars or perhaps one spectacular event to alert the US to the real truth about its delinquent child. John Blundell is director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs . Have your say e-mail: letters@thebusiness.press.net

Row over ‘rigging’ of BBC poll

2006-01-05T15:04:00.000Z

The Guardian reports that UKIP have said that they encouraged people to vote for Jose Barroso in the Today programme poll to find the most powerful person in Britain. Ben Jones, of the European Movement is quoted saying, "They're using neo-con-style tactics - fairly ruthless, almost propagandist means. Politics should be done through rational argument, not by manipulating the media." Guardian I find it utterly astounding for an EU Propagandist to say something like that, it is rather like the pot calling the kettles black, is it not. What rational arguments have the likes of the European Movement offered to the people of this country for giving away our sovereignty? How much of our money does the EU spend on its own propaganda each and every year assisted by The European Movement; which organisation moreover is not averse to using its own black propaganda techniques; reading its introduction by Lord Haskins of Skidby it purposely confuses the EU with the Council of Europe, claiming the old Churchill linkage. http://www.euromove.org.uk/about “The origins of the European Movement lie in the aftermath of the Second World War. More than eight hundred delegates from across Europe gathered in The Hague in May 1948, under the chairmanship of Sir Winston Churchill, to create a new international movement to unite Europe and prevent further wars between its members” All true; however Churchill was not in favour of the EU, or the integration of Great Britian into a greater Europe, preferring a Europe of sovereign Nation States, and nowadays as the European Movement knows full well, everyone associates European integration with the EU and not the Council of Europe. I do not know if the claim made against the UKIP is true, however even assuming it is, UKIP is only doing what it intends; and that is to let people know how much the EU intrudes on our daily lives; which is something those in The European Movement would not really like the people of this country to understand, until that is it is too late to do anything about it. Rational political argument should be used to inform the people of this country not to hide the facts; it should also include the argument as to whether we want to be part of the EU in the first place.

Curtailing Religious Rights

2006-01-05T11:15:00.000Z

EUSURF has just written a post about the pre-Christmas report from The EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, an advisory panel to the EU. In the 40 page document they challenge the right to religious freedom if it conflicts with the European Charta of Fundamental Rights; Their opinion considered the right to conscientious objection in light of a proposed treaty between the Vatican and Slovakia. This treaty would guarantee that Catholic hospitals and medical professionals would not be legally obligated to "perform artificial abortions, artificial or assisted fertilizations, experiments with or handling of human organs, human embryos or human sex cells, euthanasia, cloning, sterilizations, [and] acts connected with contraception. While the Network acknowledged the right to conscientious objection,( that is nice of them) it warned that such a right was not "unlimited." "Indeed, the right to religious conscientious objection may conflict with other rights, also recognized under international law. In such circumstances, an adequate balance must be struck between these conflicting requirements, which may not lead to one right being sacrificed to another." They say they are calling for a balance to be struck between the two rights, but that balance seems on further reading not to be a balance at all but rather the removal of the right to religious conscientious objection. The opinion declares that the "right to religious conscientious objection" "should be regulated in order to ensure that, in circumstances where abortion is legal, no woman shall be deprived from having effective access to the medical service of abortion. In the view of the Network, this implies that the State concerned must ensure, first, that an effective remedy should be open to challenge any refusal to provide abortion; second, that an obligation will be imposed on the health care practitioner exercising his or her right to religious conscientious objection to refer the woman seeking abortion to another qualified health care practitioner who will agree to perform the abortion; third, that another qualified health care practitioner will be indeed available, including in rural areas or in areas which are geographically remote from the centre." Back to EUSURF who says So the EU in all its wisdom, wants to force doctors to go against their most deeply held beliefs, and perform procedures that they cannot do with a clear conscience. Two points: 1) What happened to freedom of religion? 2) Do we really want these people telling us which rights are fundamental and which are not? The answer to the second question is; whether we want it or not; we seem to have a new set of rights; which when forced on us, will overrule and overturn a basic right to live by the dictates of your own conscience and force the new secular religion on all of us. Thus it is a direct challenge to the settled teaching of the Catholic church, not that this should come as any great surprise after the Buttiglione controversy when the EU Parliament made it quite clear that Catholic teachings had no place in the EU. Of course we do have freedom of religion, only it must take account of the new secular religion that resides within the EU. It would seem that not only are EU laws and the EU constitution (when it comes) to be superior to state law and constitution, but the Secularism in the EU is to be superior to religious teachings.

Regional Police

2006-01-03T14:14:00.000Z

Again thanks from Dr Cooper the Western Morning News PRESSURISE YOUR MP OVER REGIONAL POLICE The purpose of Lindsay Jenkins' article (December 13) on the shameless bulldozing through of regional police forces by the Government was to explain the real reason for it. Britain is long committed to the EU by treaty to set up full regional government for the future governance of this country by the EU when we have finally been fully integrated into it. It is fact - inescapable fact. Tell people this and they are likely to say: "So what - we don't like the idea of a huge centralised police force covering the seven counties of the South West but what difference does it make to know that it is to conform with EU planning?" My answer is: Here is only the latest example of how integration into the EU will soon affect our daily lives, and in a most fundamental way - worse-than-ever policing. We can only stop regional policing by attacking its cause; i.e. demand that we withdraw from the EU. Nothing less will do. Don't be fooled. The EU Constitution has not gone away. It is still being brought in by stealth. The integration process continues right now. Every week more examples of it are revealed. Polls have shown that a majority of the public want to leave the EU, so what are we waiting for? Since policing is essentially a local matter, every MP should be pressured to state publicly whether he or she is for or against regional police forces, and how those who are against intend to stop it. So we should all get writing. Conservative MPs, vaguely Eurosceptic as they are, have an easy answer because their party is committed to abolish regional government - provided it gets in before we are irreversibly integrated. Lib-Dem and Labour MPs are bound by their parties to be fully pro-EU, so will be hard pressed to voice any opposition to regional policing. Sir George Earle Crediton Link

WE CAN'T AFFORD SUBSIDIES FOR ALL

2006-01-03T13:54:00.000Z

This Is Devon from Graham BoothWE CAN'T AFFORD SUBSIDIES FOR ALL Your columnist Kate Ironside seems to have her morals all mixed up in her recent article. If you read my speech to the EU Parliament last month its contents may straighten out her muddled thinking. It is very tempting to offer all of Europe's poorer regions vast subsidies, but perhaps we should remember that West Germany has already spent some EUR 900 billion trying to create a level playing field for their relatively small neighbour, East Germany. That should ring serious alarm bells, but we are turning a deaf ear. The eight eastern European countries that have already joined the EU, plus Bulgaria and Romania, have been promised g139 billion out of the total structural funds budget of g336 billion for the period 2007 to 2013. An exhibition that the Dutch Presidency put on in Brussels last December predicted that another ten impoverished countries will join the EU by 2022. Based on Germany's experience, the costs will be absolutely astronomical and attainable only if the big three member states - Germany, Britain and France - are prepared to impoverish themselves in the process. It is about time we scrapped this whole crazy idea and helped out those poorer countries by creating opportunities for increased trade, tourism, etc. I can well believe that Tony Blair will agree to impoverish Britain in his quest for European popularity, but I cannot imagine Mr Chirac doing the same thing to France. The EU is a political experiment aimed at "ever closer union" of the member states that have largely been led into the project by the political elites in each country. Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, neither Mr Blair nor any of his predecessors has the mandate to pursue anything other than a "Common Market", which is what we voted for in 1975. However, as a leaked memo from the Foreign Office - AKA the Vichy Brigade - shows, the UK will drop from being 20th out of 25 in the EU handout rankings at present to being 27th out of 27 by 2007 when Bulgaria and Romania will have joined the EU. At the same time we will, under Blair's current proposals end up paying more than 50% more than at present. I struggle to see any moral issue of the type claimed by Kate Ironside but not specified, in this disastrous condition. The EU is a vast confidence trick aimed at stealing sovereignty and independence from free nations and is the most immoral issue I can think of. Perhaps Ms Ironside could develop a proper moral case for the EU? Now that would be an interesting article! Graham Booth MEP Paignton Many Thanks Dr Cooper

The Retreat of Reason

2006-01-03T11:31:00.000Z

This should release a few pigeons amongst the cats, I have not read the full report yet but its puff looks promising. Happy New Year Anthony Browne (Who He) argues in The Retreat of Reason that political correctness, which classifies certain groups of people as victims in need of protection from criticism and allows no dissent to be expressed, is poisoning the wells of debate in modern Britain. Members of the public, academics, journalists and politicians are afraid of thinking certain thoughts' (p.xii). Political correctness started in academia, (Actually it stated in Germany before the War and then was taken to New York when the Nazis ousted the school) but it now dominates schools, hospitals, local authorities, the civil service, the media, companies, the police and the army. Since 1997 Britain has been ruled by political correctness for the first time. 'The Labour government was the first UK government not to stand up to political correctness, but to try and enact its dictates when they are not too electorally unpopular or seriously mugged by reality, and even sometimes when they are' (p.34). Anthony Browne describes political correctness as a 'heresy of liberalism' (p.2) under which 'a reliance on reason has been replaced with a reliance on the emotional appeal of an argument' (p.6). Adopting certain positions makes the politically correct feel virtuous, even more so when they are preventing the expression of an opinion that conflicts with their own: 'political correctness is the dictatorship of virtue'. Whether an argument is true or not is a secondary consideration to whether it fits with the PC view of the world: 'In the topsy-turvy politically correct world, truth comes in two forms: the politically correct, and the factually correct. The politically correct truth is publicly proclaimed correct by politicians, celebrities and the BBC even if it is wrong, while the factually correct truth is publicly condemned as wrong even when it is right. Factually correct truths suffer the disadvantage that they don't have to be shown to be wrong, merely stated that they are politically incorrect. To the politically correct, truth is no defence; to the politically incorrect, truth is the ultimate defence. (p.7)' Anthony Browne gives some examples (p.8) of factually incorrect arguments that trump factually correct ones, because they are PC: He argues that PC is much more than just a dispute about words, or the hope of avoiding hurtful expressions: it leads to an incorrect analysis of real problems, which means that the wrong solutions are attempted. People suffer as a result: 'Black communities are encouraged to blame racist teachers for the failings of their boys at school, rather than re-examine their own culture and attitudes to education that may be the prime reasons. The poor sick have ended up having worse healthcare in Britain than they would in mainland Europe because PC for long closed down debate on fundamental NHS reform. Women's employment opportunities can be harmed by giving them ever more rights that are not given to men. The unemployed are encouraged to languish on benefits blaming others for their fate. Poor Africans are condemned to live in poverty so long as they and their governments are encouraged to blame the West for all their problems, rather than confronting the real causes of poor governance, corruption and poor education'. (p.xiv) The end of political correctness? Political correctness is the invention of Western intellectuals who feel guilty about the universal triumph of Western values and economic prosperity. However, threats to the influence of the West may bring political correctness to an end: 'Political correctness is essentially the product of a powerful but decadent civilisation which feels secure enough to forego reasoning for emoting, and to subjugate truth to goodness. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and those that followed in Bali, Madrid and Beslan, have led to a sense of vulnerability that have made people far more hard-headed about the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation'. (p.84) Even the long-unrivalled economic dominance of the West will come under challenge from the newly flourishing economies of India and China. Westerners will stop feeling guilty about their position when it has to be defended against rival cultures and ideologies. Anthony Browne lists several steps that could be taken to limit the malign influence of political correctness before it does further damage: • Free speech should be protected with an equivalent of the first amendment to the US constitution • A binding referendum should be called on any proposal if supported by a certain percentage of the population. Such 'citizens' initiatives' return power to the people, encouraging ordinary citizens to re-engage with the political process • Un-PC groups should be formed and promoted to oppose PC flag-wavers like left-wing charities. A taxpayers' alliance could argue for lower taxes; a homeowners association could campaign on issues affecting homeowners, like council tax and crime • There should be more objective teaching of the history of the West. Foundations should be set up to preserve and promote the Western heritage and values (pp. 86-7). 'In the long run of history, political correctness will be seen as an aberration in Western thought. The product of the uniquely unchallenged position of the West and unrivalled affluence, the comparative decline of the West compared to the East is likely to spell its demise. Finally, Western minds may be free again to reason rather than just emote, to pursue objective truth rather than subjective virtue'. (p.87 Download a PDF copy

Some Moments of Fantasy

2006-01-03T09:16:00.000Z

Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel on taking over the Presidency of the EU this month wants to resurrect and redefine the EU Constitution; he said “Europe needed "some moments of fantasy and flexibility and new thoughts." He said he would restart efforts to draft a new constitution at an EU conference on European identity to be held in Salzburg in late January.” He would like to rewrite the services directive, a bill making it easier for European workers and companies to offer services abroad. "We shouldn't wait too long to revive the debate on the European future," Schüssel said. Not long at all, he said he aimed to have a timetable and road map for ratification of a new European constitution ready by mid-2006, when Austria hands over the EU presidency to Finland. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing s, constitution drafted at a convention lasting months is according to Schüssel a process that was elitist and anachronistic, he said, "I want to avoid a top-down approach." This time, he said, a broad spectrum of citizens including scientists, journalists and professors should contribute ideas for a new constitution. Ah! so here we have a more inclusive approach; Schüssel wants to include scientists professors and journalists, instead of simply politicians, one thing wrong with that idea, from one of the great unwashed, is like the politicians, these professions have been doing well out of the EU for years, they are part of takers in the EU system the ones whose jobs have been enhanced and in many cases actually rely on the EU for their livelihood, where would all those professors of EU law and EU politics be without the EU? Where would all those Brussels reporters be without the EU. I find it odd that the professions the EU has been cultivating in its effort to create an EU demos for years should be earmarked as just the sort of people to contribute to a new Constitution. But to be fair to him Schüssel is not totally uncritical of the EU he said "There are some tendencies within the European Union that can be seen with critical eyes," notably "an extension of communitarian law by the European court." He said “A recent decision by EU judges to force national treasuries to reimburse companies for tax losses outside their home countries was among a series of "backdoor decisions of the European court" that Schüssel said served to extend EU law without politicians' prior agreement.” Curtailing the ECJ ability to extend EU law beyond that agreed by politicians and entered into treaties, was one of areas covered by The Laeken Declaration and although it was rejected by Giscard d’Estaing, was one of the clauses in the Alternative Report on the Constitution that emanated from Valéry Giscard d’Estaing convention “THE EUROPE OF DEMOCRACIES” This report, signed by eight members who said “As members of the Convention, we cannot endorse the draft European Constitution. It does not meet the requirements of the Laeken Declaration of December 2001.” They also said “The transfer of more decision-making from Member States to the Union, concerning criminal justice matters and new areas of domestic policy, will make the Union more remote. The Constitution Gives no assurance about how power is to be shared, particularly as Member States will be forbidden to legislate in these areas if the Union decides to act. And that The EU Court in Luxembourg will decide on any doubt. The draft Constitution fails to address the 97,000 accumulated pages of the acquis communautaire. The Constitution gives more power to all the existing EU institutions and creates a Europe of Presidents, with more jobs for politicians and less influence for the people. Not one competence will be returned to Member States. The Constitution concentrates more executive and budgetary power in the very EU institutions which have been the subject of repeated and continuing scandals over mismanagement, waste and fraud. They made the point that The Laeken Declaration, only suggested the possibility of a Constitution and was not a call for a constitution. And most importantly “the draft EU Constitution was never drafted through normal democratic methods. Giscard did not allow democracy and normal voting in the Convention. The draft Constitution runs counter to all democratic principles.” This is the Constitution that was rejected by the French and the Dutch before they stopped the ratification process, which prevented us and other peoples also rejecting not only the constitution, but in many cases, the very idea of allowing the EU to become a constitutionally based organisation. So; Mr Schüssel would like to take this present unwanted Constitution drafted by an undemocratic process, and rewrite parts of it with the assistance of people whos jobs depend on the EU, and then have it ratified in tandem with European parliamentary elections in 2009, I suppose, to make it even more confusing to the people who would vote on whether to accept it or not, always assuming they actually allow us a vote, or to vote nationally. Whilst in the meantime all those things the federalists wanted in the Constitution are being implemented by the back door. Democracy my foot! Mr Schüssel interviewed by International Herald Tribune

EU Budget Virtual March

2005-12-07T12:33:00.000Z

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

2005-12-06T11:45:00.000Z

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

2005-12-06T10:54:00.000Z

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

2005-12-04T23:28:00.000Z

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

Should the Europan flag replace the Union Jack?

2005-11-27T08:58:00.000Z

Poll in the Daily Express, in almost full page article about Wear Valley etc, complete with a picture of a stern Neil Herron ... Q. Should the Europan flag should replace the Union Jack? To vote no: Ring 0901 890 2301 - cost 25p from BT landline Text DXVOTE B to 61616 - cost 25p plus network operator costs Lines close at midnight; please forward if there is time. Congratulations, Neil!

Bill of Rights Meeting

2005-11-17T02:23:00.000Z

Notice of Event: Bill of Rights Hearing in Worcester Fownes Hotel, Worcester Robin Decrittenden vs. Worcester City Council Appeal No. WC 49. 18th November 2005 11am "£1,000,000,000 a year revenue from Parking Fines under threat" This notice is to all supporters, contacts and interested parties and is to inform you that on 18th November 2005 at 11am at the Fownes Hotel in Worcester a National Parking Adjudication Service hearing is to take place between Robin Decrittenden and Worcester City Council. The hearing will be the first public airing of the use of the Bill of Rights Defence against a Penalty Charge Notice issued, in this instance, under Worcester City Council's decriminalised parking enforcement regime. The hearing is open to the public and any interested parties are requested to attend the venue. A large public room has been reserved for the hearing. The potential of the case is that it could expose the Government and Local Authorities operating decriminalised parking enforcement regimes as acting unlawfully. The consequence could be that they have no legal authority to impose 'fines' thereby threatening a massive source of revenue which is now approaching £1,000,000,000 per annum! Please no banners, placards or flags. Please circulate amongst your contacts and organisation. Robin Decrittenden states,"The purpose of this challenge is to put the politicians back in their kennels by requiring them to obey the law that regulates Parliament itself." Metric Martyrs Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, "This is the first head on conflict exposing the highly suspect Metric Martyrs Judgment. If the Judgment is correct then decriminalised parking fines cannot be levied. Alternatively, the Metric Martyrs were convicted and are innocent." ENDS Contact: Neil Herron 0191 565 7143 metricmartyrs@btconnect.com mob. 07776 202045 Robin Decrittenden 01902 417 045 More information to be posted at www.neilherron.blogspot.com and www.thepeoplesnocampaign.co.uk Latest News here Venue is 'Fownes Hotel', City Walls Road, Worcester (telephone number 01905-613151) and the time is 11.00 am. To view a map of the hotel and the nearest train station click here Overview of the Case: 1. The Declaration and Bill of Rights (1688/89) provide the very particular legal requirement that fines and forfeitures can be imposed on individual people only after conviction – and any conviction requires the full involvement of a Court of Law. The Declaration & Bill of Rights do not recognize any difference between Civil and Criminal matters: The rules apply to both parts of the law. 2. The Judgment given in the Metric Martyrs Case of 2002 provides that the terms of the Bill of Rights may not be changed or removed by anything other than very specific wording - and that all/any such wording must be contained within the text of any later legislation. 3. The Road Traffic Act of 1991 attempts to assert that Courts of Law are not required to consider questions relating to the Parking Fines that are now being imposed by local authorities which have decided to join themselves to a Government-sponsored scheme that is known as ‘de-criminalised parking’. The Road Traffic Act of 1991 has not changed or removed the provisions of the Bill of Rights, in accordance with the terms of the Judgment provided in the Metric Martyrs Case, and as a consequence the law says that the Road Traffic Act of 1991 is not a law at all. 4. Under the provisions of ‘de-criminalised parking’ motorists are now being required to take their parking-ticket appeals to the authority that actually issued the ticket – and then on to an allegedly independent Parking Adjudication Service that is known as NPAS. 5. NPAS receives all of its funding from the local authorities which are issuing the tickets that are being appealed and funding is provided to NPAS at the rate of 60 pence per parking-ticket issued. It is obvious that it must be in the interests of NPAS to make quite sure that the paying Councils are given full support during all processes of dealing with the appeals that are made by members of the public. The ‘system’ itself provides that there can be no true independence within the work of NPAS, because the existence of NPAS is absolutely dependent on the goodwill of the local authorities which are paying the wages of the NPAS staff. There is no provision made for the work of NPAS to be scrutinized by any outside body, and the NPAS failure to control the unlawful activities of the local Councils that have joined the scheme becomes increasingly apparent. In Sunderland and the North-East alone, millions of pounds are now due to be refunded to members of the public, because of Council failures to keep to the rules – and it is VERY significant that not one of these Council failures has been exposed by NPAS! 6. On 18th November, 2005, at 11.00 am, an NPAS tribunal sitting at Fownes Hotel in Worcester will hear Appeal No. WC 49. This Appeal is based entirely upon a direct challenge to the legality of the Road Traffic Act of 1991, when measured against the very specific legal requirements of the Declaration & Bill of Rights. 7. Government-sponsored attempts to pervert our system of justice; to take our money out of our pockets and to turn this country into a dictatorship controlled by people who simply do not know how to tell the truth - are to be brought face to face with the open resistance of a pensioner and your support is required – Robin Decrittenden

Freedom of Choice Free Zones

2005-10-27T09:25:00.000Z

If this isn't "dictatorship, I don't know what is. Do they now read of the problems re growing GM seeds? Where are our "rights" to eat GM free foods?Anne
GM-free Zones
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the powers of the EU Commission to overrule the wish of member states to declare GM-free zones or regions following the recent European Court decision. [20770]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 21 October 2005]: Under existing EU law, in order to declare a GM-free zone, that is a region where GM crops cannot be cultivated, a member state has to prove that there are special reasons 25 Oct 2005 : Column 200W to introduce national measures. Austria applied for a derogation from Directive 2001/18/EC to declare the region of Upper Austria a GM-free zone. However, the European Court of Justice ruled against this measure, as the Austrian Government failed to prove that the region of' Upper Austria had a unique ecosystem which might justify a specific local risk assessment.
EU law, as agreed by EU member states, sets out procedures which allow an individual GM crop to be approved for cultivation throughout the whole of the EU only if a detailed assessment confirms that it does not pose an unacceptable risk to health or the environment. Under current EU law, as agreed by EU member states, the only legitimate grounds for narrowing the geographical scope of an approval to prevent cultivation in a defined zone are the production of clear evidence that the GM crop involved poses a particular risk to the specific area in question. In the Austrian case, the European Court of Justice found that Austria had not demonstrated the existence of any such risks to the region of Upper Austria.
************************************************************
"I've sprayed my Roundup beans twice this summer and I can see maize still growing in the fields..... You know how life is supposed to go full circle? I'm back to hand-hoeing maize out of soyabean fields.... I got it [RR maize] and I never bought it!"Illinois FarmerFarmers Weekly, August 27- September 2, 2004
From Anne Palmer

Immunity From What?

2005-10-19T05:49:00.000Z

Immunity From What? I read a News Release on 23rd September, “Government to end Crown Immunity from Planning Controls”. The list was quite long so I will mention only that “the Crown” includes Government Departments, Her Majesty’s private estates, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and also part of the Palace of Westminster is Crown land too. All this information is held on the Deputy Prime Minister’s web site where it says quite clearly, that this matter also involves the ‘devolved’ bodies and they too will proceed on a similar timetable to that in England. For him to have to admit there is a Country called “England” is a turn around indeed for the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Of course this takes in compulsory purchase, applying for planning permission and under the proposed changes, Crown bodies would have to pay planning fees to the planning authorities in the same way that private developers do at present. Her Majesty, to the best of my knowledge has always been open to gentle persuasion in adapting to change without draconian legislation, and because of that, I strongly believe that Crown immunity regarding Planning Controls, should stay. What does John Prescott want to turn the Palace of Westminster into, for goodness sake? Or what will happen if/when the European Union takes over control of planning regulations and compulsory purchase orders or perhaps ask your selves has it not done so already through these proposals which are to go ahead to bring us into line with the rest of the EU? Speculation! Could there be a compulsory purchase order on Buckingham Palace? What if the EU decides it would make a good “Head Quarters” for them here in what used to be the United Kingdom? Vivid imagination? Here is the quandary as I see it. All this comes about because of the European Union’s Directive on “Environmental Impact Assessment” in relation to Crown development. The question is, how can we allow an outside body of people to decide to remove immunity from our sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth II? How can Members of our Government whose sworn allegiance is to our Queen allow this to happen? It is ironic that successive Governments have used Crown Immunity, or Parliamentary privilege to protect themselves and to exonerate themselves from any wrongdoing. Now if Crown immunity was lifted from ALL Crown properties perhaps it will strip the government of their historic defence and maybe we will get genuine open Government at last. Another question that comes to mind is, how many organisations in the EU have Immunity? No one in this Country can remove “immunity” from any EU organisation. Friends of the Earth in Northern Ireland want to end Crown Immunity in Court and have asked the European Commission to take legal action on the issue of Water Services’ Crown Immunity. Ministers have said that the Crown Immunity will be removed in 2006 when Water Service is “Externalised”. But how many more essential services left in British hands are to be “externalised”? There is no doubt that there is need for change and I am thinking especially when people are injured or killed when working on Crown property. I read that, and I quote, “Crown Immunity can mean, freedom or exemption from legal proceedings. Examples include the immunity of the sovereign personally from all legal proceedings. And in brackets (see Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary privilege)” Government Ministers now use the Royal Prerogative for and on behalf of the Crown, but it must never be used in an innovative way. In ‘today’s’ world though, we have a Prime Minister that has signed a document in which he is actually prepared to hand over that precious gift of ‘Royal Prerogative’ to the European Union. His intention was clear when he signed his name to the Treaty ESTABLISHING a Constitution for Europe. Should we remain in the EU, eventually there will be the transfer of Royal Prerogative to the Union allowing them to have “legal personality”, to “Speak for all Nation States with one voice” and in all matters. An example of this happened in 2003 when, for the very first time the European Union made an international agreement based on both the second and the third pillar. It was an “arrest warrant” between the USA and the European Union as a whole. There was no debate in our Parliament on the Arrest Warrant and neither was it debated in the EU Parliament. For proof of that, I will quote MEP Hernández Mollar in the EU parliament, “Now that we are drafting the new Constitution for Europe, how could we justify to the citizens of Europe that agreements impinging directly on their human rights come into force without being reviewed by the European Parliament?” As these arrangements in this case appear to have been done in secrecy, it should come as a warning that all is not as open and transparent in the EU as it should be. I read that, and I quote, “No state or international organisation may intervene in matters that fall within the domestic jurisdiction of another state. The concept of state sovereignty was outlined, among other things, in a declaration on Principles of International Law (Resolution 2625), proclaimed by General Assembly of the United Nations 1970”. Other recent attacks on the Crown are in certain Private Members Bills, some put forward within weeks of swearing allegiance to Her Majesty in this present Parliament. The Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill. For the removal of existing nationality requirements. Yet we already have (I believe unlawfully) foreign nationals serving in our Police Force and as Magistrates- strictly against the Act of Settlement and Magna Carta. Are these foreign nationals walking round with sub-machine guns? Protecting the Queen? Protecting our Prime Minister? In SOCA? Have they sworn TRUE allegiance to our Queen? Will it mean anything to them if they have? There has been a Bill to separate the Head of State and Head of Church, but the Pope too is also Head of State and Head of Church, as is our Queen in the United Kingdom. Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath Bill, to amend Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 in order to establish that it is no longer an offence to express an opinion in favour of republicanism or advocating the abolition of the Monarchy; to amend the Act of Settlement to provide that persons in communion with the Roman Catholic Church are able to succeed to the Crown; to amend the law relating to the parliamentary oath. A further proposal for the alteration of the Parliamentary Oath. We have already had a number of Terrorism Laws, each one removes some of the long standing rights that we have enjoyed over many years and yes, they are the Rights many have given their lives for, so that we need not be ruled by others, other than by our own politicians. Since 1997 we have had the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and conspiracy) Act 1998. The Terrorism Act 2000, The Anti-Terrorism Act 2001. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, where for the first time in British history the Home Secretary gave himself the power to remove the British citizenship of a person born here in the UK, providing in so doing, it does not make anyone “stateless”. (As stated in international law) The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, The Extradition Act 2003, The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Not exactly a terrorism Act, but it sure terrified ME. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, And the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 So many anti-Terrorism Acts yet we have never bothered to close even one the easiest borders in the EU to control, which of course is our own. This open door policy has encouraged suspected terrorists to live here and preach their evil messages of intolerance and hate to vulnerable and impressionable people, and to recruit them and train them for their cause. Can we trust the police or Government to use terrorism laws wisely? Haven’t we seen 82 year old men manhandled and held under the Terrorism Act. We read of a 17 year old girl on her first protest march taken off, DNA taken and house searched. People stopped by police because they are wearing T-Shirts with words again the PM. And haven’t we seen an innocent young man shot dead because the police “THOUGHT” he was a terrorist? The Blair Government is not a progressive forward looking, modernising Government, Mr Blair is destroying our Common Law Constitution so much, that he is taking us way back before 1215 and Magna Carta. And yes, we have to start fighting for those rights contained in Magna Carta and our Bill of Rights all over again. Another oppressive, intrusive piece of legislation which I place a long side of the terrorism legislation is my contribution in opposing ID Cards. Although I have forwarded objections to this bill, I will only quote one observation. During the debates in the last Parliament, one well known Government Minister very generously explained in debate that Her Majesty would not need to have fingerprints, etc taken although other Members of the Royal Family would have to. This would mean that the next KING or Queen’s intimate details would be held on many Data Bases and could be flashed round the world with all the rest for anyone to read. I find the Ministers words demeaning, disrespectful, discourteous, and any other “disses” anyone can think of. Yet these Ministers speak of RESPECT! Mr Blair delivered brilliantly, his speech at the recent Labour Conference but I have no idea which planet or country he was talking about because it certainly wasn’t this one. The Blair Government has succeeded in undermining the people’s trust not only in the Labour Government itself but almost accidentally, has lost the people’s trust in most politicians now. His tinkering of the electoral system, (once the envy of many countries) has left it wide open to abuse and fraud. Our Common Law Constitution has been thrown on to the bonfire of modernisation until only the ashes remain and now while we are in “a time of reflection” over the EU Constitution, the promise of a referendum on it broken, which gives the Commission time to activate many new Articles and Agencies contained in it, with his blessing. He is finishing the job Guy Fawkes started four hundred years ago. Whether you agree or disagree with some of the private Members Bills or not, whether you agree with the removal of immunity from the Crown or not, I passionately believe that the European Union is NOT the body of people that should have a say in what our sovereign Queen Elizabeth II should or should not do and our Government should not be the monkey to jump through the hoop of their master’s command. Their sworn TRUE allegiance is to their Queen and Country. “The essence of the offence of treason lies in the violation of the allegiance owed to the Sovereign”. Our Common Law Constitution will rise again like the Phoenix out of the ashes of Blair’s ghastly legacy, for it is the people that are truly sovereign, they will indeed demand their true liberty and freedom back, and they will want and they will get, their country and the governing of it back in full. Anne Palmer. October 2005..

The Two Courts

2005-10-11T15:07:00.000Z

The Two Courts The European Court of Human Rights ECHR The European Court of Justice ECJ Confusingly we have two European courts witch our governments have allowed to hold sway over our domestic national laws. As a point of fact no government should allow any other court to make any laws which our courts must obey, we are within the British Constitution supposed to be ruled only by our Laws. However that is a different story, for the purposes of this post I will not go into the rights and wrongs of allowing any other system of law that we the British people do not have influence over to dominate our system. I am surprised at how many times people often people who should know better, get the two courts muddled, often one court is accused of making laws which the other has made, it is often the ECJ which finds itself on the receiving end of bad press, when it has in fact had nothing to do with the case at all. This was brought home when I was looking at the EU Commission UK web site there they have a section of Euromyths (more of which later) Some of those were not the responsibility of the EU at all and were not the subject of any EU or ECJ intervention at all they were rulings from the other court the ECHR The ECHR is the Court of the Council of Europe which has 46 member states, and the ECJ is the court of the European Union which has 25 Member States. The Council of Europe is the continent's oldest political organisation, founded in London 1949. the first major convention was drawn up: the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and coming into force on 3 September 1953. Shortly after the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, Robert Schuman, French Foreign Minister approached all the Council of Europe countries with a proposal for a European Coal and Steel Community, to be provided with very different political and budgetary means. The six countries most attached to the ideal of integration - Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany - joined, and on 9 May 1951 signed the very first Community treaty. Strengthened by the experience and commitment which had brought the "Greater Europe" into existence, the "Smaller Europe" was now making its own "leap into the unknown" of European construction. So the European Union was begun from the exiting members of the European Council who wished to pursue the path of closer union. From this stage there are two European organisations however the investigation of one or the other, begins to become somewhat muddled, because all members of the European Union are even to this day, also members of the Council of Europe in fact to become a member of the EU it is necessary for a state to first be a member of the COE. This also means that a ruling by the ECHR would apply to all 25 members of the EU but a ruling of the ECJ would not apply to all 46 members of the COE. The flag we accept as being the flag of the EU the ring of stars on a blue background is in fact the flag of the COE. On 8 December 1955 the Committee of Ministers adopted this as the European flag. It has only been used by the EU/EC since 1986. As we now have two linked organisations, it is important to differentiate between them as to often even professional writers and politicians who should know better get them muddled. Council of Europe: An international organisation in Strasbourg which comprises 46 democratic countries of Europe. European Council: Regular meeting (at least twice a year) of the heads of state or government from the member states of the European Union for the purpose of planning Union policy. Council of Ministers: Ministers representing the governments of the Member States which ministers attend which meeting depends on what subjects are on the agenda. Parliamentary Assembly: The deliberative body of the Council of Europe, composed of 315 representatives (and the same number of substitutes) appointed by the 46 member states’ national parliaments. European Parliament : The parliamentary body of the European Union which comprises 786 European Members of Parliament of the 25 European Union countries, elected by universal suffrage. European Commission of Human Rights: Until November 1998, this international body examined the admissibility of all individual or state applications against a member state in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights; it expressed an opinion on the violation alleged in applications found to be admissible in cases in which no friendly settlement is reached. European Commission : The executive organ of the European Union, based in Brussels, which monitors the proper application of the Union treaties and the decisions of the Union institutions. European Court of Human Rights : Based in Strasbourg, this is the only truly judicial organ established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is composed of composed of one Judge for each State party to the Convention and ensures, in the last instance, that contracting states observe their obligations under the Convention. Since November 1998, the Court has operated on a full-time basis. Court of Justice of the European Communities: Meets in Luxembourg and ensures compliance with the law in the interpretation and application of the European Treaties of the European Union. International Court of Justice : Judicial body of the United Nations which meets in The Hague. European Convention on Human Rights : Treaty by which the member states of the Council of Europe undertake to respect fundamental freedoms and rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights : Adopted by the United Nations in 1948 in order to strengthen the protection of human rights at international level. The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights approved by the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers at the Nice summit in 2001, The EU Constitution provides should be made binding in EU law, and therefore become superior to national law. So not only do we have two Europe’s we have two European courts, two European councils, two European Parliaments two European sets of human rights and if the EU Constitution is ratified we will have two European Constitutions and two European Constitutional courts. On top of that we have the International Court of Justice from the UN and their Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the World Trade Organisation, NATO and a myriad of other international organisations. It would appear that we are really well represented on the Human rights front. The only thing that perhaps should concerns a little is that we have to pay for all of this through our taxes and of course the other thing is that it is quite clear that we the people no longer have the power to elect those people who make our laws, because those we do elect no longer have the power to make our laws without ensuring the laws and regulation they do make are within all the various confines of all the various international agreements they have signed up to.

Increasing Government Powers

2005-10-10T06:17:00.000Z

Farewell to freedom (Filed: 10/10/2005) Cast your eye over some of the stories in today's newspaper. Cars are to be installed with chips making it easier to incriminate their drivers. Fluoridisation is to be extended to most of England. Smoking may be banned from pubs and restaurants. Work is going ahead on an identity card scheme in anticipation of parliamentary ratification. A law lord says the Government's anti-terrorist laws are exorbitant and unnecessary. Employers will be forced to grant paternity leave to their staff. A Bill outlawing religious hatred is about to go before the Lords. None of these proposals, on its own, is a mortal threat to the liberty of the subject. A case can be made, in isolation, for each of them. But, taken together, they indicate a substantial shift in power from citizen to state. And this is just one day's news. Think of some of the things that happen not to be in today's paper: the Home Secretary's attempts to get the EU to increase police powers, so as not to have to justify the measure before his own Parliament; the impending Terrorism Bill; the increase in state spending; the weakening of property rights. "It's a free country," we like to say. But freedom is not simply a feel-good word. It has a specific meaning. What is more, there are degrees of freedom. Every time we increase the Government's powers, albeit for understandable and contingent reasons, we become less free as a country. As J S Mill put it: "If the roads, the railways, the banks, the insurance offices, the great jointstock companies, the universities, and the public charities, were all of them branches of the government; if, in addition, the municipal corporations and local boards became departments of the central administration; if the employees of all these different enterprises were appointed and paid by the government, and looked to the government for every rise in life; not all the freedom of the press and popular constitution of the legislature would make this country free otherwise than in name." Labour has plainly calculated that most people prefer security to liberty and, in the abstract, they are probably right. Many readers of this newspaper, if the letters we receive are anything to go by, are relaxed about the aggrandisement of state power, believing that "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". In reality, though, innocence is no defence: barely a week goes by without our printing the story of an honest citizen who has been caught up by the bungling of some state bureaucracy. Inch by inch, this administration is turning Britain into a very different kind of country. That we should be letting it happen without a murmur says little good about us.

Two More EU Professors

2005-10-09T16:57:00.000Z

They used to say you could always tell you were in a tough area if you saw two policemen walking the beat together; one was there to back up the other. Well it would appear the EU professors are now writing in tandem, as if by jointly writing an article would in some way shield it from too much scrutiny, well I have news for them, if what they write is wrong, it does not matter how many other high priests they can gather to their flag it is still wrong. The Professors are at it again! At what! I hear you cry! Well for goodness sake do you really not know what has been happening in our Universities for the past several years? The EU has been munificent with massive financial nourishment for our education system, piling money in to our universities as if there is no tomorrow. I suppose when you actually stop and think about it, from the EU perspective there is no tomorrow, unless they can control the future through educating our young people in the ways of the internationalist, and to listen to some of the students that pass through the doors of the EU funded centres of brainwashing they are succeeding in their endeavour.Modernity is the term they like to use for their new way of looking at the world, of course that must by their own terms imply that any who oppose are not modern, they must then be, old fashioned, out of date, inward looking, reactionary, nationalist, isolationists. This is the proposition advanced by EU backed professors Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens in their article which was launched on the world this last week, suggesting as the title points out that “Nationalism has now become the enemy of Europe's nations” they argue that paradoxically “in the contemporary world, nationalist or isolationist thinking can be the worst enemy of the nation and its interests”….. Whoops! Lets just back up a bit there dobbin…… did any of you notice that little myth that just slipped in there;”nationalist or isolationist thinking”? Is thinking nationally, the same thing as being an isolationist? I do not think so; Thinking from a national perspective would surely entail deciding what was best for the nation, from the nations viewpoint, and that, in this “contemporary world”, (I see we are back to “modernity”) would not be to espouse isolation, that is what happened to the old USSR, and when the real world did eventually make itself felt, it collapsed the whole system. Thinking from a Nationalist point of view would probably mean exactly the opposite of isolation! For Britain to survive as an independent nation state we would have to continue to do what we always have done and that is to be outward looking, and to trade openly on a world wide stage. Anyway to continue, our professors would like us all to belive that “The EU is an arena where formal sovereignty can be exchanged for real power” Where “national cultures can be nurtured and economic success improved.” And belive it or not that “The EU is better placed to advance national interests than nations could possibly do acting alone” not only in “commerce” but in immigration, and law and order, and the environment, and defence and many other areas. Now just to be clear the professors are discussing “National sovereignty” how on earth then can they conclude that exchanging something they call “formal sovereignty” enhances National Sovereignty, well of course they have their answer already polished up for display to the dear reader, who one assumes must be to dim-witted to know that National Sovereignty does not mean having “real power to influence the wider world”. For those who do not know, and in this I must include our professors, sovereignty is the concept that a nation has the ability to make its own decisions, for sovereignty to exist the final say, must rest within the state, if it does not then sovereignty is not present, it is gone, departed, no longer in existence defunct, in fact one could say it is as dead as a Dodo. This is the EU playing word games again; Democracy does not exist in the EU! OK let’s change the meaning of Democracy; State sovereignty can not exist in the EU! OK let’s change the meaning of the word sovereignty. Exactly how would membership of the EU enhance national cultures, would the EU decide that it needs new laws that forced everyone in Britain to dress up in strange clothes and dance around the maypole, or hop around bashing sticks together, exactly how does it help us “nationally” to pass control of our borders and immigration to the EU? It may well enhance the powers of the EU, but that is at the expense of our own national power to decide whom and who not to allow into our country. How is our national interest on law and order advanced by passing control of our Laws out of the hands of our own government, when the people we elect cannot pass laws that we want and are forced to pass laws we do not want, just to satisfy and internationalist agenda. The professors tell us that “For a long time the process of European integration took place mainly by means of eliminating difference. But unity is not the same as uniformity. From a cosmopolitan point of view, diversity is not the problem; it is the solution.” So If I understand this correctly, now that we have been forced to unify, we are now going to be allowed to diversify, all well and good, accept that we will only be allowed to diversify under the auspices of the EU and only as far as suits the EU. Our Professors say that “Despite its other successes, the European Union is simply not performing well enough economically. It has much lower growth levels than the US, not to mention less developed countries such as India and China. There are 20 million unemployed in the EU, and a further 93 million economically inactive people, many of whom would want to work if they could.” And the answer is that “Europe simply must gear up for change.” I belive it is the EU! Europe is a landmass. Now how must the EU change? Well oddly enough our professors suggest that to overcome its problems we must have even more EU, bigger EU and deeper EU with more powers going to the EU from the nation states thus obviously also enhancing National sovereignty. “If Europe is to be heard and valued on the world scene, we cannot declare an end to enlargement; nor can we leave the EU's system of governance as it is. Enlargement is the union's most powerful foreign-policy tool, a means of promoting the spread of peace, democracy and open markets. There is virtually no hope of stabilising the Balkans, for example, if the prospect of EU accession is cut off. The EU will also lose massive potential influence geopolitically if it decides to keep Turkey out”. This argument for enlargement simply does not make sense, just a moments thought would expose the stupidity of such a claim; If enlargement were the key to a successful future, then that would imply all states must have a process of constant enlargement to survive, so the USA should also strive for enlargement India and China would also be in the same position, if that were the case, in a few years time, all of those enlarged states would start to rub up against each other, and then what happens, well we have seen what happens when one state starts to get in the way of another’s enlargement policies! I think it is called war! So at some point to avoid war, the EU is going to have to call an end to enlargement, if the professors are right, then at that point the EU would collapse, because it must keep enlarging to survive. They go on to say “Similar considerations apply to governance. The EU cannot play an effective global role without more political innovation. The proposal to have a single EU foreign minister should be kept in play. More effective means of taking mutual decisions are needed than the cumbersome method left over from the Nice agreements. And the proposals in the constitution to have more consultation with national parliaments before EU policies are instituted are surely both democratic and sensible.” Democratic and sensible would be to recognise that the proposals in the Constitution were rejected and to stop trying to bring them in through the back door, that is not only un-democratic it is anti-democratic. The problem the EU has is one of democratic legitimacy, you cannot keep ignoring the people for ever, it is time to face up to the facts that the EU method of unifying has been exposed, the people know what is happening they know the end result is going to be a United States of Europe. Ulrich Beck the German sociologist who holds a professorship at Munich University and at the London School of Economics. Professor Anthony Giddens ex Director of the London School of Economics which is an established EU "centre of excellence" The "centres of excellence" are "a label including scientific and human resources dealing with European Integration studies and research within the university and/or at a regional level". Funds are awarded on a co-financing basis for a start-up period of three years, in exchange for a commitment from the university to teach on European integration for a period of at least seven years. The project is managed by the European University Council for the Jean Monnet Project, composed of representatives of university institutions elected by the Confederation of European Union Rectors’ Conferences and representatives of professors specialising in European Integration Studies, who are elected by the European Communities Studies Association (ECSA) Altogether, the Jean Monnet project is huge. It has led to the setting up of 2319 new university teaching projects throughout Europe, all dealing with "European integration issues". There are 47 European Centres of Excellence, 491 Jean Monnet Chairs, 800 Permanent Courses and 641 European Modules. Hansards Lord Stoddart of Swindon My Lords, many people have been concerned about the intrusion into schools, universities, public libraries and the media of what can only be described as one-sided propaganda by the European Union to promote political integration, rather than to provide balanced and factual information about the European Union. The Bruges Group, of which I am an associate member, has conducted research into the matter and has produced a pretty comprehensive brief, which the Minister has seen, showing the extent to which the European Union propaganda machine has penetrated our schools, universities and other institutions. We should be grateful to it for having produced such in-depth research from its own resources. Let me be clear. There can be no objection to the European Union or the Government providing impartial and unbiased information. What is objectionable—indeed, in some aspects, illegal—is that taxpayers' money should be used to promote European integration, which is a highly sensitive and contentious issue that divides people throughout the European Union, not simply in Britain. It is also objectionable that it should be used to promote one side of the argument about British membership of the euro. It is little wonder that so many people are worried and outraged by the European Union's use of taxpayers' money to promote European integration, while the same time denigrating, insulting and subverting the nations of Europe and, in the case of the United Kingdom, promoting the abandonment of sterling. The European Union propaganda budget—which is large, about 105 million euros—is used to fund all sorts of organisations: youth organisations, women's groups, youth parliaments, Europe Day, television programmes, press contacts, campaigning in candidate countries for a yes vote—you name it, they do it. One area of greatest concern is EU propaganda in the classroom, where both European integration and the euro are being promoted. Indeed, it is Commission policy to influence young minds. A paper endorsed by DG 22 welcomed the opportunity to implant the idea of European citizenship by placing the euro in its historic perspective and supports the use of teachers to inform children, so that they can be used as go-betweens to influence older generations to embrace the European ideal and, of course, the European currency. To achieve its aims, the Commission has produced teaching aids and modules that are completely one-sided and made no attempt to achieve balance. One booklet, entitled Let's Draw Europe Together, designed for older primary school pupils, contains an opening section entitled, "My Country: Europe", implanting the idea in young minds that they are not British but European. The Government protest that they are in favour of a Europe of nation states—not a European superstate—yet, our children are being taught the reverse by the European Union and encouraged to turn their backs on Britain. I turn now to the universities, where the Commission is setting out to extend its influence, and the promotion of integration through so-called research and development projects and the establishment of university departments of EU integration. In this connection, the Jean Monnet project of establishing chairs devoted entirely to European integration is a major problem in itself. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who has taken a close interest in this subject, will deal with it in some detail when he comes to speak. However, a host of other research and scholarly organisations are assisted through EU funding and, indeed, by the United Kingdom Government through matching funds over which they have no real control, with the object of promoting the European project and integration, and creating networks to assist in this process. Again, the research, all paid for with taxpayers' money, is often one-sided, although it is represented as being impartial. This ploy has certainly been used in relation to the highly political issue of scrapping the pound in favour of the euro when articles by academics in receipt of EU funding have been represented as coming from impartial sources. In a short speech it is impossible to list all the examples of that dubious practice, but I intend to place a copy of the Bruges Group research paper in the Libraries of the House of Lords and the House of Commons so that information is made available to all Members of both Houses and their researchers. For those who do not have access to either of the Libraries, the Bruges Group website is www.brugesgroup.com. The tentacles of the Commission do not stop at schools and universities. They embrace public libraries, the press and the sound and vision media, especially the BBC. A one-sided Goebbelsesque picture is therefore being presented to British society and I ask the Government to take some remedial action. For example, they could require the European Commission to adopt guidelines similar to those of the United Kingdom, to include a commitment to impartiality and objectivity, and to prevent taxpayers' money being used to promote only one side of politically contentious issues. In the United Kingdom, consideration should also be given to the appointment of a watchdog to monitor the European Commission's propaganda activities. In any event, the Commission should be told that its methods are unacceptable in any democratic society. More information of EU Propaganda in Universities can be had from here

How EEOO Are You

2005-10-04T00:51:00.000Z

My wife, having a rough idea about my interest in all things EU, mentioned that there was a political program she thought I would want to watch this evening, the title of the program was How Euro are you? At which point I opted not to waste my time, and decided to sleep through what ever she preferred to watch instead. According to EU Referendum I made the right choice,: “I had never before marked down Andrew Marr, former BBC political editor, as a fool. But, at the very least, though, he displayed a monumental lack of judgement in allowing himself to be recruited by the BBC to host an unspeakably dire programme on the European Union tonight called How Euro are you?. The tone of the programme was set by Marr's co-host, Dara O'Briain, supposedly a "highly popular comedian in Ireland and has fast become a household name in the UK" a man, fortunately I had never heard of and do not wish to hear of again. Hardly worth fisking, in fact, the programme was so utterly appalling that I stuck only 38 minutes of it before turning it off. But what came over loud and clear was what could only have been a deliberate policy decision of eliding the word Europe – a continent – with the European Union – a political construct. No one in the "game" can be unaware of the difference and it is a mark of the BBC's inherent bias that it chooses to confuse the two. Its other little trick was to suggest, slyly, that the greatest problem with the EU was its threat to our "national identity", something which is the least of our worries – although listening to the BBC hacks and hackettes bleating about metres and kilometres sometimes makes you wonder if you are in a foreign land.”

The Cornerstone Group

2005-10-03T23:29:00.000Z

It is time the Consevative Party became conservative again, the Cornerstone Group of 28 MP`s have put their names to A Cornerstone of Policies to Revive Tory Britain. The Cornerstone Blog has this to say about the present direction of the political party, which gives all the appearance of wanting power for the sake of it, I only hope my own MP can overcome his present naiveté and fully support this group, because they offer the only hope for Britian as an independent democratic state. Sadly, some in our party have come to believe that by aping Blair, rather than studying Burke, by adopting the assumptions of the liberal elite, rather than recalling our Conservative roots, we might become as popular as real Blairites or real liberals. This route is likely to prove as disastrous electorally as it is unauthentic. Why on earth would voters support imitation liberals when they can have the real thing? “Conservatives must be both brave and authentic; brave enough to undertake the task of challenging the dominant liberal elite in all the spheres and institutions it has so effectively colonised, and authentic enough to regain the respect and loyalty of our natural supporters. “It is this courageous authenticity that will awaken the interest of all those weary of the current political stagnation.” From the Blog there is a collection of essays I have only had time to read one, written by Owen Paterson MP “Who governs Britain? Part of is I have reproduced below “There is a common feeling of helplessness that officials, more than elected politicians, run the country. This must change and Parliamentary Select Committees should have a role here. Employment terms of public servants must be revisited. The perception is that, in far too many cases, when large amounts of public money are wasted or there have been serious failures of duty, no one is found responsible, or those responsible are not punished and in some cases are actually promoted. Governments, whether central or local, must also have the power to terminate the employment of those who fall short of the standards set and should be prepared to exercise that power. We must get back to the Conservative concept that the State exists to serve the people and that the people are genuinely sovereign. It should therefore be a central tenet of a Conservative government that it cannot delegate its law-making powers to any other organisation or institution. This applies to external bodies such as the European Union and internally, where currently so much effective law is made by officials without political input or control. Law-making must remain in the hands of politicians directly elected by the British people to serve their exclusive interests, affording the people an opportunity to remove legislators if they do not approve of their actions. It is ludicrous that over 60 percent of the laws imposed upon the fourth largest economy in the world are created by people who have not been elected and cannot be removed in elections. A Conservative government should regain the power currently vested in the European Union by a fundamental renegotiation of all the existing treaties. Central to this would be the removal of the supremacy of the European Court of Justice and other international courts, including the Court of Human Rights. This would entail the withdrawal from the Convention on Humans Rights and the repeal of the Human Rights Act which give excessive powers over British citizens to those who have not been elected. All existing EU legislation should be reviewed and unless an overpowering case can be made for its retention - in which case it should be re-enacted as British law - it should be repealed. Parliament should not only be supreme but in respect of the actions of British citizens or legal entities in the UK, no institution other than a British court should have jurisdiction over them. In the application of law, British courts should be supreme, headed by the House of Lords which should be the sole, final arbiter of law. Furthermore, no British institution should have the power to levy fines or other penalties on citizens, without their having recourse to a court of law. As to our relations with other countries, we should look to normal government-to-government treaties” At last some of our elected representatives are actually beginning to realise the present direction of travel along the internationalist road, will lead to the eventual destruction of this country as an independent nation state along with our democracy and are prepared to do something about returning the sovereignty to the people of Britian.