Leading eurosceptic, William Cash MP, said in the House of Commons on 27 November that:
"I am concerned also about the fact that the EU reform treaty, which the House will debate soon, contains a new energy chapter and essentially the same provisions as those in the original constitutional treaty. It also adds a new element to the policy—the interconnection of energy networks. As was the case under the original constitutional treaty, energy measures cannot affect a member state’s right to determine conditions for the exploitation of energy resources, its choice of energy resources or the structure of its energy supply. However, environmental measures ... can affect such matters. Although such matters are governed by unanimity, the doctrine of the “occupied field” could severely inhibit the manner in which we can legislate. If the new energy chapter goes in, albeit unanimously, we would remain in a very difficult position should we seek to legislate on our own terms—something that I insist upon, because Parliament has to have sovereignty over its energy policy and legislation."
This is worth noting, since it has hardly been argued previously in Parliament that the EU Reform Treaty will have a huge impact on the ability for Britain to determine it's own competitive energy policy.
Friday, 30 November 2007
EU Constitution & an accountable Parliament
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said in the House of Lords on 22 November:
What exactly did the Government mean in the gracious Speech when they talked about making Parliament more accountable, given that they propose to give the powers of this Parliament to a supranational body without the consent of the people and on a whipped vote on their side of the House?
When Brown does sign the Treaty on 13 December, it will make Parliament even less accountable and even less trustworthy than it had been previously (if that is possible).
What exactly did the Government mean in the gracious Speech when they talked about making Parliament more accountable, given that they propose to give the powers of this Parliament to a supranational body without the consent of the people and on a whipped vote on their side of the House?
When Brown does sign the Treaty on 13 December, it will make Parliament even less accountable and even less trustworthy than it had been previously (if that is possible).
Lord Howell: Denial over EU Constitution is a Waste of Time
Lord Howell of Guildford said in the House of Lords on 22 November:
"Regardless of whether we have a referendum — I suspect that we probably will in the end, now that 12 heads of member states, all the authors of the previous treaty and some authors of the present treaty concede that this is 90 or 95 per cent similar to the constitution and contains all the European constitution treaty provisions—is it still government policy to go on denying that this is a constitutional treaty? That might be rather a waste of time when everyone agrees that it is."
It sends a clear message to the Government: the denial over the EU Constitution is a waste of time.
"Regardless of whether we have a referendum — I suspect that we probably will in the end, now that 12 heads of member states, all the authors of the previous treaty and some authors of the present treaty concede that this is 90 or 95 per cent similar to the constitution and contains all the European constitution treaty provisions—is it still government policy to go on denying that this is a constitutional treaty? That might be rather a waste of time when everyone agrees that it is."
It sends a clear message to the Government: the denial over the EU Constitution is a waste of time.
Why are so many people leaving the UK?
John Redwood, MP, has a noteworthy piece on his blog, in which he attempts to grapple with why so many people are leaving the UK. In his blog, he says:
"We are told we have to love the EU and accept its constitution, after the promised of a referendum in order to win a General election. Many of us see the EU as a hostile bureaucracy, tying us up in ever more rules and regulations. We are not xenophobes - most of us like our continent and appreciate its range of cultures, languages and cuisines. We just do not want to be governed by a bunch of bureaucrats who think they have to regulate every aspect of our increasingly complex lives and who we cannot sack via an election." Read on.
"We are told we have to love the EU and accept its constitution, after the promised of a referendum in order to win a General election. Many of us see the EU as a hostile bureaucracy, tying us up in ever more rules and regulations. We are not xenophobes - most of us like our continent and appreciate its range of cultures, languages and cuisines. We just do not want to be governed by a bunch of bureaucrats who think they have to regulate every aspect of our increasingly complex lives and who we cannot sack via an election." Read on.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Reform Treaty means European Court of Justice will become “conclusive arbiter of the meaning of Union measures and … of national law”, says report
The European Foundation welcomes the UK’s parliamentary Labour-dominated European Scrutiny Committee new report on the Reform Treaty, published today, and in particular we welcome its understandable conclusions on: the Government’s deceptive red lines, disastrous Treaty provisions on the role of national parliaments expressed as a legal obligation, the Government’s false guarantees that the Charter can have no effect on the law of the United Kingdom when it is combined with consideration of the implementation of Union law, the weakness of the ‘opt-in’ on amendments to existing EU measures, and the loss of protection that will occur every time jurisdiction is transferred from UK courts to jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice and the Commission.
However, the report itself does not conclude with any sufficient warnings, pointers or redeeming aspects, since it weighs the concerns on the Reform Treaty not only as a purely technical task but one which must not unsettle the current Labour Government any further. (Note, the Committee is dominated by Labour MPs). It is therefore a matter of absolute priority that the Foundation endorses the draft report, published alongside the Committee report, which provides a proper case for why the requirements of this Treaty provide the necessary conditions for a national referendum.
Most importantly, the short appended report (pp.32-34) proposed by Mr William Cash and voted by James Clappison, Greg Hands and David Heathcoat-Amory makes the following points:
“We [already] concluded that “The new Treaty produced an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty” and we would add that even where derivations or opt-outs for the United Kingdom have been sought by the Government that these do not provide anything like adequate protection nor guarantees for the United Kingdom, its electorate and its Parliament. This substantial equivalence, together with the substance of the Reform Treaty, and the merger of the existing treaties into a union amounts to substantial constitutional change warranting a referendum in accordance with the Government’s own criteria for referendums.”
“The Reform Treaty, as compared to the Original Constitutional Treaty, requires a referendum of the electorate of the United Kingdom because it is the equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty, even if not the same. It is a distinction without a proper difference and, in the words of our 34th report, is “substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty”.”
“There are also specific provisions arising in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the legal obligations imposed on the united Kingdom Parliament, measures relating to the criminal law, and measures related to Title IV which are deeply contentious and would require specific exclusion from having effect in UK law which for the avoidance of doubt could only be achieved by excluding their effect by the use of a provision preceded by the words “Not withstanding the European Communities Act 1972”. Such a formula would be essential but the government, by all accounts, would not be prepared to employ such wording, thereby putting the vital national interests of the electorate in jeopardy.”
“The Reform Treaty on all these tests requires a referendum. It would be a deceit of the electorate (even by the criteria for a referendum set out by the Government) to refuse to hold one, unless the Treaty itself was rejected by the Prime Minister before signature in December. Unless this occurs, refusal to hold a referendum would be a breach of trust with respect to the Reform Treaty (let alone past promises about the original Constitutional Treaty made in 2004) and would run clearly contrary to the assertions of the present Prime Minister that he is committed to restoring good governance, democracy and trust.”
However, the report itself does not conclude with any sufficient warnings, pointers or redeeming aspects, since it weighs the concerns on the Reform Treaty not only as a purely technical task but one which must not unsettle the current Labour Government any further. (Note, the Committee is dominated by Labour MPs). It is therefore a matter of absolute priority that the Foundation endorses the draft report, published alongside the Committee report, which provides a proper case for why the requirements of this Treaty provide the necessary conditions for a national referendum.
Most importantly, the short appended report (pp.32-34) proposed by Mr William Cash and voted by James Clappison, Greg Hands and David Heathcoat-Amory makes the following points:
“We [already] concluded that “The new Treaty produced an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty” and we would add that even where derivations or opt-outs for the United Kingdom have been sought by the Government that these do not provide anything like adequate protection nor guarantees for the United Kingdom, its electorate and its Parliament. This substantial equivalence, together with the substance of the Reform Treaty, and the merger of the existing treaties into a union amounts to substantial constitutional change warranting a referendum in accordance with the Government’s own criteria for referendums.”
“The Reform Treaty, as compared to the Original Constitutional Treaty, requires a referendum of the electorate of the United Kingdom because it is the equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty, even if not the same. It is a distinction without a proper difference and, in the words of our 34th report, is “substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty”.”
“There are also specific provisions arising in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the legal obligations imposed on the united Kingdom Parliament, measures relating to the criminal law, and measures related to Title IV which are deeply contentious and would require specific exclusion from having effect in UK law which for the avoidance of doubt could only be achieved by excluding their effect by the use of a provision preceded by the words “Not withstanding the European Communities Act 1972”. Such a formula would be essential but the government, by all accounts, would not be prepared to employ such wording, thereby putting the vital national interests of the electorate in jeopardy.”
“The Reform Treaty on all these tests requires a referendum. It would be a deceit of the electorate (even by the criteria for a referendum set out by the Government) to refuse to hold one, unless the Treaty itself was rejected by the Prime Minister before signature in December. Unless this occurs, refusal to hold a referendum would be a breach of trust with respect to the Reform Treaty (let alone past promises about the original Constitutional Treaty made in 2004) and would run clearly contrary to the assertions of the present Prime Minister that he is committed to restoring good governance, democracy and trust.”
Monday, 26 November 2007
EU Blows Billions on Galileo Project
The EU will go ahead with the Galileo and European Institute of Technology projects, it has announced.
The European Parliament said today:
"We came here to cut the Gordian knot", said Reimer Böge (EPP-ED, DE), chair of the EP delegation and of the Budgets Committee, at the start of the conciliation, referring to Galileo and the European Institute of Technology (EIT). By the close of the talks it was agreed, thanks to Parliament's insistence, that Galileo (the European satellite navigation system, which will be independent of the American, Russian and Chinese systems) will be funded entirely by the Community. The amount needed by 2013 (a shortfall of €2.4bn) will be found mainly from the revision of the Financial Perspective (€1.6bn of "new" money taken from agricultural expenditure not used in 2007). The rest will come from the redeployment of funds intended for a few programmes that do not come under co-decision (€200 million), the "re-prioritisation" (change in the order of priorities to be funded: €400 million) of certain amounts earmarked for research and the unused margins in Heading 1a (Competitiveness and growth: €300 million). Funding for the EIT (€300 million) is part of this financial package totalling €2.7bn (up to 2013). Failing a satisfactory agreement on the Galileo programme, this project, which is politically, economically and symbolically crucial for the EU, might have collapsed." Click here.
Heise Online said:
Following months of disagreements, the EU has reached a funding compromise and resolved the crisis around its Galileo satellite navigation system. Two thirds of the missing 2.4 billion euros will be provided from EU farming pots alone. This was announced by the Portuguese Chair of the European Council in Brussels on Friday night following more than 12 hours of budget negotiations for 2008 by the EU Ministers of Finance or their representatives. Click here.
EU Observer said:
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU ministers have agreed to full public financing of the Galileo satellite system and a brand new technology institute, as part of a deal on the bloc's 2008 budget - the first ever to earmark more cash for growth and jobs than for farm aid.After months of disagreement over who should foot the bill for the two big projects – private sector co-financing was originally the plan - member states agreed late Friday (23 November) to push forward with them using funds solely from EU coffers. Click here.
The European Parliament said today:
"We came here to cut the Gordian knot", said Reimer Böge (EPP-ED, DE), chair of the EP delegation and of the Budgets Committee, at the start of the conciliation, referring to Galileo and the European Institute of Technology (EIT). By the close of the talks it was agreed, thanks to Parliament's insistence, that Galileo (the European satellite navigation system, which will be independent of the American, Russian and Chinese systems) will be funded entirely by the Community. The amount needed by 2013 (a shortfall of €2.4bn) will be found mainly from the revision of the Financial Perspective (€1.6bn of "new" money taken from agricultural expenditure not used in 2007). The rest will come from the redeployment of funds intended for a few programmes that do not come under co-decision (€200 million), the "re-prioritisation" (change in the order of priorities to be funded: €400 million) of certain amounts earmarked for research and the unused margins in Heading 1a (Competitiveness and growth: €300 million). Funding for the EIT (€300 million) is part of this financial package totalling €2.7bn (up to 2013). Failing a satisfactory agreement on the Galileo programme, this project, which is politically, economically and symbolically crucial for the EU, might have collapsed." Click here.
Heise Online said:
Following months of disagreements, the EU has reached a funding compromise and resolved the crisis around its Galileo satellite navigation system. Two thirds of the missing 2.4 billion euros will be provided from EU farming pots alone. This was announced by the Portuguese Chair of the European Council in Brussels on Friday night following more than 12 hours of budget negotiations for 2008 by the EU Ministers of Finance or their representatives. Click here.
EU Observer said:
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU ministers have agreed to full public financing of the Galileo satellite system and a brand new technology institute, as part of a deal on the bloc's 2008 budget - the first ever to earmark more cash for growth and jobs than for farm aid.After months of disagreement over who should foot the bill for the two big projects – private sector co-financing was originally the plan - member states agreed late Friday (23 November) to push forward with them using funds solely from EU coffers. Click here.
Friday, 23 November 2007
The Deportation Report 2007 – The Labour Government’s Failure to Deport EU Criminals Resulting from the Superiority of EU Law
The Labour Government has failed catastrophically in its attempts to enforce deportation orders against criminals to within EU Member States on release from prison. This has greatly jeopardised public security within Britain and has largely been a result of European policy under the EU’s Citizens Directive 2004, as implemented in the UK under the Immigration Regulations 2006.
In the European Foundation’s ‘Deportation Report 2007’, there is an analysis of the recent European legislation, implemented under the Labour Government, which shows that it is wholly incorrect for the Home Office to consistently claim that the strict EU laws on the freedom of movement of persons within Europe has not impinged upon the UK’s right to deport criminals after release from prison to the EU Member States. Recent legislation, introduced into the UK under the Immigration regulations 2006, consistent with the EU Citizens Directive, has demonstrated how EU law now takes precedence over a redundant UK law, relating to deportation orders.
James McConalogue, Director of the European Foundation, said:
“The issues of immigration and deportation of prisoners after release from prison are extremely sensitive issues, but they are not ones that we can continue to simply pass by. We abide by a Labour Government’s Home Secretaries, whether that be Charles Clarke, John Reid, David Blunkett or Jacqui Smith, who claim to ensure deportation orders are working effectively yet simultaneously have introduced draconian EU legislation in through the back door to prevent such deportation orders taking effect, leaving Britain open to serious public risk from crime on the streets through to acts of public terror within the cities. This issue must be addressed. And Europe is at the core of the problem.”
The Deportation Report 2007 concludes with the following:
It is incorrect for the Home Office to consistently claim that the strict EU laws on the freedom of movement of persons within Europe has not impinged upon the UK’s right to deport criminals after release from prison to the EU Member States. Recent legislation, introduced into the UK under the Immigration regulations 2006, consistent with the EU Citizens Directive, has demonstrated how EU law now takes precedence over a redundant UK immigration law.
We emphasise a number of Asylum Immigration Tribunal cases which are public testaments to second-rate British asylum and immigration laws that have necessarily been obliged to converge with the Citizens Directive, under which the Community has asserted an unconditional free movement of ‘EU citizens’, without taking into account the proper and detrimental consequences for Member States. This has put the British public in the path of grave danger.
Independent and eminent legal advisers have already said that the introduction of at least one new immigration regulation under the Citizens Directive “may make it more difficult for the Secretary of State to remove or deport an EEA national on the ground of criminal conduct than appeared to be the case previously.” It is for the Home Secretary to answer to those grounded proposals, since they are now determining the safety and welfare of British citizens.
The UK’s own Asylum Immigration Tribunal has been forced unreservedly into accepting the case that EU law takes precedence over British law which enabled deportation measures under the authority of British judges. This is contrary to what Britain actually needs to properly address the dangerous deportation situation.
It is clear that when transposed into UK law, the Citizens Directive assumes that previous convictions do not warrant deportation. This is due, in part, to the fact that the ECJ has determined the “present threat” and “the requirements of public policy” for deportation of prisoners at an arbitrary European level, regardless of the conditions stated by the national Secretary of State.
The UK Government, under ECJ guidance, is not entitled to use deportation as a preventive or deterrence measure, leaving open concerns that British criminal policy will be severely restricted in what can be delivered for the safety of British citizens since the Government has accepted a potentially dangerous European judgement: that the use of such measures as a deterrent is to be barred by law.
In the European Foundation’s ‘Deportation Report 2007’, there is an analysis of the recent European legislation, implemented under the Labour Government, which shows that it is wholly incorrect for the Home Office to consistently claim that the strict EU laws on the freedom of movement of persons within Europe has not impinged upon the UK’s right to deport criminals after release from prison to the EU Member States. Recent legislation, introduced into the UK under the Immigration regulations 2006, consistent with the EU Citizens Directive, has demonstrated how EU law now takes precedence over a redundant UK law, relating to deportation orders.
James McConalogue, Director of the European Foundation, said:
“The issues of immigration and deportation of prisoners after release from prison are extremely sensitive issues, but they are not ones that we can continue to simply pass by. We abide by a Labour Government’s Home Secretaries, whether that be Charles Clarke, John Reid, David Blunkett or Jacqui Smith, who claim to ensure deportation orders are working effectively yet simultaneously have introduced draconian EU legislation in through the back door to prevent such deportation orders taking effect, leaving Britain open to serious public risk from crime on the streets through to acts of public terror within the cities. This issue must be addressed. And Europe is at the core of the problem.”
The Deportation Report 2007 concludes with the following:
It is incorrect for the Home Office to consistently claim that the strict EU laws on the freedom of movement of persons within Europe has not impinged upon the UK’s right to deport criminals after release from prison to the EU Member States. Recent legislation, introduced into the UK under the Immigration regulations 2006, consistent with the EU Citizens Directive, has demonstrated how EU law now takes precedence over a redundant UK immigration law.
We emphasise a number of Asylum Immigration Tribunal cases which are public testaments to second-rate British asylum and immigration laws that have necessarily been obliged to converge with the Citizens Directive, under which the Community has asserted an unconditional free movement of ‘EU citizens’, without taking into account the proper and detrimental consequences for Member States. This has put the British public in the path of grave danger.
Independent and eminent legal advisers have already said that the introduction of at least one new immigration regulation under the Citizens Directive “may make it more difficult for the Secretary of State to remove or deport an EEA national on the ground of criminal conduct than appeared to be the case previously.” It is for the Home Secretary to answer to those grounded proposals, since they are now determining the safety and welfare of British citizens.
The UK’s own Asylum Immigration Tribunal has been forced unreservedly into accepting the case that EU law takes precedence over British law which enabled deportation measures under the authority of British judges. This is contrary to what Britain actually needs to properly address the dangerous deportation situation.
It is clear that when transposed into UK law, the Citizens Directive assumes that previous convictions do not warrant deportation. This is due, in part, to the fact that the ECJ has determined the “present threat” and “the requirements of public policy” for deportation of prisoners at an arbitrary European level, regardless of the conditions stated by the national Secretary of State.
The UK Government, under ECJ guidance, is not entitled to use deportation as a preventive or deterrence measure, leaving open concerns that British criminal policy will be severely restricted in what can be delivered for the safety of British citizens since the Government has accepted a potentially dangerous European judgement: that the use of such measures as a deterrent is to be barred by law.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
European Court of Justice Soon to Impose Criminal Penalties on UK
On 23 October, the European Court of Justice gave its ruling in a case [Case C-440/05], whereby the Commission was seeking annulment of the Council framework decision to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of a law against ship-source pollution on 12 July 2005. According to the Commission, the aim and content of the framework decision came within the European Community’s sphere of competence as provided for by the EC Treaty as part of the common transport policy and therefore the decision should have been adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty rather than on the basis of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. The Court stressed that the common transport policy is one of the foundations of the Community, and that, within the scope of the competence conferred on it by the EC Treaty, the Community legislature may adopt measures aimed at improving maritime transport safety.
The Framework Decision in question introduces the obligation of Member States to provide for criminal penalties for persons who have committed, aided, abetted or incited certain environmental offences. It also states that the criminal penalties must be effective, dissuasive and proportionate and lays down the type and level of applicable criminal penalties. The European Court of Justice reiterated that the Community has competence under the EC Treaty for adopted criminal law measures when they are necessary for the implementation of Community objectives. The ECJ has stressed that the Framework Decision provisions “must be regarded as being essentially aimed at improving maritime safety, as well as environmental protection, and could have been validly adopted on the basis of Article 80(2) EC.” However, according to the Court “the determination of the type and level of the criminal penalties to be applied does not fall within the Community’s sphere of competence.” Yet Member States are not free to introduce small sanctions since the criminal penalties must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive.”
According to Article 47 EU, none of the provisions of the EC Treaty is to be affected by a provision of the EU Treaty. Hence, the ECJ concluded that Framework Decision 2005/667 encroaches upon the competence which Article 80(2) EC attributes to the Community, infringing Article 47 EU. Therefore the ECJ annuls the framework decision.
This ruling has implications for a Directive proposed by the Commission last February on the protection of the environment through criminal law under which the Member States would have to impose criminal sanctions for certain environment crime sentences of one to ten years in prison or high fines. However, according to the ECJ ruling the Commission does not have the competence to determine the type and level of criminal penalty which must be left for the Member States. Unsurprisingly, the Commission is looking forward to the Lisbon Treaty as at that point, the Commission will have a legal basis for this law. Article 69f (2) states that “if the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned.”
The power to impose criminal penalties mut remain a sovereign power and should be handed over to the individual Member States and intergovernmental forms of cooperation but not to the Community. However, in the new Reform Treaty, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters are incorporated in the Community Treaty. Therefore, the decision making procedure and instruments of action which currently are intergovernmental will be from the “Community method.” Hence, it will be subject to the co-decision procedure (ordinary legislative procedure) and to qualified majority voting. Moreover, the European Court of Justice will have full jurisdiction. The UK has the right to choose whether to take part in JHA legislation but it is not a free choice, as in several cases the UK will be compelled to opt in. Hence, once opted in, the UK can be taken before the ECJ for failure to implement a criminal law.
The Framework Decision in question introduces the obligation of Member States to provide for criminal penalties for persons who have committed, aided, abetted or incited certain environmental offences. It also states that the criminal penalties must be effective, dissuasive and proportionate and lays down the type and level of applicable criminal penalties. The European Court of Justice reiterated that the Community has competence under the EC Treaty for adopted criminal law measures when they are necessary for the implementation of Community objectives. The ECJ has stressed that the Framework Decision provisions “must be regarded as being essentially aimed at improving maritime safety, as well as environmental protection, and could have been validly adopted on the basis of Article 80(2) EC.” However, according to the Court “the determination of the type and level of the criminal penalties to be applied does not fall within the Community’s sphere of competence.” Yet Member States are not free to introduce small sanctions since the criminal penalties must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive.”
According to Article 47 EU, none of the provisions of the EC Treaty is to be affected by a provision of the EU Treaty. Hence, the ECJ concluded that Framework Decision 2005/667 encroaches upon the competence which Article 80(2) EC attributes to the Community, infringing Article 47 EU. Therefore the ECJ annuls the framework decision.
This ruling has implications for a Directive proposed by the Commission last February on the protection of the environment through criminal law under which the Member States would have to impose criminal sanctions for certain environment crime sentences of one to ten years in prison or high fines. However, according to the ECJ ruling the Commission does not have the competence to determine the type and level of criminal penalty which must be left for the Member States. Unsurprisingly, the Commission is looking forward to the Lisbon Treaty as at that point, the Commission will have a legal basis for this law. Article 69f (2) states that “if the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned.”
The power to impose criminal penalties mut remain a sovereign power and should be handed over to the individual Member States and intergovernmental forms of cooperation but not to the Community. However, in the new Reform Treaty, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters are incorporated in the Community Treaty. Therefore, the decision making procedure and instruments of action which currently are intergovernmental will be from the “Community method.” Hence, it will be subject to the co-decision procedure (ordinary legislative procedure) and to qualified majority voting. Moreover, the European Court of Justice will have full jurisdiction. The UK has the right to choose whether to take part in JHA legislation but it is not a free choice, as in several cases the UK will be compelled to opt in. Hence, once opted in, the UK can be taken before the ECJ for failure to implement a criminal law.
Ukraine’s election: is it all about the Russians?
In the next edition [November/December] of The European Journal, Carl Thomson argues that the tendency to interpret Ukraine’s current political crisis as a straightforward conflict between those who want the country to be “pro-Western” in outlook, and those who wish it to adopt a “pro-Russian” stance, is overly simplistic. He warns that popular misconceptions about Ukraine are being exploited by politicians in Kiev looking to promote their own interests and by those in Europe and America pushing for conflict with Putin’s Russia as a means of furthering their own ideological and geopolitical agenda.
In Thomson's article, he writes that the Ukraine "will never prosper so long as it is exploited by politicians on all sides of the debate and her people remain unwilling participants in the new great game for influence, resources and expansion between Russia, America and the European Union."
Order a copy of the next issue from the European Foundation: euro.foundation@e-f.org.uk
In Thomson's article, he writes that the Ukraine "will never prosper so long as it is exploited by politicians on all sides of the debate and her people remain unwilling participants in the new great game for influence, resources and expansion between Russia, America and the European Union."
Order a copy of the next issue from the European Foundation: euro.foundation@e-f.org.uk
Monday, 19 November 2007
Socialist Miliband Is Off Telling Porkies in Bruges
This is our Foreign Secretary’s best effort in putting forward the case for the UK remaining a member of the EU. What a humiliation. It is just as well he gave the speech in Bruges … We wouldn’t have him on our doorstep.
Following David Miliband’s speech to the College of Europe in Bruges, it must be evident that his foundations for the UK relationship with Europe, pushing for solidarity on climate change & environment, common defence, and the single market, are impractical, ideological, unrealisable and often false aims, which will scupper the hopes, aspirations and economic enterprise of UK citizens and business now and well into 2030.
The Foreign Secretary’s ambitions detailing ‘how the EU can help to shape the world of 2030’ are no more than rhetorical ramblings, since there is no considerable evidence to support such claims. Europe isn’t working. An analysis based on the existing hard facts proves that it is failing. One can only assume that Miliband’s positive case for defence means an Anglo-French push for the common defence plans in the 27 EU bloc will soon be on the agenda.
For Miliband to even suggest that ‘the case against economic protectionism is overwhelming’ whilst actually defending EU regional protectionist policies is double-standards and plainly wrong, especially since he is looking into the long-term. Furthermore, it remains the case that by 2015, the UK exports to other EU Member States will diminish, making the case for a global international trade solution outside of the European Union even greater. The campaign group, Global Vision, have already made clear that in the period 1999-2005, UK exports to countries outside the EU grew on average 44 per cent faster than exports to other EU member states and that on present trends, by 2015, around two-thirds of all British exports will be going outside the EU.
Following David Miliband’s speech to the College of Europe in Bruges, it must be evident that his foundations for the UK relationship with Europe, pushing for solidarity on climate change & environment, common defence, and the single market, are impractical, ideological, unrealisable and often false aims, which will scupper the hopes, aspirations and economic enterprise of UK citizens and business now and well into 2030.
The Foreign Secretary’s ambitions detailing ‘how the EU can help to shape the world of 2030’ are no more than rhetorical ramblings, since there is no considerable evidence to support such claims. Europe isn’t working. An analysis based on the existing hard facts proves that it is failing. One can only assume that Miliband’s positive case for defence means an Anglo-French push for the common defence plans in the 27 EU bloc will soon be on the agenda.
For Miliband to even suggest that ‘the case against economic protectionism is overwhelming’ whilst actually defending EU regional protectionist policies is double-standards and plainly wrong, especially since he is looking into the long-term. Furthermore, it remains the case that by 2015, the UK exports to other EU Member States will diminish, making the case for a global international trade solution outside of the European Union even greater. The campaign group, Global Vision, have already made clear that in the period 1999-2005, UK exports to countries outside the EU grew on average 44 per cent faster than exports to other EU member states and that on present trends, by 2015, around two-thirds of all British exports will be going outside the EU.
Friday, 16 November 2007
The Government’s Red Lines: dishonest, irritating and useless
In the November/December issue of The European Journal, the Director of Global Vision, Ruth Lea, argues that the Prime Minister’s Red Lines are not only a dishonest diversion from the real integrationist thrust of the Lisbon Treaty, and a major irritation to our EU partners, they are likely to be as leaky as sieves. Ruth Lea discusses the impact of the European Scrutiny Committee report, the friction between Barroso and Brown and the comments of Giscard d’Estaing.
Quote from Ruth Lea's article:
"Earlier this year, Giscard d’Estaing, grand architect of the Constitution, openly discussed the notion of a ‘special status’ for Great Britain. . . . Giscard believes passionately that integration is necessary for the Continent of Europe but understands that the British people are unlikely to be happy with this prospect. He is on record as saying that, if Britain does not want to continue with the ‘process of integration’, then a ‘special status’ must be offered to Britain which ‘they must be able to accept.’ "
Quote from Ruth Lea's article:
"Earlier this year, Giscard d’Estaing, grand architect of the Constitution, openly discussed the notion of a ‘special status’ for Great Britain. . . . Giscard believes passionately that integration is necessary for the Continent of Europe but understands that the British people are unlikely to be happy with this prospect. He is on record as saying that, if Britain does not want to continue with the ‘process of integration’, then a ‘special status’ must be offered to Britain which ‘they must be able to accept.’ "
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Why Gordon Will Not Accept That We Need “British Law for British Judges”
Chairman of the European Foundation, Bill Cash MP, told the Prime Minister in the House of Commons yesterday that “the whole question of the protection of the public from terrorism is often jeopardised by judicial interpretation of the Human Rights Act and European law generally” and in order for him to “achieve his aim of the protection of the public we need British law for British judges and British judges for British law”.
Brown swiftly brushed Cash aside with the arbitrary claim that: “…whatever his [Bill Cash’s] doubts about European law might be it has not prevented us from deporting up to 4,000 people from this country, and nor has it prevented us from deporting a large number of people to within the European Union.” Sadly, Brown’s alleged control of the situation is not the national reality for the protection of Britons from terrorists or serious criminals.
There is no guaranteed protection for Britons from serious crime and terrorism within the current remit of the Human Rights Act and European law. This is a pitiful remark from Gordon Brown, since outside of Parliament the widow of Philip Lawrence now faces the national reality of Brown’s true European principles. A High Court judge has refused the government request to reconsider a tribunal's decision, based on a European directive, to prevent Lawrence’s murderer being deported to Italy. It is said that Learco Chindamo, the murderer of London headteacher Philip Lawrence, could be released from prison next year. The judge of the case openly declared his decision was mainly based on an EU directive and that it would seem "disproportionate" to remove the murderer, as an EU citizen, under the given European regulations.
Brown swiftly brushed Cash aside with the arbitrary claim that: “…whatever his [Bill Cash’s] doubts about European law might be it has not prevented us from deporting up to 4,000 people from this country, and nor has it prevented us from deporting a large number of people to within the European Union.” Sadly, Brown’s alleged control of the situation is not the national reality for the protection of Britons from terrorists or serious criminals.
There is no guaranteed protection for Britons from serious crime and terrorism within the current remit of the Human Rights Act and European law. This is a pitiful remark from Gordon Brown, since outside of Parliament the widow of Philip Lawrence now faces the national reality of Brown’s true European principles. A High Court judge has refused the government request to reconsider a tribunal's decision, based on a European directive, to prevent Lawrence’s murderer being deported to Italy. It is said that Learco Chindamo, the murderer of London headteacher Philip Lawrence, could be released from prison next year. The judge of the case openly declared his decision was mainly based on an EU directive and that it would seem "disproportionate" to remove the murderer, as an EU citizen, under the given European regulations.
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Time to Renegotiate: Why the Lib Dem ‘EU Membership Referendum’ could be a Tory Advantage
After six leading Liberal Democrats today put down an amendment to the Queen’s speech saying that they “humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to announce proposals for a referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Union”, the leading Eurosceptic in the House of Commons, Tory MP, Bill Cash, has also put down a supporting amendment to the Liberal Democrat proposals that such a referendum, in receipt of a ‘No’ vote, “would properly lead to a new Intergovernmental Conference and the fundamental renegotiation of the existing treaties as they now stand.”
Read the parliamentary Order of Business for today:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmagenda/ob71114.htm
The amendments will be discussed later today in the Commons.
Bill Cash MP sought to amend the Lib Dem amendment (supported by Vince Cable MP) with a new amendment:
‘which despite a No vote arising from any such referendum would not necessitate automatic withdrawal from the European Union because such a No vote would then be on the Reform Treaty, devised and agreed in secrecy by the European elite, which undermines the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its Parliament and its electorate and consists of all the now existing European Treaties and is, as the European Scrutiny Committee has reported, “substantially equivalent” to the original Constitutional Treaty on which a referendum was promised by the Government and any such No vote would properly lead to a new Intergovernmental Conference and the fundamental renegotiation of the existing treaties as they now stand.’
Read the parliamentary Order of Business for today:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmagenda/ob71114.htm
The amendments will be discussed later today in the Commons.
Bill Cash MP sought to amend the Lib Dem amendment (supported by Vince Cable MP) with a new amendment:
‘which despite a No vote arising from any such referendum would not necessitate automatic withdrawal from the European Union because such a No vote would then be on the Reform Treaty, devised and agreed in secrecy by the European elite, which undermines the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its Parliament and its electorate and consists of all the now existing European Treaties and is, as the European Scrutiny Committee has reported, “substantially equivalent” to the original Constitutional Treaty on which a referendum was promised by the Government and any such No vote would properly lead to a new Intergovernmental Conference and the fundamental renegotiation of the existing treaties as they now stand.’
European Idea or European Ideology?
President of the Portguese ‘New Democracy Party’, Manuel Monteiro, argues that the debate over the future of the European project must be understood through the separation of the European Idea from the European ideology. This will enable us to denounce European nationalism, clarify the real meaning of words used by the institutions and contained in the Treaties and remind us to demystify the fears.
....
The debate over the political future of the European Union – with or without the simplified treaty – has implied a distinction between two concepts that we cannot continue to approach as identical. Only this distinction will allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff, in a manner of thought, and position us in face of what we want to accept in our state relations at communitarian level. What then must we distinguish? The Idea of Europe from the European Ideology!
To read the article, click here
....
The debate over the political future of the European Union – with or without the simplified treaty – has implied a distinction between two concepts that we cannot continue to approach as identical. Only this distinction will allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff, in a manner of thought, and position us in face of what we want to accept in our state relations at communitarian level. What then must we distinguish? The Idea of Europe from the European Ideology!
To read the article, click here
If Brown Ploughs On With Treaty, Referendum Must Stand
David Heathcoat-Amory MP, argues that the democratic requirement for elected politicians to implement choices has been eroded by the European Union, and the Conservative Party will need to push for a repatriation of a wide range of powers and disengage from large areas of the European treaties. Furthermore, David Cameron needs to go one step further and make clear that even if Gordon Brown whips the Returned Constitutional Treaty through Parliament before a general election, the Conservative Party will give the people of Britain their promised vote.
To read article, click here
To read article, click here
Iceland blooming on the outside
Director of Heimssýn, the Icelandic ‘No’ movement, Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson, proposes that it is not easy to understand why there are people in Iceland, Norway or Switzerland who would like to join the EU, which, on top of everything else is not really renowned for economic or political success. As an independent nation, Iceland has the liberty to take decisions solely according to its own national interests.
To read article, click here
To read article, click here
Europe – Asserting The Great Principle
BILL CASH, MP: “The Conservative Party are right to push for a referendum. The Party has promoted a referendum for referendum’s sake but has not engaged in the debate which is required on the European question. This should take place immediately explaining to the public why a referendum is needed, including where the European Union project has failed and how all this is derived from the accumulation of mistaken policies embedded in the existing Treaties, all of which are included in the Reform Treaty, on which the referendum is being demanded. Keith Vaz, who gave evidence to the European Reform Forum, is right (www.europeanfoundation.org).”
To read article, click here
To read article, click here
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
European Court of Auditors Uncover Illegality and Misspending in £75.2 billion of EU Costs Last Year
The European Foundation welcomes today’s statement accompanying the European Court of Auditors 2006 Annual Report (291 pages) – assessing EU spending in 2006 – which reports that “errors of legality and regularity still persist in the majority of EU expenditure due to weaknesses in internal control systems both at the Commission and in Member States.”
The £75.2 billion (€106.6 billion) of EU payments made in 2006, subject to massive “errors of legality and regularity” however, are likely to be significantly underrepresented since, even by the Court’s own admission, the “internal control systems” and administration at the Commission are improper for use.
The European Foundation also accepts the Court of Auditors’ overall view in the statement, which concludes that “the Court again gives an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of the majority of EU expenditure: primarily the part of agricultural spending not covered by IACS, structural policies, internal policies and a significant proportion of external actions. In these areas there is still a material level of errors found in the payments to final beneficiaries, albeit to different levels.”
The report gives credible weighting to the notion that the European Union has failed, even through its catastrophic accounting for the most basic areas of expenditure. Three examples of gross fraud and misspending include the areas of agriculture (£35 billion), structural policy (£22.8 billion) and the Commission’s directly managed internal policies (£6.3 billion).
Agricultural Expenditure
The Foundation welcomes the conclusion of gross misspending on agriculture – worth £35 billion (€49.8 billion) in 2006 – on which the Court states that “while the Single Payment Scheme simplifies claim and payment procedures, it has side effects, such as the allocation of entitlements to landowners who never exercised previous agricultural activity, leading to a substantial redistribution of EU aid away from farmers to landlords. Among new beneficiaries for EU agricultural aid are railway companies, horse riding or breeding clubs and golf or leisure clubs and city councils.” It is also clear – as the report points out (p.120) – that the UK Government has itself created and exacerbated this misspending and misallocation of agricultural funds.
Structural Policy
The misspending on structural policies – worth £22.8 billion (€32.4 billion) in 2006 – “remains similar to previous years”, says the report. “The Court identified a material level of error,” it claims and “the most frequent errors were claims for ineligible expenditure and failure to carry out tender procedures as well as a lack of evidence to support the calculation of overheads or the staff costs involved.”
Internal policies
For the Commission’s internal policies, £6.3 billion (€9 billion) in 2006, the Court again “found a material level of error in the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, mainly due to reimbursements to beneficiaries who had overstated the costs for projects.”
Time to Renegotiate
Contrary to the Courts’ supposedly forward-looking conclusion that “the Commission should lead by example”, it would be important to note that the EU would be no better served by the Commission than in the previous years of uncovering excessive fraud and unaccountable expenditure. This level of illegality and irregularity can only be dealt with by the Member States with respect to their own national laws. A renegotiation exercise for Britain would be the best answer in going forward on this appalling financial failure.
The European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament are currently agreeing a 2008 budget which demands that the UK make a £10 billion (€14.3 billion) gross contribution to the EU Budget next year. The British Government has grudgingly supplied the European bloc with a substantial contribution every year but, after this damning report by the bloc’s own auditors, now is the time to realise that the European project is not working.
The British Government needs to lead the way by ending this disaster now and advocating an overall policy of “yes to European trade, no to European government.” Greater democracy can only be achieved among the various peoples of Europe by the fundamental renegotiation of the EU Treaties. It is not an excuse for outright withdrawal from the European Union, as some might argue, but rather its thoroughgoing reform into a European free trade area with limited political cooperation.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation said:
“If the European Union were a commercial company, it would have been shut down today and its Chief Executive would be imprisoned and awaiting trial. For a foreign and corrupt continental government, dressed up as a supposed trade bloc, for which the UK still hands over £10 billion per year, this is a gross attack on British national interest. This is the British taxpayers’ money and their contribution needs to be returned to them. Britain needs to take the lead because little federal Europe still turns a blind eye to financial corruption on the books as it has done with political corruption on the Reform Treaty.”
The £75.2 billion (€106.6 billion) of EU payments made in 2006, subject to massive “errors of legality and regularity” however, are likely to be significantly underrepresented since, even by the Court’s own admission, the “internal control systems” and administration at the Commission are improper for use.
The European Foundation also accepts the Court of Auditors’ overall view in the statement, which concludes that “the Court again gives an adverse opinion on the legality and regularity of the majority of EU expenditure: primarily the part of agricultural spending not covered by IACS, structural policies, internal policies and a significant proportion of external actions. In these areas there is still a material level of errors found in the payments to final beneficiaries, albeit to different levels.”
The report gives credible weighting to the notion that the European Union has failed, even through its catastrophic accounting for the most basic areas of expenditure. Three examples of gross fraud and misspending include the areas of agriculture (£35 billion), structural policy (£22.8 billion) and the Commission’s directly managed internal policies (£6.3 billion).
Agricultural Expenditure
The Foundation welcomes the conclusion of gross misspending on agriculture – worth £35 billion (€49.8 billion) in 2006 – on which the Court states that “while the Single Payment Scheme simplifies claim and payment procedures, it has side effects, such as the allocation of entitlements to landowners who never exercised previous agricultural activity, leading to a substantial redistribution of EU aid away from farmers to landlords. Among new beneficiaries for EU agricultural aid are railway companies, horse riding or breeding clubs and golf or leisure clubs and city councils.” It is also clear – as the report points out (p.120) – that the UK Government has itself created and exacerbated this misspending and misallocation of agricultural funds.
Structural Policy
The misspending on structural policies – worth £22.8 billion (€32.4 billion) in 2006 – “remains similar to previous years”, says the report. “The Court identified a material level of error,” it claims and “the most frequent errors were claims for ineligible expenditure and failure to carry out tender procedures as well as a lack of evidence to support the calculation of overheads or the staff costs involved.”
Internal policies
For the Commission’s internal policies, £6.3 billion (€9 billion) in 2006, the Court again “found a material level of error in the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, mainly due to reimbursements to beneficiaries who had overstated the costs for projects.”
Time to Renegotiate
Contrary to the Courts’ supposedly forward-looking conclusion that “the Commission should lead by example”, it would be important to note that the EU would be no better served by the Commission than in the previous years of uncovering excessive fraud and unaccountable expenditure. This level of illegality and irregularity can only be dealt with by the Member States with respect to their own national laws. A renegotiation exercise for Britain would be the best answer in going forward on this appalling financial failure.
The European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament are currently agreeing a 2008 budget which demands that the UK make a £10 billion (€14.3 billion) gross contribution to the EU Budget next year. The British Government has grudgingly supplied the European bloc with a substantial contribution every year but, after this damning report by the bloc’s own auditors, now is the time to realise that the European project is not working.
The British Government needs to lead the way by ending this disaster now and advocating an overall policy of “yes to European trade, no to European government.” Greater democracy can only be achieved among the various peoples of Europe by the fundamental renegotiation of the EU Treaties. It is not an excuse for outright withdrawal from the European Union, as some might argue, but rather its thoroughgoing reform into a European free trade area with limited political cooperation.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation said:
“If the European Union were a commercial company, it would have been shut down today and its Chief Executive would be imprisoned and awaiting trial. For a foreign and corrupt continental government, dressed up as a supposed trade bloc, for which the UK still hands over £10 billion per year, this is a gross attack on British national interest. This is the British taxpayers’ money and their contribution needs to be returned to them. Britain needs to take the lead because little federal Europe still turns a blind eye to financial corruption on the books as it has done with political corruption on the Reform Treaty.”
Friday, 9 November 2007
The wonderful world of a so-called “Common Foreign Policy”
On 15 October, EU foreign affairs ministers gave their final approval for the deployment of EU troops in Chad and the Central African Republic, adopting a joint action on Operation EUFOR TCHAD/RCA. According to the Conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, the EU will “conduct a bridging military operation in Eastern Chad and North Eastern Central African Republic (EUFOR TCHAD/RCA) in the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy, for a period of one year from the date that its initial operational capability is declared” to support a joint United Nations-African Union (AU) peacekeeping force. The operation has been planned in coordination with the UN and in consultation with African partners. This mission has been considered a test for the EU’ external security policy. It is supposed to be the largest EU military operation since 2004 in Bosnia.
However, this mission is already struggling with the lack of troops and equipment. It seems only France, Poland and Belgium will contribute with troops whereas Spain with focus on logistics. Jim Murphy MP told to the European Scrutiny Committee that UK supports this operation but it will not deploy troops. The operation is to be funded by the EU Athena mechanism which is a mechanism for the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications. According to Jim Murphy MP, “the common headquarters and infrastructure costs of the operation are likely to total some 99.2M Euros.” Jim Murphy is not sure yet how much this operation will cost the UK, but it could be around between £10-15 million.
The EU is in fact duplicating the work of the United Nations and NATO. NATO spokesperson James Appathurai has said to the Austrian daily Der Standard that "we are having problems providing troops for all the NATO, EU and UN missions." The majority of EU Member States are also NATO members and therefore they have to make troops available for both organisations.
Moreover, the last GAER Council made clear that the EU is split over sanctions on Iran. Iran is currently facing limited EU sanctions and visa bans. France, which is backed by Britain, has been pushing for new EU sanctions mainly on Iran's financial sector. However, the EU Member States foreign ministers failed to agree on new sanctions. Germany, Italy, Spain and Austria do not support stronger sanctions as they are important Iranian trading partners.
The EU foreign ministers have also discussed the situation in Zimbabwe. The Council discussed sending an envoy to Zimbabwe to report back on the economic and humanitarian situation in the country. However not all the Member States have backed the UK´s proposal which will be further discussed at the Council.
Moreover, the Council has agreed to impose sanctions on Burma in response to a violent crackdown on protesters last month. This will include an “export ban on equipment to the sectors of logs and timber and mining of metals, minerals, precious and semi precious stones, an import ban of products of the sectors mentioned before, and an investment ban in these sectors.” The sanctions proposed by the EU have been considered ineffective since the majority of Burma’s raw materials are sold on the black market. According to the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, “what's on the table now would affect a little more than one percent of Burma's foreign trade and hardly touch the regime's central finances."
Gordon Brown has, however, been in favour of economically supporting Burma with aid if the military junta carries out democratic reforms. Moreover, the Council has stressed that it “remains seriously concerned about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan”, and through aiming to encourage the Uzbek authorities to take positive steps to improve the human rights situation, the Council has decided to lift visa restrictions for a period of six months. Who has pushed for such decision? Germany. Germany has a military base in the country and has energy interests within the country, while other countries such as Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK were more in favour of keeping the sanctions.
However, this mission is already struggling with the lack of troops and equipment. It seems only France, Poland and Belgium will contribute with troops whereas Spain with focus on logistics. Jim Murphy MP told to the European Scrutiny Committee that UK supports this operation but it will not deploy troops. The operation is to be funded by the EU Athena mechanism which is a mechanism for the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications. According to Jim Murphy MP, “the common headquarters and infrastructure costs of the operation are likely to total some 99.2M Euros.” Jim Murphy is not sure yet how much this operation will cost the UK, but it could be around between £10-15 million.
The EU is in fact duplicating the work of the United Nations and NATO. NATO spokesperson James Appathurai has said to the Austrian daily Der Standard that "we are having problems providing troops for all the NATO, EU and UN missions." The majority of EU Member States are also NATO members and therefore they have to make troops available for both organisations.
Moreover, the last GAER Council made clear that the EU is split over sanctions on Iran. Iran is currently facing limited EU sanctions and visa bans. France, which is backed by Britain, has been pushing for new EU sanctions mainly on Iran's financial sector. However, the EU Member States foreign ministers failed to agree on new sanctions. Germany, Italy, Spain and Austria do not support stronger sanctions as they are important Iranian trading partners.
The EU foreign ministers have also discussed the situation in Zimbabwe. The Council discussed sending an envoy to Zimbabwe to report back on the economic and humanitarian situation in the country. However not all the Member States have backed the UK´s proposal which will be further discussed at the Council.
Moreover, the Council has agreed to impose sanctions on Burma in response to a violent crackdown on protesters last month. This will include an “export ban on equipment to the sectors of logs and timber and mining of metals, minerals, precious and semi precious stones, an import ban of products of the sectors mentioned before, and an investment ban in these sectors.” The sanctions proposed by the EU have been considered ineffective since the majority of Burma’s raw materials are sold on the black market. According to the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, “what's on the table now would affect a little more than one percent of Burma's foreign trade and hardly touch the regime's central finances."
Gordon Brown has, however, been in favour of economically supporting Burma with aid if the military junta carries out democratic reforms. Moreover, the Council has stressed that it “remains seriously concerned about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan”, and through aiming to encourage the Uzbek authorities to take positive steps to improve the human rights situation, the Council has decided to lift visa restrictions for a period of six months. Who has pushed for such decision? Germany. Germany has a military base in the country and has energy interests within the country, while other countries such as Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK were more in favour of keeping the sanctions.
European Commission Takes on New Role of Sinbad
On 10 October, the Commission adopted a communication – An integrated maritime policy for the European Union. According to the Commission an integrated maritime policy is needed to enable the European Union to meet present and future challenges such as globalisation and competitiveness, climate change, degradation of the marine environment, maritime safety and security as well as energy security and sustainability. The Commission said that “this Communication lays the foundation for the governance framework and cross-sectoral tools necessary for an EU Integrated Maritime Policy.” The Commission also adopted an action plan which puts forward the main actions that the Commission will carry out until the end of its mandate to implement an integrated maritime policy for the European Union.
Some of the actions that the Commission wants to pursue will raise concerns over subsidiarity. The Commission will invite Member States to develop nationally integrated maritime policies and it will propose a set of guidelines for those policies in order to take steps towards a European network for maritime surveillance and it will develop a roadmap to facilitate the development of maritime spatial planning by Member States. Moreover, the Commission will develop a European Marine Observation and Data Network, and promote the multi-dimensional mapping of Member States’ waters to improve access to high quality data. The Commission will propose a European Maritime Transport Space without barriers, it will put forward a maritime transport strategy for 2008-2018, it will propose a new ports policy and it will make proposals to reduce CO2 emissions and pollution by shipping. The Commission will promote a European network of maritime clusters, it will review the EU labour law exemptions for the shipping and fishing sectors, it will launch pilot actions to reduce the impact of and adapt to climate change in coastal zones, it will take action towards the elimination of discards and of destructive fishing practices such as high seas bottom trawling in sensitive habitats. The Commission will present a European Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research, it will propose a Community Disaster Prevention Strategy and it will promote coordination of European interests in international fora.It should be mentioned that on 18 October, the European Commission adopted a Communication on the EU's freight transport agenda: the Commission proposes a package of measures aiming at making freight transport in the EU more efficient and sustainable. The Commission has presented a Communication on a European Ports Policy which implements the Communication on an Integrated Maritime Policy. The Commission also presented a staff working paper Towards a European maritime transport space without barriers.
The European Commission wants to put forward a proposal for legislation in 2008 creating a "European Maritime Transport Space without Barriers". The Commission wants to facilitate and simplify administrative and documentary procedures that continue to apply to shipments between European ports, in the same way they do for shipments to third countries for shipping to fully benefit from the Internal Market.
On 22 October, EU ministers responsible for maritime affairs attended a Conference on the Maritime Policy for the European Union, to discuss the Commission proposals for a common maritime policy and to prepare recommendations for the December EU summit. Joe Borg, European Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, speaking after the conference, said “there had been unanimous acceptance of the need for an integrated approach to maritime affairs in Europe.” He said “we’re not proposing an alteration in competencies, but rather the putting in place of a process that leads to a decision that is more coordinated.”
Although the Commission has not developed the concept of a “Common EU maritime space” as it has mentioned in its Green Paper Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas presented in 2006, it seems likely from this communication that the EU will further control our seas.
Some of the actions that the Commission wants to pursue will raise concerns over subsidiarity. The Commission will invite Member States to develop nationally integrated maritime policies and it will propose a set of guidelines for those policies in order to take steps towards a European network for maritime surveillance and it will develop a roadmap to facilitate the development of maritime spatial planning by Member States. Moreover, the Commission will develop a European Marine Observation and Data Network, and promote the multi-dimensional mapping of Member States’ waters to improve access to high quality data. The Commission will propose a European Maritime Transport Space without barriers, it will put forward a maritime transport strategy for 2008-2018, it will propose a new ports policy and it will make proposals to reduce CO2 emissions and pollution by shipping. The Commission will promote a European network of maritime clusters, it will review the EU labour law exemptions for the shipping and fishing sectors, it will launch pilot actions to reduce the impact of and adapt to climate change in coastal zones, it will take action towards the elimination of discards and of destructive fishing practices such as high seas bottom trawling in sensitive habitats. The Commission will present a European Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research, it will propose a Community Disaster Prevention Strategy and it will promote coordination of European interests in international fora.It should be mentioned that on 18 October, the European Commission adopted a Communication on the EU's freight transport agenda: the Commission proposes a package of measures aiming at making freight transport in the EU more efficient and sustainable. The Commission has presented a Communication on a European Ports Policy which implements the Communication on an Integrated Maritime Policy. The Commission also presented a staff working paper Towards a European maritime transport space without barriers.
The European Commission wants to put forward a proposal for legislation in 2008 creating a "European Maritime Transport Space without Barriers". The Commission wants to facilitate and simplify administrative and documentary procedures that continue to apply to shipments between European ports, in the same way they do for shipments to third countries for shipping to fully benefit from the Internal Market.
On 22 October, EU ministers responsible for maritime affairs attended a Conference on the Maritime Policy for the European Union, to discuss the Commission proposals for a common maritime policy and to prepare recommendations for the December EU summit. Joe Borg, European Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, speaking after the conference, said “there had been unanimous acceptance of the need for an integrated approach to maritime affairs in Europe.” He said “we’re not proposing an alteration in competencies, but rather the putting in place of a process that leads to a decision that is more coordinated.”
Although the Commission has not developed the concept of a “Common EU maritime space” as it has mentioned in its Green Paper Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas presented in 2006, it seems likely from this communication that the EU will further control our seas.
More EU Propaganda
On 3 October, the Commission adopted a communication aimed at establishing a partnership for communicating Europe. In the communication, the Commission put forward proposals for an enhanced communication policy for the EU. Unsurprisingly, the Commission has underlined that “providing full and comprehensive information on European Union” and involving citizens “in a permanent dialogue will be particularly important during the Reform Treaty ratification process.” It is clear that the Commission is seeking citizen support for the European project as well as to increase the participation rate in the next European parliamentary elections.
However, there is a low turnout in the European elections because citizens do not believe in the EU institutions and they find them to be unaccountable – and not because of a lack of information. The Commission has stressed the low level knowledge that citizens have of the EU, its institutions and policies. Hence, the Commission believes that Member States should address this situation “through the educational systems” as well as by democratic platforms such as national and European level political parties. Therefore, the Commission has urged EU Member States to use schools to provide more information about the EU and its integration history. The Commission proposes to identify the aspects of school education where joint action at the EU level could support Member States. Why on earth should the Commission determine the school curriculum given that some children are already struggling to acquire basic skills?
According to the Commission, children should concentrate part of their time learning lessons about European integration. Furthermore, the Commission has made clear that it wants to achieve greater coverage of EU affairs on audiovisual channels. Hence, the Commission has proposed to offer multi-annual contracts for networks of broadcasters across Europe which “will independently produce and broadcast EU affairs programmes according to their own editorial standards using common programme formats.”
Moreover, the Commission also wants to adopt a new internet strategy aimed at supporting “networks of civil society and private or public sector websites with EU focus which promote contact with or between European citizens.” The development of management partnerships with interested Member States are also on the Commission’s plans which are aimed at carrying out joint activities on communication priorities at a central, regional and local level. In order to improve cooperation on the EU communication process, the Commission has proposed an inter-institutional agreement (IIA) to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission wants to achieve an agreement among the EU institutions on communication priorities but it has stressed that this will not "prevent each EU institution from having separate communication activities.” The Commission does not have a legal basis for an EU communication policy and the Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström is aware of that. However, with a legal basis or not, soon Europeans will be receiving an even greater overdose of EU propaganda.
However, there is a low turnout in the European elections because citizens do not believe in the EU institutions and they find them to be unaccountable – and not because of a lack of information. The Commission has stressed the low level knowledge that citizens have of the EU, its institutions and policies. Hence, the Commission believes that Member States should address this situation “through the educational systems” as well as by democratic platforms such as national and European level political parties. Therefore, the Commission has urged EU Member States to use schools to provide more information about the EU and its integration history. The Commission proposes to identify the aspects of school education where joint action at the EU level could support Member States. Why on earth should the Commission determine the school curriculum given that some children are already struggling to acquire basic skills?
According to the Commission, children should concentrate part of their time learning lessons about European integration. Furthermore, the Commission has made clear that it wants to achieve greater coverage of EU affairs on audiovisual channels. Hence, the Commission has proposed to offer multi-annual contracts for networks of broadcasters across Europe which “will independently produce and broadcast EU affairs programmes according to their own editorial standards using common programme formats.”
Moreover, the Commission also wants to adopt a new internet strategy aimed at supporting “networks of civil society and private or public sector websites with EU focus which promote contact with or between European citizens.” The development of management partnerships with interested Member States are also on the Commission’s plans which are aimed at carrying out joint activities on communication priorities at a central, regional and local level. In order to improve cooperation on the EU communication process, the Commission has proposed an inter-institutional agreement (IIA) to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission wants to achieve an agreement among the EU institutions on communication priorities but it has stressed that this will not "prevent each EU institution from having separate communication activities.” The Commission does not have a legal basis for an EU communication policy and the Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström is aware of that. However, with a legal basis or not, soon Europeans will be receiving an even greater overdose of EU propaganda.
Thursday, 8 November 2007
EU’s Failed Technology Projects Overshoot Planned Budget by £1.89 billion
The European Commission has, by its own admission, declared that the financing for two of its new and hugely unpopular EU technological programmes have alone exceeded their budget by a staggering £1.89 billion (€2.7 billion). Within a report, the Commission publicly asserts that “new developments relating to the financing of the Galileo Programme, for an additional amount of EUR 2,400 million, and the financing of the European Institute of Technology, for an additional amount of EUR 309 million, justify the revision of the financial framework.” It has been forced to significantly revise its existing budget to account for two major projects: the Galileo satellite navigation system and the development of a European Institute of Technology.
To put that in perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU Budget in 2007 is approximately £4.7 billion, so the total overshoot can be equated to over 40% of our net contribution.
GALILEO PLANNING DISASTER
For the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system’s implementation, deployment and commercial operating phases, approximately £701.8 million (€1005 million) had been properly accounted for in the EU’s previously published Community financial framework for 2007-2013.
£1.67 billion (€2.4 billion) had not been accounted for in Galileo, for which the Commission has been forced to borrow £209 million (€300 million) from “transport related research activities” financed under an existing Research Framework Programme and £1.46billion (€2.1 billion) is being borrowed from elsewhere.
In total, the Commission communication sets the costs of procurement for the Full Operational Capability (FOC) of Galileo (which is supposed to be achieved by 2013), at £2.369 billion (€3.45 billion) for the period 2007-2013 which includes the costs for the procurement agent, programme management costs, and a contingency reserve. However, the Commission has stressed that even “these estimates are based on an immediate implementation of the procurement actions following an integrated EU political decision by the end of 2007.” Hence, “the prices offered by the private sector” and consequently “the costs to the Community, will only emerge during procurement negotiations.”
EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BUDGET DISASTER
In the 2007-20013 financial framework, the EU had come to no conclusion for another technological project, the European Institute of Technology, and so had not budgeted any amount for its advancement or progress. An amount of €309 million has now been planned for the European Institute of Technology, since no concrete plans were originally made, given disagreements between the European institutions over the project.
PROPOSAL UNDER DEBATE
On 19 September 2007, the European Commission put forward several proposals in order to guarantee the maintenance of the European satellite radio navigation programmes. The Commission adopted a Communication Progressing Galileo: Re-Profiling the European GNSS Programmes which was a response to the June 2007 Council of Transport Ministers, requesting the Commission to present detailed proposals for financing Galileo, including the consideration of all options of public funding, based on additional comprehensive assessments of costs, risks, revenues and timetables as well as proposals for an implementation and procurement strategy. The rewritten EU budget will have to now be assessed by the European Parliament and the Council.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation
“If the Commission’s communication is a real reflection of the overshoot on these projects, then it was no small oversight. These are huge costs, which are catastrophic since a substantial portion will be paid for by British taxpayers who have historically been in the unfortunate position of paying dearly for the European Union’s idealistic projects. Nobody in the UK wanted either Galileo or the EIT. In fact, the UK Government has nonchantly accepted this state of affairs and it is up for them to get us out of it and to refuse the revision of the budget.”
Sources:
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Progressing Galileo: Re-Profiling the European GNSS Programmes. Brussels, 19/09/2007 [COM(2007) 534 final]. See: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/documents/doc/com_2007_0534_en.pdf
European Copmmission. Brussels, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning the revision of the multiannual financial framework (2007-2013), 19/09/2007 [COM(2007) 549 final]. See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&ihmlang=en&lng1=en,en&lng2=de,en,fr,&val=455921:cs&page=#top
Currency calculations were carried out on 07/11/07.
To put that in perspective, the UK’s net contribution to the EU Budget in 2007 is approximately £4.7 billion, so the total overshoot can be equated to over 40% of our net contribution.
GALILEO PLANNING DISASTER
For the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system’s implementation, deployment and commercial operating phases, approximately £701.8 million (€1005 million) had been properly accounted for in the EU’s previously published Community financial framework for 2007-2013.
£1.67 billion (€2.4 billion) had not been accounted for in Galileo, for which the Commission has been forced to borrow £209 million (€300 million) from “transport related research activities” financed under an existing Research Framework Programme and £1.46billion (€2.1 billion) is being borrowed from elsewhere.
In total, the Commission communication sets the costs of procurement for the Full Operational Capability (FOC) of Galileo (which is supposed to be achieved by 2013), at £2.369 billion (€3.45 billion) for the period 2007-2013 which includes the costs for the procurement agent, programme management costs, and a contingency reserve. However, the Commission has stressed that even “these estimates are based on an immediate implementation of the procurement actions following an integrated EU political decision by the end of 2007.” Hence, “the prices offered by the private sector” and consequently “the costs to the Community, will only emerge during procurement negotiations.”
EUROPEAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BUDGET DISASTER
In the 2007-20013 financial framework, the EU had come to no conclusion for another technological project, the European Institute of Technology, and so had not budgeted any amount for its advancement or progress. An amount of €309 million has now been planned for the European Institute of Technology, since no concrete plans were originally made, given disagreements between the European institutions over the project.
PROPOSAL UNDER DEBATE
On 19 September 2007, the European Commission put forward several proposals in order to guarantee the maintenance of the European satellite radio navigation programmes. The Commission adopted a Communication Progressing Galileo: Re-Profiling the European GNSS Programmes which was a response to the June 2007 Council of Transport Ministers, requesting the Commission to present detailed proposals for financing Galileo, including the consideration of all options of public funding, based on additional comprehensive assessments of costs, risks, revenues and timetables as well as proposals for an implementation and procurement strategy. The rewritten EU budget will have to now be assessed by the European Parliament and the Council.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation
“If the Commission’s communication is a real reflection of the overshoot on these projects, then it was no small oversight. These are huge costs, which are catastrophic since a substantial portion will be paid for by British taxpayers who have historically been in the unfortunate position of paying dearly for the European Union’s idealistic projects. Nobody in the UK wanted either Galileo or the EIT. In fact, the UK Government has nonchantly accepted this state of affairs and it is up for them to get us out of it and to refuse the revision of the budget.”
Sources:
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Progressing Galileo: Re-Profiling the European GNSS Programmes. Brussels, 19/09/2007 [COM(2007) 534 final]. See: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/documents/doc/com_2007_0534_en.pdf
European Copmmission. Brussels, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning the revision of the multiannual financial framework (2007-2013), 19/09/2007 [COM(2007) 549 final]. See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&ihmlang=en&lng1=en,en&lng2=de,en,fr,&val=455921:cs&page=#top
Currency calculations were carried out on 07/11/07.
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
EU to recognise independent Kosovo?
Until now, the EU has kept its cards close to its chest on Kosovo but now senior EU sources say that 25 out 27 EU member states will recognise Kosovo if, as promised, it unilaterally declares its independence in December. These states have shown their hand as negotiations are continuing between Serbs and Albanians over the fate of the province: as throughout the history of the long protracted break-up of Yugoslavia, the Great Powers have preferred to intervene in the negotiating process rather than allowing it to run its course. Naturally the certainty that the Kosovo Albanians will have their independence recognised will greatly bolster their hand in the talks. The United States has already said that it will recognise Kosovo’s independence once proclaimed.
The Serbian government has reacted strongly against these speculations, saying that such a step would de-stabilise the region, break international law and set a dangerous precedent. Russia has similarly warned the West against encouraging “a dramatic and unforeseeable development” if Kosovo’s independence is recognised. The German member of the UN “Troika” which is overseeing the negotiations, Wolfgang Ischinger (the German ambassador to the Court of St. James), has said that he doubts whether the two sides will come to any agreement by 10th December, the deadline set by the UN Secretary-General. The foreign policy spokesman of the German Christian Democratic Union, Eckart von Klaeden, has said, “The overwhelming majority of the EU states and the USA will adopt the same position. I believe this is probable. Serbia and Russia should not gamble on there being a split within the EU – they will have no success.” [Stefanie Bolzen & Christoph Schiltz, Die Welt, 24 October 2007]
The leak comes at a very odd moment. Serbia is still governed by “pro-European” forces, who joined together after losing the last elections in order to prevent the Radical Party from gaining power. The Radicals, who are strongly opposed to EU membership, won the last Serbian elections in January. The Koštunica government has struggled to keep his government in power, and his pro-EU policy in place, in spite of the fact that the same EU seems determined to slice off some of Serbia’s most historic territory. Perhaps in an attempt to square the circle, the European Parliament has issued a report on Serbia which is very friendly to that country, saying that it has made great progress in co-operating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. This means that Serbia’s EU chances are theoretically improved. The commissar for enlargement, Olli Rehn, has said that the time when an association agreement can be signed is now near. This, he said, would be “a political milestone” in Serbia’s relations with the EU. In the European Parliament’s report, any linkage between the Kosovo issue and EU accession is strictly avoided, as the MEP Hannes Swoboda emphasised. [Der Standard, 15 October 2007]
-- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here --
The Serbian government has reacted strongly against these speculations, saying that such a step would de-stabilise the region, break international law and set a dangerous precedent. Russia has similarly warned the West against encouraging “a dramatic and unforeseeable development” if Kosovo’s independence is recognised. The German member of the UN “Troika” which is overseeing the negotiations, Wolfgang Ischinger (the German ambassador to the Court of St. James), has said that he doubts whether the two sides will come to any agreement by 10th December, the deadline set by the UN Secretary-General. The foreign policy spokesman of the German Christian Democratic Union, Eckart von Klaeden, has said, “The overwhelming majority of the EU states and the USA will adopt the same position. I believe this is probable. Serbia and Russia should not gamble on there being a split within the EU – they will have no success.” [Stefanie Bolzen & Christoph Schiltz, Die Welt, 24 October 2007]
The leak comes at a very odd moment. Serbia is still governed by “pro-European” forces, who joined together after losing the last elections in order to prevent the Radical Party from gaining power. The Radicals, who are strongly opposed to EU membership, won the last Serbian elections in January. The Koštunica government has struggled to keep his government in power, and his pro-EU policy in place, in spite of the fact that the same EU seems determined to slice off some of Serbia’s most historic territory. Perhaps in an attempt to square the circle, the European Parliament has issued a report on Serbia which is very friendly to that country, saying that it has made great progress in co-operating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. This means that Serbia’s EU chances are theoretically improved. The commissar for enlargement, Olli Rehn, has said that the time when an association agreement can be signed is now near. This, he said, would be “a political milestone” in Serbia’s relations with the EU. In the European Parliament’s report, any linkage between the Kosovo issue and EU accession is strictly avoided, as the MEP Hannes Swoboda emphasised. [Der Standard, 15 October 2007]
-- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here --
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
Eurosceptics win in Switzerland
The Democratic Union of the Centre has confirmed its position as the largest party in Switzerland, following federal elections on 21st October. Under the unofficial leadership of Christoph Blocher (the actual leader of the party is Ueli Maurer although Blocher is the most prominent member) the right wing and Eurosceptic UDC won 29 per cent of the vote, some 10 per cent more than its nearest rival, the Socialist Party.
Celebrating victory, Maurer said that the UDC had been supported by “everyone opposed to Switzerland joining the EU, everyone who wants to pay less tax, everyone who was law and order and less foreign criminality.” He said that the UDC’s score was the highest achieved by any party in Switzerland since 1919. The UDC is mainly known for its opposition to EU membership and it has called on the country to withdraw its application for membership, submitted in 1992. (The application has been on ice following the victory of a No vote in two referendums.)
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, known for its politicised judgements on elections in Eastern Europe, observed the poll and criticised the lack of legislation governing the financing of political parties: this echoed the protests of the losing parties, especially the Socialists, who protested at the amount the UDC spent on its campaign. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the UDC’s victory is that it was not confined to the German-speaking cantons. The party came first in the French-speaking canton of Vaud, it got more than 20 per cent in Geneva and came third in the Jura, where it had previously had very little support. The victory of the UDC has upset the hitherto very consensual mode of Swiss politics. [Agathe Duparc, Le Monde, 22 October 2007; François Hauter, Le Figaro, 23 October 2007]
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Celebrating victory, Maurer said that the UDC had been supported by “everyone opposed to Switzerland joining the EU, everyone who wants to pay less tax, everyone who was law and order and less foreign criminality.” He said that the UDC’s score was the highest achieved by any party in Switzerland since 1919. The UDC is mainly known for its opposition to EU membership and it has called on the country to withdraw its application for membership, submitted in 1992. (The application has been on ice following the victory of a No vote in two referendums.)
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, known for its politicised judgements on elections in Eastern Europe, observed the poll and criticised the lack of legislation governing the financing of political parties: this echoed the protests of the losing parties, especially the Socialists, who protested at the amount the UDC spent on its campaign. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the UDC’s victory is that it was not confined to the German-speaking cantons. The party came first in the French-speaking canton of Vaud, it got more than 20 per cent in Geneva and came third in the Jura, where it had previously had very little support. The victory of the UDC has upset the hitherto very consensual mode of Swiss politics. [Agathe Duparc, Le Monde, 22 October 2007; François Hauter, Le Figaro, 23 October 2007]
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Monday, 5 November 2007
War veteran takes Germany to court
Winicjusz Natoniewski, a 69 year-old Polish man who was six years old when German soldiers attacked the village of Szczecyn in Eastern Poland in 1944, has lodged a suit against Germany at the local court in Gdansk claiming 1 million zloty (£191,000 or 360,000 euros) in damages for the trauma he says he suffered. The Germans burned down the village and killed 360 villagers for allegedly supporting anti-Nazi partisans. As his lawyer points out, this is the first such claim lodged before a Polish court. The lawyer expects that thousands of other Poles may follow suit and lodge claims against Germany. He said that the acts committed should be subject to no statute of limitations because they were crimes against humanity. It is likely that Natoniewski’s suit will generate copycat claims because the Polish chamber of lawyers has recommended that its members make no charge to their clients if they help bring such suits. The lawyers say that people from Eastern Poland have an especially strong claim because they have to date received no money from the German-Polish Reconciliation Foundation. Indeed, a similar claim has been launched by a famous designer, Krzysztof Skrypek, who has asked for a monthly pension of 2,000 zlotys and a lump sum of 200,000 zlotys from Germany because he says that his father was subjected to medical experiments by the Nazis and that he, the son, suffered psychological damage as a result. [Paul Flückiger, Die Welt, 29 October 2007]
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Friday, 2 November 2007
Czechs refuse to hold referendum
The Czech Parliament has decided not to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The treaty will be ratified by the parliament itself. This leaves Ireland as the only country which will hold a referendum, the Danish, Dutch, French and British governments having all decided against it. [Der Standard, 31 October 2007]
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
French Socialists fall into line
The French political class, like that of most other EU states, has been “squared” for the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon treaty. In other words, there will be referendums. The First Secretary of the Socialist Party, François Hollande, has confirmed to President Sarkozy that Socialist deputies will vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty. Hollande said, “We will pass this text, we will not oppose this simplified treaty.” (In fact, the Lisbon treaty is far more complicated than the European constitution was.) Hollande said that he thinks a referendum should be held but that he “takes note” of the fact that one will not be. The French Communists have said they are against the treaty; the Greens are in favour. The compliant attitude of the Socialists, who are overwhelmingly pro-EU, contrasts with the significant internal divisions in 2005. The No camp was then led, at least for the Left, by Laurent Fabius, the Socialist former Prime Minister.
Giscard says new treaty same as old constitution
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French President who chaired the European Convention which drew up the European constitution, has written a long article explaining why the new treaty, known as ‘the Lisbon treaty’, is essentially the same as the old constitution, which was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
Entitled “European treaty: the tools are exactly the same, only their order in the toolbox has been changed” – a sentence which appears in the text itself - the article opens by saying that many French people are wondering what difference there is between the Lisbon treaty and the constitutional treaty. “The difference concerns the method more than the content,” writes Giscard. Whereas the constitution had been drawn up in public, by the European Convention, and with the aim of simplifying the existing EU treaties, the Lisbon treaty has been drawn up by jurists. “They followed the classic method of the Brussels institutions, which consists in modifying the previous treaties by a series of amendments.” In this respect, says Giscard, the Lisbon treaty is just like the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, “ignored by the public”. “The jurists have not proposed any innovations,” Giscard writes. “They started with the text of the constitution, took its elements apart one by one, and made them correspond by means of amendments to the two existing treaties, Rome (1957) and Maastricht (1992).” The result is that the Lisbon treaty itself is “illegible for citizens” since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. “So much for the form. As far as the content is concerned,” Giscard goes on, “the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties.”
For example, the appointment of a President of the European Union for a two and a half year term, which was the centrepiece of the old constitution (Article 22) has simply been transferred to the Lisbon treaty as Amendment 16 to Title III of the Maastricht treaty, where a new article 9b is inserted providing for the presidency using exactly the same words, over eleven lines, used in the constitution.
Giscard says the content of the toolbox is the same but that the box has been re-decorated according to the old style. Now one has to rummage around in three different pigeonholes to find what one needs – but it is all still there.
Giscard says that the main differences lie in the fact that the word ‘constitution’ has been withdrawn, as have the symbols including the flag “which flies everywhere”. He says that this is “a strong sign that the European ambition has ebbed”. Giscard says, though, that the changes made by France, which demanded the removal of a phrase about “free competition” from Article 2, are insignificant because that same phrase has been re-inserted into an annex. “The same goes for the principle of the superiority of EU law over national law, for which the definitive text remains unchanged in the treaty.” Giscard does say that the concessions made to the United Kingdom on the charter of fundamental rights are more important.
“What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre?” Giscard asks. “First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.” The former President also said that the purpose was to allow the Brussels institutions to regain the initiative which had been taken from them by the parliamentarians and politicians who composed the European Convention. The new text, Giscard says, is worse than the old because the language is impenetrable and Europe will thus be distanced even further from the citizens. Giscard concludes by saying that although the text is now so complicated that it is unlikely to be rejected, except in Britain, it contains all the tools necessary for the day when “men and women, animated by great European ambitions, decided to use them”. Then they will be able “to rekindle, beneath the ash which is covering it today, the ardent dream of a united Europe.” [Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Le Monde, 26 October 2007]
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Entitled “European treaty: the tools are exactly the same, only their order in the toolbox has been changed” – a sentence which appears in the text itself - the article opens by saying that many French people are wondering what difference there is between the Lisbon treaty and the constitutional treaty. “The difference concerns the method more than the content,” writes Giscard. Whereas the constitution had been drawn up in public, by the European Convention, and with the aim of simplifying the existing EU treaties, the Lisbon treaty has been drawn up by jurists. “They followed the classic method of the Brussels institutions, which consists in modifying the previous treaties by a series of amendments.” In this respect, says Giscard, the Lisbon treaty is just like the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, “ignored by the public”. “The jurists have not proposed any innovations,” Giscard writes. “They started with the text of the constitution, took its elements apart one by one, and made them correspond by means of amendments to the two existing treaties, Rome (1957) and Maastricht (1992).” The result is that the Lisbon treaty itself is “illegible for citizens” since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. “So much for the form. As far as the content is concerned,” Giscard goes on, “the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties.”
For example, the appointment of a President of the European Union for a two and a half year term, which was the centrepiece of the old constitution (Article 22) has simply been transferred to the Lisbon treaty as Amendment 16 to Title III of the Maastricht treaty, where a new article 9b is inserted providing for the presidency using exactly the same words, over eleven lines, used in the constitution.
Giscard says the content of the toolbox is the same but that the box has been re-decorated according to the old style. Now one has to rummage around in three different pigeonholes to find what one needs – but it is all still there.
Giscard says that the main differences lie in the fact that the word ‘constitution’ has been withdrawn, as have the symbols including the flag “which flies everywhere”. He says that this is “a strong sign that the European ambition has ebbed”. Giscard says, though, that the changes made by France, which demanded the removal of a phrase about “free competition” from Article 2, are insignificant because that same phrase has been re-inserted into an annex. “The same goes for the principle of the superiority of EU law over national law, for which the definitive text remains unchanged in the treaty.” Giscard does say that the concessions made to the United Kingdom on the charter of fundamental rights are more important.
“What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre?” Giscard asks. “First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.” The former President also said that the purpose was to allow the Brussels institutions to regain the initiative which had been taken from them by the parliamentarians and politicians who composed the European Convention. The new text, Giscard says, is worse than the old because the language is impenetrable and Europe will thus be distanced even further from the citizens. Giscard concludes by saying that although the text is now so complicated that it is unlikely to be rejected, except in Britain, it contains all the tools necessary for the day when “men and women, animated by great European ambitions, decided to use them”. Then they will be able “to rekindle, beneath the ash which is covering it today, the ardent dream of a united Europe.” [Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Le Monde, 26 October 2007]
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Thursday, 1 November 2007
The New Labour EU Immigration Scandal – The Migration Policy that Drove Britons Out of Britain
It is always important to understand in a fair manner the national concern over immigration policy, but this is precisely what the Labour Government ministers have denied to the British electorate and those who work across public services and local councils. The Labour Government has played down the seriousness of the national EU-enforced immigration crisis – even creating misrepresentations of data to divert from major intra-European immigration activity – in order to persevere with a European policy that has trashed economic opportunity, left many young aspiring British workers without the possibility of home ownership or job prospects, overburdened the national health and education sectors and most serious of all, driven Britons from their own country. Since the most recent influx hit a supposed 574,000, Britain now has an approximate 385,000 individuals (including 196,000 British citizens) leaving the UK between 2005 and 2006, the highest figure since the current indicator was first introduced in 1991.
Labour Ministers must concede that a substantial number of jobs created since Labour came to power have gone to EU migrant workers and not British workers. It is simply not an option for it to now walk away from a debate after reporting that the number of foreign workers who had taken up jobs in Britain since 1997 was 1.1 million rather than 800,000. Neither does it make any sense for the Conservative Party to avoid the issue, by debating solely the impact of non-EU immigration on the country, since that is not a long-term solution to the actual national crisis endured by the British people and its public services.
The report today that local authorities have called for a renewed approach by the UK Government in calculating the number of migrant workers in Britain, is further proof that the official statistics are not only underestimations but completely untrustworthy data. As a result, the local authorities have simply not budgeted for the provision of public services for extra workers, particularly from Eastern Europe. The hypocrisy and misrepresentation by the New Labour Government is scandalous and its current EU immigration policy must be debated and reassessed, along with its overarching position of complacency on the EU.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation says:
“This is Gordon Brown’s Britain – it is failing miserably and it is very much out of touch with the needs and lives of the British people and their responsible authorities. Brown had sought to restore faith in a British Parliament but has achieved the opposite – the British are walking out in their droves, in face of being governed and managed by a new European government and being pushed into a European society that has no borders. Such a policy has taken us several centuries back in time and the future of Britain remains no more British than Joseph Stalin.”
The Crisis of Numbers on Europe – Why There is No Real Picture
In 1997: The beginning of the New Labour “immigration programme” marks a serious failure on immigration policy. The Labour Party came to power in 1997, when the net inflow of migrants into the UK had actually fallen from 77,000 in 1994 to 47,000 in 1997 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 1998: During the six years from 1998 to 2003, which defined Labour’s policy towards migration, the approximate net inflow varied between 139,000 and 172,000 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2000: Between 2000 and 2004, the net arrival of migrants has “played a much bigger role in population change than natural change … accounting for around 85 per cent of the total growth in the EU25 population” during this time, said the Government’s ‘independent’ Office for National Statistics (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2002: The UK is reported as one of the top four EU 25 nations, which jointly receive 71 per cent of the net inflow into the EU25 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2004: It was claimed that the net inflow of non-British EU citizens to the UK increased from just 14,000 in 2003 to 74,000 in 2004 and 80 per cent of this increase between 2003 and 2004 was accounted for by citizens of the ten EU accession countries. (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005). These figures have been widely debated and now, widely rejected.
In 2005: In 2005, 565,000 migrants arrived to live in the UK for at least one year (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007). This data – as with most ONS data – is widely debated, with the Home Office Minister himself saying that it is actually greater than 600,000. Again, even the figure of 600,000 is widely believed to be incorrect. In this year, it is said that approximately 80,000 citizens from the eight central and eastern European countries acceded to the EU in mid-2004 (the A8) arrived into the UK for a year or more – a figure which was 54 per cent higher than the estimate provided for in 2004 (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007). It is reported that 380,000 people then emigrated from the UK, over half of which were British citizens (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007).
In 2006: It is reported that 385,000 individuals (including 196,000 British citizens) left the UK between 2005 to mid-2006, the highest figure since the current indicator was first introduced in 1991. From 2001 to mid-2006, the UK population increased by an average 0.5 per cent every year – the population was 60,587,000 in mid-2006, which is an increase of 349,000 (0.6 per cent) on the mid-2005 population (Office for National Statistics, 22 August 2007). The increase in migration into the UK between 2005 and 2006 occurring among non-British EU citizens was 149,000, compared with 146,000 between 2004-2005 and 82,000 between 2003-2004.
Labour Ministers must concede that a substantial number of jobs created since Labour came to power have gone to EU migrant workers and not British workers. It is simply not an option for it to now walk away from a debate after reporting that the number of foreign workers who had taken up jobs in Britain since 1997 was 1.1 million rather than 800,000. Neither does it make any sense for the Conservative Party to avoid the issue, by debating solely the impact of non-EU immigration on the country, since that is not a long-term solution to the actual national crisis endured by the British people and its public services.
The report today that local authorities have called for a renewed approach by the UK Government in calculating the number of migrant workers in Britain, is further proof that the official statistics are not only underestimations but completely untrustworthy data. As a result, the local authorities have simply not budgeted for the provision of public services for extra workers, particularly from Eastern Europe. The hypocrisy and misrepresentation by the New Labour Government is scandalous and its current EU immigration policy must be debated and reassessed, along with its overarching position of complacency on the EU.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation says:
“This is Gordon Brown’s Britain – it is failing miserably and it is very much out of touch with the needs and lives of the British people and their responsible authorities. Brown had sought to restore faith in a British Parliament but has achieved the opposite – the British are walking out in their droves, in face of being governed and managed by a new European government and being pushed into a European society that has no borders. Such a policy has taken us several centuries back in time and the future of Britain remains no more British than Joseph Stalin.”
The Crisis of Numbers on Europe – Why There is No Real Picture
In 1997: The beginning of the New Labour “immigration programme” marks a serious failure on immigration policy. The Labour Party came to power in 1997, when the net inflow of migrants into the UK had actually fallen from 77,000 in 1994 to 47,000 in 1997 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 1998: During the six years from 1998 to 2003, which defined Labour’s policy towards migration, the approximate net inflow varied between 139,000 and 172,000 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2000: Between 2000 and 2004, the net arrival of migrants has “played a much bigger role in population change than natural change … accounting for around 85 per cent of the total growth in the EU25 population” during this time, said the Government’s ‘independent’ Office for National Statistics (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2002: The UK is reported as one of the top four EU 25 nations, which jointly receive 71 per cent of the net inflow into the EU25 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2004: It was claimed that the net inflow of non-British EU citizens to the UK increased from just 14,000 in 2003 to 74,000 in 2004 and 80 per cent of this increase between 2003 and 2004 was accounted for by citizens of the ten EU accession countries. (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005). These figures have been widely debated and now, widely rejected.
In 2005: In 2005, 565,000 migrants arrived to live in the UK for at least one year (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007). This data – as with most ONS data – is widely debated, with the Home Office Minister himself saying that it is actually greater than 600,000. Again, even the figure of 600,000 is widely believed to be incorrect. In this year, it is said that approximately 80,000 citizens from the eight central and eastern European countries acceded to the EU in mid-2004 (the A8) arrived into the UK for a year or more – a figure which was 54 per cent higher than the estimate provided for in 2004 (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007). It is reported that 380,000 people then emigrated from the UK, over half of which were British citizens (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007).
In 2006: It is reported that 385,000 individuals (including 196,000 British citizens) left the UK between 2005 to mid-2006, the highest figure since the current indicator was first introduced in 1991. From 2001 to mid-2006, the UK population increased by an average 0.5 per cent every year – the population was 60,587,000 in mid-2006, which is an increase of 349,000 (0.6 per cent) on the mid-2005 population (Office for National Statistics, 22 August 2007). The increase in migration into the UK between 2005 and 2006 occurring among non-British EU citizens was 149,000, compared with 146,000 between 2004-2005 and 82,000 between 2003-2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
